Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60599

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously. To prevent a high

pressure compressor (HPC) rear shaft

fracture, which could result in an

uncontained engine failure and/or in-flight

engine shutdown, accomplish the following:

(a) Fluorescent-penetrant inspect HPC rear

shafts having the part numbers (P/N’s) in

Table 1 below, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service

Bulletin (SB) No. 72–958, Revision 1, dated

October 18, 1990 as follows:

TABLE 1

9127M58P03 9079M63P12 9079M63P15 9079M63P16

9079M63P17 9079M63P18 9079M63P19 1999M25P01

1999M25P02 1999M25P03 1999M25P04 1999M25P05

1999M25P06 1999M25P07

(1) For HPC rear shafts currently installed

with hook bolts, P/N 9012M99G10,

9114M95G07, and 9114M95G10, inspect in

accordance with the following schedule:

(i) For shafts that have not been previously

inspected and have 10,000 cycles since new

(CSN) or more on the effective date of this

AD, inspect within the next 1,500 cycles in

service (CIS) after the effective date of this

AD.

(ii) For shafts that have not been previously

inspected and have fewer than 10,000 CSN

on the effective date of this AD, inspect

within the next 2,500 CIS from the effective

date of this AD, or before accumulating 7,500

CSN, whichever occurs later. However, no

shaft may exceed 11,500 CSN before

inspection.

(iii) For shafts that have been previously

inspected and have 3,000 cycles since last

inspection (CSLI) or fewer on the effective

date of this AD, inspect within 4,500 CSLI,

or before accumulating 7,500 CSN,

whichever occurs later.

(iv) For shafts that have been previously

inspected and have greater than 3,000 CSLI

on the effective date of this AD, inspect

within the next 1,500 CIS from the effective

date of this AD, or before accumulating 7,500

CSN, whichever occurs later.

(v) Remove from service HPC rear shaft

hook bolts identified in (a)(1) of this AD after

any inspection performed in accordance with

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD and replace with

new tapered turn-around bolts, P/N

1375M69P01 or VCD0016.

(2) For HPC rear shafts installed with turnaround bolts, P/N 9249M54P01, or tapered

turn-around bolts, P/N 1375M69P01 or

VCD0016, inspect in accordance with the

following schedule:

(i) For shafts that have not been previously

inspected and have 6,500 CSN or more on the

effective date of this AD, inspect within the

next 2,500 CIS after the effective date of this

AD.

(ii) For shafts that have not been previously

inspected and have fewer than 6,500 CSN on

the effective date of this AD, inspect before

accumulating 9,000 CSN.

(iii) For shafts that have been previously

inspected and have 3,500 CSLI or fewer on

the effective date of this AD, inspect within

6,000 CSLI, or before accumulating 9,000

CSN, whichever occurs later.

(iv) For shafts that have been previously

inspected and have more than 3,500 CSLI on

the effective date of this AD, inspect within

the next 2,500 CIS after the effective date of

this AD, or before accumulating 9,000 CSN,

whichever occurs later.

(v) Remove from service HPC rear shaft

turn-around bolts identified in paragraph

(a)(2) of this AD after any inspection

performed in accordance with paragraph

(a)(3) of this AD and replace with new

tapered turn-around bolts, P/N 1375M69P01

or VCD0016.

Note 2. Information concerning the tapered

turn-around bolt noted in paragraph (a) of

this proposed AD can be found in GE SB No.

72–877.

(b) Remove from service, prior to further

flight, any shafts found cracked at inspection.

(c) Thereafter, for shafts that have been

inspected in accordance with paragraph (a) of

this AD, reinspect in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB No.

72–958, Revision 1, dated October 18, 1990,

at intervals not to exceed 6,000 CSLI.

(d) Compliance with paragraph (a) of AD

91–10–03, Revision 1 satisfies the

corresponding requirements of paragraph (a)

of this AD. For the purposes of this AD, the

inspection cycle interval must be measured

from the last HPC rear shaft bolt hole

inspection, regardless of any rear shaft

rework and re-identifying after inspection.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Engine

Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall

submit their request through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, ECO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Manager,

ECO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

October 5, 2000.

David A. Downey,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26141 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–74–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Beech Models 60,

A60, and B60 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon)

Beech Models 60, A60, and B60

airplanes. The proposed AD would

require you to inspect for the existence

of any lower forward wing bolts with

the Mercury Aerospace trademark, and

replace any such bolt with an

FAAapproved bolt without this

trademark. The proposed AD is the

result of a report that wing bolts

supplied by Mercury Aerospace may not

meet the required Rockwell hardness

specifications. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to detect

and correct wing bolts that do not meet

strength requirements. Continued

airplane operation with such bolts could

result in fatigue failure of the bolts with

consequent separation of the wing from

the airplane.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

December 5, 2000.

60600 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 99–CE–74–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. Comments may be

inspected at this location between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085;

telephone: (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676–

3140. This information also may be

examined at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4155; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on the proposed

AD? The FAA invites comments on this

proposed rule. You may submit

whatever written data, views, or

arguments you choose. You need to

include the rule’s docket number and

submit your comments in triplicate to

the address specified under the caption

ADDRESSES. The FAA will consider all

comments received on or before the

closing date. We may amend the

proposed rule in light of comments

received. Factual information that

supports your ideas and suggestions is

extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of the proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule that might suggest a

need to modify the rule. You may

examine all comments we receive before

and after the closing date of the rule in

the Rules Docket. We will file a report

in the Rules Docket that summarizes

each FAA contact with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of the

proposed AD.

The FAA is re-examining the writing

style we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want us to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 99–CE–74–AD.’’ We will date stamp

and mail the postcard back to you.

Discussion

What events have caused this AD?

The FAA has received a report

indicating that about 70 lower forward

wing bolts that Mercury Aerospace

supplied for certain Raytheon Models

60, A60, and B60 airplanes may not

meet Rockwell hardness specifications.

The bolts were distributed between

1995 and 1996. An independent test lab

has confirmed that the bolts do not meet

the structural requirements for an

MS21250–14034 bolt.

Specifically, these wing bolts are

required to meet Rockwell hardness

specifications of C39–C43. Laboratory

tests indicate that bolts from this

manufacturing batch are below these

specifications.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? Continued

airplane operation with such bolts could

result in fatigue failure of the bolts with

consequent separation of the wing from

the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Raytheon has

issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

SB 57–3328, Issued: July, 1999.

What are the provisions of this service

bulletin? The service bulletin includes

procedures for:

—Inspecting all lower forward wing

bolts for the Mercury Aerospace

trademark; and

—Replacing any of these bolts, along

with the nuts and washers.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? After

examining the circumstances and

reviewing all available information

related to the conditions described

above, we have determined that:

—the unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on Raytheon Beech Models 60, A60, and

B60 airplanes of the same type design;

—the actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be accomplished on

the affected airplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in order

to correct this unsafe condition.

What does the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would require you to

inspect for the existence of any lower

forward wing bolt with the Mercury

Aerospace trademark and replace such

bolt with an FAA-approved bolt without

this trademark.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes does the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD affects 593 airplanes in

the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the

proposed AD on owners/operators of the

affected airplanes? We estimate the

following costs to accomplish the

proposed inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

Total cost on

U.S. airplane

operators

1 workhour × $60 per hour = $60 ......................... Not applicable ................................... $60 per airplane ............................... $35,580.

We estimate the following costs to

accomplish any necessary replacements

that would be required based on the

results of the proposed inspection.

Based on manufacturer data from its

warranty program, 10 bolts were

replaced, which leaves 60 suspect bolts

still in the field.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60601

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

8 workhours × $60 per hour = $480 ........................ Approximately $500 per airplane. NOTE: Warranty

credit has expired.

$980 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

Does this proposed AD impact various

entities? The regulations proposed

herein would not have a substantial

direct effect on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

Does this proposed AD involve a

significant rule or regulatory action? For

the reasons discussed above, I certify

that this action (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February

26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will

not have a significant economic impact,

positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation

prepared for this action has been placed

in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may

be obtained by contacting the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD) to

read as follows:

Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No. 99–

CE–74–AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects Beech Models 60, A60, and

B60 airplanes, serial numbers P–4 through P–

596, that are certificated in any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct wing bolts that do not

meet strength requirements. Continued

airplane operation with such bolts could

result in fatigue failure of the bolts with

consequent separation of the wing from the

airplane.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) Inspect the lower forward wing bolts (left

and right) for the Mercury Aerospace trademark.

Within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD.

Use the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Raytheon Mandatory

Service Bulletin SB 57–3328, Issued: July,

1999.

(2) Replace any lower forward wing bolt that

has the Mercury Arospace trademark with an

FAA-approved bolt that does not have this

trademark. Replace the associated nuts and

washers.

Prior to further flight after the inspection ......... Use the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Raytheon Mandatory

Service bulletin SB 57–3328, Issued: July,

1999, and the instructions in the applicable

maintenance manual.

(3) Do not install, on any affected airplane, a

forward wing bolt that has the Mercury Aerospace trademark.

As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not Applicable.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD.For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Mr. T.N. Baktha,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4155; facsimile: (316)

946–4407.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

60602 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 5, 2000.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26238 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Hearings and Appeals

43 CFR Part 4

RIN 1090–AA74

Special Rules Applicable to Surface

Coal Mining Hearings and Appeals;

Petitions for Award of Costs and

Expenses Under Section 525(e) of the

SMCRA

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This action extends the

comment period an additional 30 days

on the Department of the Interior’s

Office of Hearings and Appeals’

proposal to amend its rules governing

who may receive an award of costs and

expenses, including attorney fees, under

section 525(e) of the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). The proposed amendment

provides that an applicant for a permit

may only receive an award from the

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement (OSM), if OSM denies

an application in bad faith and for the

purpose of harassing or embarrassing

the applicant.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments are due to

the agency by November 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Robert L. Baum, Director, Office of

Hearings and Appeals, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Room 1111, Arlington, VA

22203. Phone: 703–235–3750.

Comments received will be made

available for public inspection and

copying during regular business hours

(9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) In the Office of

Hearings and Appeals, Director’s office,

11th floor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22203. Person wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

in advance at 703–235–3810 to make an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will

A. Irwin, Administrative Judge, Interior

Board of Land Appeals, U.S.

Department of the Interior, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Phone:

703–235–3750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

28, 2000, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) published a proposed

rule (65 FR 46389) amending 43 CFR

4.1294(b) and (c) to provide than an

applicant for a permit from OSM is

entitled to an award of costs and

expenses from OSM only when

circumstances demonstrate that OSM

denied an application in bad faith and

for the purpose of harassing or

embarrassing the applicant. In a letter to

the Director of OHA, dated August 15,

2000, the National Mining Association

(NMA) requested a 45 day extension of

the comment period for this proposed

amendment because the existing

comment period did not allow adequate

opportunity to comment fully. The

NMA also requested records related to

the proposed amendment under the

Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA

response letter was issued on September

12, 2000.

The Director of OHA has determined

that an extension of time to obtain the

comments on the proposed rule is

warranted and, therefore, a 30 day

extension is granted. This notice

announces that 30 day extension of the

comment period.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

John Berry,

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management

and Budget.

[FR Doc. 00–26100 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–BK–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2230, MM Docket No. 00–186, RM–

9970]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Rapid

City, South Dakota, Gillette, Wyoming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Bethesda Christian Broadcasting, Inc.

(‘‘petitioner’’), licensee of Station

KLMP, Rapid City South Dakota,

requesting the substitution of Channel

250C for 250C1 at Rapid City, and the

modification of Station KLMP’s license

accordingly, and the substitution of

Channel 282A for vacant Channel 249A

at Gillette, Wyoming, to accommodate

its upgrade. Channel 250C can be

allotted at Rapid City, South Dakota, at

coordinates 44–19–42 and 103–50–03.

Channel 282A can be allotted at Gillette,

Wyoming at coordinates 44–17–36 and

105–30–06.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 20, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 5,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Bethesda

Christian Broadcasting, Inc. P.O. Box

168, Rapid City, SD 57709 (petitioner);

J. Dominic Monahan, Luvaas, Cobb,

Richards and Fraser, 300 Forum

Building, 777 High Street, P.O. Box

10747, Eugene, OR 97401 (Counsel to

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–186, adopted September 20, 2000,

and released September 29, 2000. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street,

SW, Washington, DC. The complete text

of this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding. Members of the public

should note that from the time a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until

the matter is no longer subject to

Commission consideration or court

review, all ex parte contacts are

prohibited in Commission proceedings,

such as this one, which involve channel

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for

rules governing permissible ex parte

contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–26191 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P