20924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

parts would be provided by the

manufacturer at no cost to the operators

if modification of the TRU’s is

accomplished at the vendor’s

(AUXILEC) facilities, otherwise the

required parts would cost

approximately $253 per TRU. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be between $120 and

$1,132 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 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 is contained 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 the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–54–AD.

Applicability: Model A300, A300–600, and

A310 series airplanes; certificated in any

category; equipped with AUXILEC

transformer rectifier units (TRU) having part

number (P/N) F11QB3121.

Note 1: 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 (c) 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 failure of multiple TRU’s,

which could result in loss of the thrust

reversers, autothrottle, flaps, and various

systems (wing/cockpit window anti-ice, trim

tank pumps, and windshield wipers) on the

airplane; or incorrect information displayed

to the flight crew; accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace the TRU’s in the avionics

compartment with new, improved TRU’s, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletins

A300–24–0089, dated March 4, 1998 (for

Model A300 series airplanes); A300–24–

6068, dated January 28, 1998 (for Model

A300–600 series airplanes); or A310–24–

2077, dated January 21, 1998 (for Model

A310 series airplanes); as applicable.

Note 2: The Airbus service bulletins

reference AUXILEC Service Bulletin

F11QB3121–24–007, dated February 2, 1998,

as an additional source of service information

for accomplishing the replacement required

by this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–435–

296(B), dated November 3, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13,

2000.

Charles D. Huber,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9822 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–363–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 707, 727C, and 727–100C Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 707, 727C, and 727–100C

series airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

of the main cargo door skin and frames,

and repair, if necessary. The existing AD

also provides optional terminating

modifications. This action would

mandate follow-on repetitive

inspections of repaired or modified

areas for certain airplanes. This

proposal is prompted by reports of

cracking and/or tearing of the main

cargo door outer skin and subsequent

failure of the door frame. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct such

cracking and/or tearing, which could

result in failure of the door frame and

consequent rapid decompression of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

363–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20925

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt

Sippel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–2774; fax (425)

227–1181.

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 shall

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

summarizing 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 Number 99–NM–363–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–NM–363–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On January 17, 1983, the FAA issued

AD 83–02–09, amendment 39–4549 (48

FR 6953, February 17, 1983), applicable

to certain Boeing Model 707, 727C, and

727–100C airplanes, to require

inspection and repair, if necessary, of

the main cargo door structure. That

action was prompted by reports of skin

cracking and door frame failures. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

detect cracking prior to reaching critical

length, which could result in rapid

decompression or loss of a portion of

the main cargo door.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing

Service Bulletin 727–52A0079, Revision

6, dated January 11, 1990. The service

bulletin describes procedures for

repetitive detailed visual, eddy current,

and X-ray inspections of the main cargo

door outer skin and the door frames

between body stations (BS) 505 and 595

to detect cracking, and repair of any

cracks. The service bulletin also

describes procedures for modification of

the main cargo door and detailed visual

and eddy current inspections of the

modified or repaired areas. Revisions 4

and 5 of the service bulletin were

referenced in the existing AD as an

appropriate source of service

information for accomplishment of the

inspections and modifications for the

Model 727 series airplanes.

The FAA also has reviewed and

approved Revision 4 of Boeing Service

Bulletin 2999, dated January 31, 1991.

Revision 3 of the service bulletin was

referenced in the existing AD as the

appropriate source of service

information for accomplishment of the

inspections and modifications for the

Model 707 series airplanes. The

requirements for inspections and

modifications of the Model 707 are

unchanged in this proposed AD because

the detailed visual and eddy current

inspections of the modified or repaired

areas are required by AD 85–12–01 R1,

amendment 39–5439 (51 FR 36002,

October 8, 1986).

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 83–02–09 to continue to

require repetitive inspections to detect

cracking of the main cargo door outer

skin and frames, and repair, if

necessary. This proposed AD would

mandate follow-on repetitive

inspections of modified or repaired

areas for certain airplanes.

Paragraph (e) of the existing AD will

not be restated in this proposal due to

the FAA’s determination that

calculating the number of landings/

flight cycles by fleet average would not

allow for detection of cracks in a timely

manner.

Additionally, restatement of the

requirements of the existing AD has

been revised to remove all references to

the use of ‘‘later FAA-approved

revisions of the applicable service

bulletin,’’ in order to be consistent with

FAA policy in that regard. The FAA has

determined that this change will not

increase the economic burden on any

operator, nor will it increase the scope

of the AD, since later revisions of the

service bulletin may be approved as an

alternative method of compliance with

this AD, as provided by paragraph (g)(1)

of this AD.

Difference Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletins

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletins specify that the

manufacturer may be contacted for

disposition of certain repair conditions,

this proposed AD would require the

repair of those conditions to be

accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA, or in

accordance with data meeting the type

certification basis of the airplane

approved by a Boeing Company

Designated Engineering Representative

who has been authorized by the FAA to

make such findings.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 50 Model

707 and 308 Model 727 series airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 1 Model

707 and 81 Model 727 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The cost impact information in AD

83–02–09 inadvertently contained

information relevant only to the X-ray

inspection; however, since the detailed

visual and eddy current inspections are

also acceptable methods to detect

cracking, this proposed AD includes the

estimated number of work hours

necessary to accomplish any one of the

three inspection methods. Additionally,

the FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several

years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has

determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $40 per work hour to

20926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

$60 per work hour. The cost impact

information, below, has been revised to

reflect these changes.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the detailed visual

inspection that is currently required by

AD 83–02–09, it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the detailed

visual inspection is estimated to be $60

per airplane.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the eddy current inspection

that is currently required by AD 83–02–

09, it would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the eddy current inspection is

estimated to be $60 per airplane.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the X-ray inspection that is

currently required by AD 83–02–09, it

would take approximately 3 work hours

per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the X-ray inspection is estimated to

be $180 per airplane.

The detailed visual inspection (for

Model 727 series airplanes only)

proposed by this AD would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the detailed

visual inspection is estimated to be

$4,860, or $60 per airplane.

The eddy current inspection (for

Model 727 series airplanes only)

proposed by this AD would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the eddy

current inspection is estimated to be

$4,860, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 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 is contained 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

removing amendment 39–4549 (48 FR

6953, February 17, 1983), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 99–NM–363–AD. Supersedes

AD 83–02–09, Amendment 39–4549.

Applicability: Model 707, 727C, and 727–

100C series airplanes; as listed in Boeing

Service Bulletins 2999, Revision 3, dated

January 12, 1972, and 727–52–79, Revision 4,

dated June 19, 1981; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: 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 (g)(1) 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 detect and correct cracking of the main

cargo door skin and frames, which could

result in failure of the door frame, and

consequent rapid decompression of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

Restatement of Requirements of AD 83–02–

09

Initial Inspection

(a) Within 500 landings after March 3, 1983

(the effective date of AD 83–02–09,

amendment 39–4549), or prior to the

accumulation of 25,000 total landings after

March 3, 1983, whichever occurs later:

Perform an inspection (detailed visual, eddy

current, or X-ray) to detect cracks of the main

cargo door outer skin and frames between

body stations (BS) 505 and 595, from the

lower edge of the door hinge a minimum of

6 inches down, and 6 inches above, and 3

inches below the center line of stringer 10,

in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

2999, Revision 3, dated January 12, 1972, or

Revision 4, dated January 31, 1991 (for Model

707 series airplanes); or Boeing Service

Bulletin 727–52–79, Revision 4, dated June

19, 1981, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

727–52A0079, Revision 5, dated June 17,

1983, or Revision 6, dated January 11, 1990

(for Model 727 series airplanes); as

applicable.

Repetitive Inspections

(b) Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD at the times

specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3)

of this AD; as applicable; until

accomplishment of the modification required

by paragraph (d) of this AD.

(1) Repeat the detailed visual inspection at

intervals not to exceed 500 landings.

(2) Repeat the eddy current inspection at

intervals not to exceed 750 landings.

(3) Repeat the X-ray inspection at intervals

not to exceed 1,000 landings.

Repair

(c) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of

this AD: Prior to further flight, repair any

cracks detected in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 2999, Revision 3, dated

January 12, 1972, or Revision 4, dated

January 31, 1991 (for Model 707 series

airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 727–

52–79, Revision 4, dated June 19, 1981, or

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–52A0079,

Revision 5, dated June 17, 1983, or Revision

6, dated January 11, 1990 (for Model 727

series airplanes), as applicable.

Optional Terminating Action

(d) Modification of the main cargo door in

accordance with Part II, Option 1 or Option

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20927

2, as applicable, of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 2999,

Revision 3, dated January 12, 1972, or

Revision 4, dated January 31, 1991 (for Model

707 series airplanes); or Boeing Service

Bulletin 727–52–79, Revision 4, dated June

19, 1981, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

727–52A0079, Revision 5, dated June 17,

1983, or Revision 6, dated January 11, 1990

(for Model 727 series airplanes); as

applicable; constitutes terminating action for

the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Post-Repair/Post-Mod Repetitive Inspections

(e) For Model 727 series airplanes: Within

27,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of

the repair specified in paragraph (c) of this

AD, and/or the modification specified in

paragraph (d) of this AD, as applicable; or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD; whichever occurs later;

accomplish the requirements of paragraph

(e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For airplanes that have accomplished

the modification specified in Part II, Option

1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Boeing Service Bulletin 727–52–79, Revision

4, dated June 19, 1981, or Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 727–52A0079, Revision 5,

dated June 17, 1983, or Revision 6, dated

January 11, 1990: Perform a detailed visual

and eddy current inspection of the modified

area and/or any repaired area, to detect

cracks, in accordance with the service

bulletin. Repeat the inspections at intervals

not to exceed 3,800 flight cycles.

(2) For airplanes that have accomplished

the modification specified in Part II, Option

2, of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Boeing Service Bulletin 727–52–79, Revision

4, dated June 19, 1981, or Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 727–52A0079, Revision 5,

dated June 17, 1983, or Revision 6, dated

January 11, 1990: Perform an internal and

external detailed visual and an eddy current

inspection of the modified area to detect

cracks in accordance with the service

bulletin. Repeat the inspections at intervals

not to exceed 3,800 flight cycles.

Repair

(f) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) or

(e)(2) of this AD: Prior to further flight, repair

any cracks detected in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate; or in

accordance with data meeting the type

certification basis of the airplane approved

by a Boeing Company Designated

Engineering Representative who has been

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to

make such findings. For a repair method to

be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as

required by this paragraph, the Manager’s

approval letter must specifically reference

this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(g)(1) 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, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved previously in accordance with AD

83–02–09, amendment 39–4549, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Incorporation of the Boeing Model

707–720 Supplemental Structural Inspection

Document (SSID) into the operator’s

approved airplane maintenance program

constitutes an approved alternative method

of compliance for Model 707 and 720 series

airplanes.

Special Flight Permits

(h) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13,

2000.

Charles D. Huber,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9821 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–80–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada Model

206L, L–1, L–3, and L–4 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)

Model 206L, L–1, L–3, and L–4

helicopters. That AD currently requires

removing the horizontal stabilizer

supports and inspecting the edges of the

tailboom skins around the horizontal

stabilizer openings for a crack. This

action would require inspecting the

tailboom skins for a crack, replacing a

cracked tailboom with a modified

tailboom before further flight, and

implementing a recurring inspection of

the modified tailboom. This proposal is

prompted by several additional reports

of cracks found during mandatory

inspections. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to detect

a crack in the tailboom and to prevent

separation of the tailboom from the

helicopter and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–80–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800

Rue de l’Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec

JON1LO, telephone (800) 463–3036, fax

(514) 433–0272. This information may

be examined at the FAA, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort

Worth, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer,

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations

Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111

telephone (817) 222–5122, fax (817)

222–5961.

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

summarizing 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