65798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Josephine M. Piccone,

Acting Director, Division of Industrial and

Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 00–27940 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–77–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft LTD Model PC–6 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 all Pilatus

Aircraft LTD (Pilatus) Model PC–6

airplanes that are equipped with a

certain stabilizer trim actuator. The

proposed AD would require you to

inspect the lower lug of the actuator for

cracks, damage, or distortion; verify that

the staked bearing is correctly installed

in the bore of the lug; and repair any

cracked, damaged, or distorted parts and

reassemble any incorrectly installed

staked bearing, as necessary. The

proposed AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct damage,

distortion, or cracks in the lower lug

assembly, which could result in failure

of the lower lug. Such failure could lead

to loss of the stabilizer trim actuator

with consequent loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule on or

before December 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 99–CE–77–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

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 65 09; facsimile:

+41 41 610 33 51. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

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 self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–CE–77–

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Discussion

What Events Have Caused This

Proposed AD?

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland, recently

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Pilatus Model

PC–6 airplanes that are equipped with

a stabilizer trim actuator, part number

(P/N) 978.73.18.101, 978.73.18.102, or

978.73.18.103 (Electomech P/N EM–

483–1, 483–2, or 483–3). The FOCA

reports an incident of a cracked,

damaged, and distorted lower lug of the

horizontal stabilizer trim actuator.

Analysis of this incident reveals that the

staked bearing was loose, which caused

excessive wear and failure of the

actuator lower lug.

What Are the Consequences If the

Condition Is Not Corrected?

Damage, distortion, or cracks in the

lower lug assembly, if not detected and

corrected, could result in failure of this

part. Such failure could lead to loss of

the stabilizer trim actuator with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane.

Is There Service Information That

Applies to This Subject?

Pilatus has issued Service Bulletin

No. 178, dated September 29, 1999.

What Are the Provisions of This Service

Bulletin?

The service bulletin:

—includes procedures for inspecting the

lower lug of the actuator for cracks,

damage, or distortion, and assuring

that the staked bearing is correctly

installed in the bore of the lug; and

—specifies repairing any cracked,

damaged, or distorted parts, as

necessary, and reassembling any

incorrectly installed staked bearing.

What Action Did the FOCA Take?

The FOCA classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued Swiss

AD HB 99–507, dated October 1, 1999,

in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

Switzerland.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 65799

Was This in Accordance With the

Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement?

This airplane model is manufactured

in Switzerland and is type certificated

for operation in the United States under

the provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement.

Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has

kept FAA informed of the situation

described above.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What Has FAA Decided?

The FAA has examined the findings

of the FOCA; reviewed all available

information, including the service

information referenced above; and

determined that:

—the unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Pilatus Model PC–6 airplanes

of the same type design that are

equipped with one of the previously

referenced stabilizer trim actuators;

—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 incorporate the actions in the

previously referenced service bulletin.

Cost Impact

How Many Airplanes Would the

Proposed AD Impact?

We estimate that the proposed AD

affects 7 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

1 workhour × $60 per hour = $60 ................................ Not applicable ............................................................... $60 $420

If any distortion, damage, or cracks

are found during the proposed

inspection, you would have to repair the

actuator assembly in accordance with an

FAA-approved repair scheme developed

by the manufacturer.

The FAA has no way of determining

how much incorporating each repair

scheme would cost since the damage to

each airplane would be unique.

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 proposed 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 part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) 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:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. 99–CE–77–

AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects Model PC–6 airplanes, all

serial numbers, that are:

(1) certificated in any category; and

(2) equipped with a stabilizer trim actuator,

part number (P/N) 978.73.18.101,

978.73.18.102, or 978.73.18.103 (Electomech

P/N EM–483–1, 483–2, or 483-3), or FAAapproved equivalent part number.

(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 detect and correct damage, distortion, or

cracks in the lower lug assembly, which

could result in failure of the lower lug. Such

failure could lead to loss of the stabilizer trim

actuator with consequent loss of control of

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 lug of the actuator for

cracks, damage, or distortion, and assure

that the staked bearing is correctly installed

in the bore of the lug.

Upon accumulating 500 hours time-in-service

on the airplane or within the next 100 hours

TIS after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later, unless already accomplished.

Accomplish the inspection in accordance with

the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 178,

dated September 29, 1999.

65800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Action Compliance time Procedures

(2) Repair any cracked, damaged, or distorted

parts, as necessary, and reassemble any incorrectly installed staked bearing.

Prior to further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.Accomplish any repairs in accordance with an

FAA-approved repair scheme obtained from

the manufacturer. Accomplish the reassembly in accordance with the instructions in the maintenance manual.

(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, Small Airplane

Directorate, approves your alternative.

Submit your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 1: 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 Roman T. Gabrys,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

(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

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 65 09; facsimile: +41

41 610 33 51. You may examine these

documents at FAA, Central Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swiss AD HB 99–507, dated October 1,

1999.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 26, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certfication Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28096 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–54–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace HP137 Mk1, Jetstream

Series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101

and 3201 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 all British

Aerospace HP137 Mk1, Jetstream series

200, and Jetstream Models 3101 and

3201 airplanes that are equipped with

certain main landing gear (MLG) radius

rods. The proposed AD would require

inspection of the MLG radius rods for

cracks with replacement of any cracked

rod. The proposed AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for the United

Kingdom. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to detect and

correct cracks in the MLG radius rods.

Such cracks could result in MLG failure

during takeoff, landing, or taxi

operations, with consequent loss of

airplane control.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule on or

before December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–54–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

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft,

Prestwick International Airport,

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland;

telephone: (01292) 479888; facsimile:

(01292) 479703. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

S.M. Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4145; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

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