Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40845

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9

CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1—DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. The authority citation for part 1

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(g).

2. In § 1.1, the definition of field study

would be revised to read as follows:

§ 1.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Field study means any study

conducted on free-living wild animals

in their natural habitat. This term

excludes any study that involves an

invasive procedure or has the potential

to harm or materially alter the behavior

of an animal under study.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of

July 1998.

Alfred S. Elder,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20499 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–12 and PC–12/

45 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 Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models PC–12 and

PC–12/45 airplanes that are equipped

with the ‘‘corporate commuter cabin

layout.’’ This layout is a Pilatus

designation only and the affected

airplanes are not certificated for

commuter operation. The proposed AD

would require modifying the passenger

seats and seat rail covers. 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 prevent passenger injuries

because the passenger seat configuration

has been found to not fully meet current

head injury criteria regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–69–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

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 62 33; facsimile:

+41 41 610 33 51. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 426–6932;

facsimile: (816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

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 Models PC–12

and PC–12/45 airplanes that are

equipped with the ‘‘corporate commuter

cabin layout.’’ This layout is a Pilatus

designation only and the affected

airplanes are not certificated for

commuter operation. The FOCA of

Switzerland reports that the current

executive cabin layout of the abovereferenced airplanes, in particular the

passenger seat configuration, has been

found to not fully meet the head injury

criteria (HIC) requirements of section

23.562 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 23.562).

These conditions, if not corrected in

a timely manner, could result in

passenger injuries during an airplane

crash because the passenger seat

configuration has been found to not

fully meet current head injury criteria

regulations.

Relevant Service Information

Pilatus has issued Service Bulletin

No. 25–006, dated April 7, 1998, which

specifies procedures for modifying the

passenger seats and seat rail covers.

The FOCA of Switzerland classified

this service bulletin as mandatory and

issued Swiss AD HB 98–179, dated June

15, 1998, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Switzerland.

The FAA’s Determination

These airplane models are

manufactured in Switzerland and are

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 of

Switzerland has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above.

The FAA has examined the findings

of the FOCA of Switzerland; reviewed

all available information, including the

service information referenced above;

and determined that AD action is

necessary for products of this type

design that are certificated for operation

in the United States.
40846 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Pilatus PC–12 and PC–

12/45 airplanes of the same type design

registered in the United States, the FAA

is proposing AD action. The proposed

AD would require modifying the

passenger seats and seat rail covers.

Accomplishment of the proposed action

would be required in accordance with

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006,

dated April 7, 1998.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 11 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed

modification, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

would be provided by the manufacturer

at no cost to the owners/operators of the

affected airplanes. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $5,280, or $480 per

airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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, pursuant to 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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. 98–CE–69–

AD.

Applicability: Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN) 101 through MSN 230, certificated in

any category, that are equipped with the

‘‘corporate commuter cabin layout.’’

Note 1: This ‘‘corporate commuter cabin

layout’’ is a Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. designation

only and the affected airplanes are not

certificated for commuter operation.

Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, 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 (d) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent passenger injuries because the

passenger seat configuration does not fully

meet current head injury criteria regulations,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, modify the passenger seats and seat rail

covers in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions section of

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006, dated

April 7, 1998.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person may install, on any affected airplane,

passenger seats and seat rail covers that are

not modified in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions section of

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 25–006, dated

April 7, 1998.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(e) Questions or technical information

related to Pilatus Service Bulletin No 25–006,

dated April 7, 1998, should be directed to

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 62 33; facsimile: +41

41 610 33 51. This service information may

be examined at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swiss AD HB 98–179, dated June 15, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 23,

1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20441 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–65–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft, Inc. SA226 and SA227 Series

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

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. (Fairchild)

SA226 and SA227 series airplanes. The

proposed AD would require repetitively

inspecting the wing spar center web

cutout on both wings for cracks between

Wing Station (WS) 8 and WS 17.5, and

immediately repairing any area found

cracked. This repair would eliminate

the need for the repetitive inspections

on that particular wing spar. The

proposed AD is the result of reports of

cracks in the wing spar center web

cutout caused by fatigue due to airplane

maneuvering and wind gusts. The