Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 65805

(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 Todd Dixon, Aerospace

Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification

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

telephone: (316) 946–4152; 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

the Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800)

625–7043 or (316) 676–4556. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 27, 2000.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28094 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–27–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Models 99, 99A, 99A

(FACH), A99A, B99, and C99 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)

Models 99, 99A, 99A (FACH), A99A,

B99, and C99 airplanes. The proposed

AD would require you to inspect all

main landing gear (MLG) hydraulic

actuators to determine the end cap part

number that is installed, and replace

any actuator that has a part number

4A125C32 end cap. The proposed AD is

the result of the potential for fatigue

cracks to develop on the MLG hydraulic

actuator end caps. The actions specified

by this proposed AD are intended to

eliminate existing and prevent future

fatigue cracks in the MLG hydraulic

actuator end caps. Such cracks could

cause hydraulic fluid to leak and result

in collapse of one or more gears with

consequent aircraft damage and

passenger injury.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

December 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–27–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 the

Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone:

(800) 625–7043 or (316) 676–4556. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

C. DeVore, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801

Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316)

946–4142; 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.

We are 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. 2000-CE–27–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 of an

incident on a Raytheon Model C99

airplane where a cracked main landing

gear (MLG) hydraulic actuator end cap

resulted in nose landing gear (NLG)

collapse during landing. The cracked

65806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

end cap caused the hydraulic fluid to

leak, which then prevented the landing

gear from locking down. We have

received several other reports of cracks

in the MLG hydraulic actuator end caps

on certain Raytheon 99 series airplanes

of a similar type design.

The suspect MLG hydraulic actuator

end caps are part number (P/N)

4A125C32 end caps. These end caps

were originally installed on P/N 99–

388001 series actuators. We have reports

that these parts may also have been

installed on the overhauled P/N 99–

388008 series, although they are not

approved for this configuration.

The P/N 99–388001 and 99–388008

series actuators are installed on

Raytheon Models 99, 99A, 99A (FACH),

A99A, B99, and C99 airplanes.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? Cracked

MLG hydraulic actuator end caps, if not

eliminated and prevented from

occurring in the future, could cause

hydraulic fluid to leak and result in

collapse of one or more gears with

consequent aircraft damage and

passenger injury.

Relevant Service Information

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Raytheon has

issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB

2290, Rev. 1, Revised: August, 1999.

What are the provisions of this service

bulletin? The service bulletin includes

procedures for:

• Inspecting all MLG hydraulic

actuators to determine the end cap P/N

that is installed; and

• Replacing any MLG hydraulic

actuator that has a P/N 4A125C32 end

cap.

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 incidents described above,

including the above-referenced service

information, we have determined that:

• The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Raytheon Models 99, 99A, 99A

(FACH), A99A, B99, and C99 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 would the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would require you to

inspect all MLG hydraulic actuators to

determine the end cap part number that

is installed with replacement of any

actuator that has a part number

4A125C32 end cap.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes would the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD would affect 139

airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What would be 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

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ............................ No parts necessary to accomplish the inspection ....... $120 per

airplane

$16,680

We estimate the following costs to

accomplish any necessary replacements

that would be required based on the

results of the proposed inspection. We

have no way of determining the number

of airplanes that may need such

replacement:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

4 workhours × $60 per hour = $240 .................. $1,400 for each actuator; each airplane requires 2 for a total cost of $2,800 per airplane.$3,040 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

Would 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.

Would 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.

2000–CE–27–AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects the following airplane

models and serial numbers that are

certificated in any category:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 65807

Models Serial numbers

99, 99A, 99A (FACH), A99A, and B99

C99 ............................................................................................................

U–1 through U–49 and U51 through U–164.

U–50 and U–165 through U–239.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to eliminate existing and prevent future

fatigue cracks in the main landing gear (MLG)

hydraulic actuator end caps. Such cracks

could cause hydraulic fluid to leak and result

in collapse of one or more gears with

consequent aircraft damage and passenger

injury.

(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 all MLG hydraulic actuators to determine what part number (P/N) end caps are

installed.

Within the next 200 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished.

In accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions section of Raytheon Mandatory

Service Bulletin SB 2290, Rev. 1, Revised:

August, 1999.

(2) If a P/N 4A211S1 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number) end cap is installed on both

actuators, then no additional action is required by this AD.

AD is complied with ......................................... AD is complied with.

(3) If a P/N 4A125C32 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number) end cap is installed on a

P/N 99–388001 series actuator, accomplish

the following.

(i) Inspect, using fluorescent penetrant methods, each end cap for evidence of cracking;

(ii) Replace each actuator with an actuator that

has a P/N 4A211SI (or FAA-approved equivalent part number) end cap; and

(iii) This replacement may be accomplished

prior to 600 hours TIS, but must be replaced

if evidence of cracking is found.

Accomplish the inspection prior to further

flight after the inspection required by paragraph (d)(1) of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS until

the end caps are replaced. Accomplish the

replacement prior to further flight after the

inspection where any evidence of cracking

is found or within 600 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD if no evidence of

cracking is found.

In accordance with Part I, steps (2) through

(10) and Part II, of the Accomplishment Instructions section of Raytheon Mandatory

Service Bulletin SB 2290, Rev. 1, Revised:

August, 1999.

(4) If a P/N 4A125C32 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number) end cap is installed on a

P/N 99–388008 series actuator, replace the

actuator with an actuator that has a P/N

4A211SI (or FAA-approved equivalent part

number) end cap.

Prior to further flight after the inspection required by this AD.In accordance with Part I, steps (2) through

(10) and Part II, of the Accomplishment Instructions section of Raytheon Mandatory

Service Bulletin SB 2290, Rev. 1, Revised:

August, 1999.

(5) Do not install, on any affected airplane, a P/

N 99–388008 series actuator that incorporates an end cap that is not P/N 4A211S1

(or FAA-approved equivalent part number).

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

(6) Do not install, on any affected airplane, a P/

N 99–388001 series actuator that incorporates an end cap that is not P/N 4A211SI

(or FAA-approved equivalent part number).

As of 600 hours TIS after the effective date of

this AD provided the 200-hour repetitive inspections required by this AD are accomplished and no evidence of cracking is

found. If evidence of cracking is found, the

actuator must be immediately replaced with

one that incorporates P/N 4A211S1 (or

FAA-approved equivalent part number).

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 Paul C. DeVore,

Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone: (316) 946–4142; 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

the Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone:

(800) 625–7043 or (316) 676–4556. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

65808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 27, 2000.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28093 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 151, 153 and 46 CFR Part

4

[USCG–2000–6927]

RIN 2115–AD98

Reporting Marine Casualties

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

amend the marine casualty reporting

requirements by adding ‘‘significant

harm to the environment’’ as a

reportable marine casualty. This

rulemaking will help the Coast Guard

track and investigate marine casualties

that may result in significant harm to

the environment. In addition, it will

lessen the effects of marine casualties by

requiring timely notification needed to

ensure a timely and appropriate

pollution response clean-up.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before January 31, 2001.

Comments sent to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on

collection of information must reach

OMB on or before January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, USCG–2000–6927, U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

You must also mail comments on

collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. You may also

find this docket on the Internet at http:/

/dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this proposed rule, call

Ensign Edward Jackson, Project

Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation

and Development (G–MSR), Coast

Guard, telephone 202–267–6884. For

questions on viewing or submitting

material to the docket, call Dorothy

Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking [USCG–2000–6927],

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. You may submit your

comments and material by mail, hand

delivery, fax, or electronic means to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please

submit your comments and material by

only one means. If you submit them by

mail or hand delivery, submit them in

an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they

reached the Facility, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

At Coast Guard Headquarters in

Washington, DC, we held a public

meeting on this project on January 20,

1995 (59 FR 65522; December 20, 1994),

regarding amendments contained in the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90)

(Pub. L. 101–380) that require certain

U.S. and foreign-flag vessels to report

marine casualties. We do not plan to

hold any additional public meetings.

Background and Purpose

Section 4106 of OPA 90 amended 46

U.S.C. 6101 by adding ‘‘significant harm

to the environment’’ to the list of

reportable marine casualties.

Additionally, that section required

operators of foreign-flag tank vessels,

operating in waters subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States—

including the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)—to report marine casualties

resulting in either:

(a) Material damage affecting the

seaworthiness or efficiency of a vessel;

or

(b) Significant harm to the

environment.

For marine casualties involving

foreign-flag tank vessels in the U.S. EEZ,

Congress required that reporting be

consistent with generally recognized

principles of international law. The

1982 United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article

211(5), governs the establishment of

laws and regulations by a coastal state

to prevent, reduce, and control

pollution from vessels in its EEZ. This

article specifies that these laws and

regulations are authorized if they enact

international maritime or general

diplomatic rules and standards.

The accepted international standard

for reporting vessel pollution incidents

is in the International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

1973, as modified by the Protocol of

1978 (MARPOL 73/78).

The Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901–1915)

enacts MARPOL 73/78 Annexes I, II, III,

and V. Regulation 8 and Protocol I of

MARPOL 73/78 provide the reporting

provisions concerning reports on

incidents involving harmful substances.

Article 2 of MARPOL 73/78 defines an

‘‘incident’’ as the actual or probable

discharge of a harmful substance or

effluents into the sea. Regulations

implementing the reporting provisions

of APPS are in 33 CFR 151.15 and

151.45. However, these regulations (33

CFR 151.15 and 151.45) do not reflect

current U.S. law in two respects.

First, APPS has subsequently been

amended (Pub. L. 102–241). Instead of

having just the master or other personin-charge of the ship responsible for the

report, the amendment makes the

master, person-in-charge, owner,

charterer, manager, or operator of a ship

involved in an incident responsible for

the report. Second, the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act of 1974

ratified Annex III of MARPOL 73/78