20760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Proposed Rules

these approaches for smaller scaled

projects and projects employing

innovative technologies. However,

subpart H with its requirements for such

things are integrated resource plans

(IRP’s) and demand side management

plans present formidable barriers for the

development of smaller projects.

Furthermore, the usefulness of such

traditional analytical devices in today’s

radically changed energy industry has

become questionable. In addition,

projects of this sort often possess unique

attributes that make the application of

detailed regulations impractical and

sometimes even counterproductive. For

example, subpart H precludes the use of

innovative technologies. See 7 CFR

1710.351(a) and 1710.353. For all of

these reasons, RUS believes that subpart

H has become unjustified and

unnecessary as a result of changed

circumstances and should be removed

or substantially revised.

After considering the low volume of

loan requests RUS receives annually for

these loans, the disparate nature of the

projects that can be characterized as

demand side management or renewable

energy systems, and the rapidly

evolving nature of this industry, RUS

has determined that the removal of

subpart H is the better alternative.

Accordingly, RUS is proposing to

proceed case-by-case in considering

requests for demand side management

and renewable energy system loans.

RUS expects that utility scale projects

will continue to confirm to the

remaining provisions of part 1710

establishing its general and pre-loan

policies and procedures. RUS

recognizes that the particular

circumstances of an individual project

may necessitate adjustments in the

application or interpretation of its

general policies and procedures to

specific demand side management or

renewable energy systems loans

regardless of scale. The Administrator

may, of course, waive or reduce any

requirement imposed by part 1710 by

resorting to the exception authority

contained in the rule itself. See 7 CFR

1710.4. In light of their rarity so far,

RUS anticipates that it may be necessary

to interpret the application of part 1710

to utility scale demand side

management and renewable energy

system loans on a somewhat frequent

basis at first. RUS will treat small-scale

projects as pilot projects for which the

remainder of part 1710 will serve

merely as guidance. As used in this rule,

‘‘small scale project’’ refers to projects

requesting loans less than $5 million or

generating less than 10 MW (nameplate

rating). ‘‘Utility scale project’’ refers to

everything else.

As RUS acquires greater experience

with loans for demand side management

and renewable energy systems, it may

reissue regulations on this subject in the

event that the volume of loans requests

or the number of recurring issues raised

warrant it. Accordingly, subpart H is

being reserved.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1710

Electric power, Electric utilities, Loan

programs-energy, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rural

areas.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, RUS proposes to amend 7

CFR chapter XVII by revising part 1710

to read as follows:

PART 1710—GENERAL AND

PRELOAN POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES COMMON TO INSURED

AND GUARANTEED ELECTRIC LOANS

1. The authority citation for part 1710

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et

seq., and 6941 et seq.

Subpart H—Demand Side Management

and Renewable Energy Systems

2. Remove and reserve subpart H:

§§ 1710.350–1710.363 [Removed and

Reserved]

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Blaine D. Stockton,

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10262 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–145–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011 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 all

Lockheed Model L–1011 series

airplanes that currently requires the

implementation of a corrosion

prevention and control program either

by accomplishing specific tasks or by

revising the maintenance inspection

program to include such a program.

This action would require

accomplishment of new specific tasks

and visual inspections to detect

corrosion of certain structural areas and

repair, or revision of the maintenance

inspection program. This proposal

relates to the recommendations of the

Airworthiness Assurance Task Force

assigned to review Model L–1011 series

airplanes, which indicate that, to assure

long term continued operational safety,

various structural inspections should be

accomplished.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

145–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Comments may be submitted

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–145–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Lockheed Martin & Logistics Centers,

120 Orion Street, Greenville, South

Carolina 29605. This information may

be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Peters, Program Manager, Program

Management and Services Branch,

ACE–118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770)

703–6063; fax (770) 703–6097.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20761

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–145–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.

2000–NM–145–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On October 8, 1993, the FAA issued

AD 93–20–03, amendment 39–8710 (58

FR 60775, November 18, 1993),

applicable to all Lockheed Model L–

1011 series airplanes, to require the

implementation of a corrosion

prevention and control program either

by accomplishing specific tasks or by

revising the maintenance inspection

program to include such a program.

That action was prompted by reports of

incidents involving corrosion and

fatigue cracking in transport category

airplanes that were approaching or had

exceeded their economic design goal;

those incidents jeopardized the

airworthiness of the affected airplanes.

The actions of that AD are intended to

prevent degradation of the structural

capabilities of the airplane due to the

problems associated with corrosion.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD,

Lockheed has issued ‘‘Corrosion

Prevention and Control Program

(CPCP),’’ Report No. LR 31889, Revision

D, dated August 15, 1999. This

document revises the minimum

procedures for preventing and

controlling corrosion problems that may

jeopardize continuing airworthiness of

the L–1011 fleet. A Baseline Program

that was developed by the L–1011

Airworthiness Assurance Task Force

(AATF) Structures Working Group, is

included in the document for use by

operators who do not have a proven

effective program. A mandatory

reporting system is also included.

Reported data and other relevant

information will continue to be

reviewed annually by an Industry

Working Group.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Revision D of the CPCP, Report No. LR

31889, which describes procedures for,

among other things, removing and

visually inspecting the landing gear

attachment bushings for corrosion;

visually inspecting the upper wing

access hole flanges and dip stick hole

bushings on the lower wing for

corrosion; visually inspecting the

structural interior adjacent to the ‘‘S’’

duct for corrosion, and visually

inspecting the horizontal stabilizer pivot

bearing for corrosion. Accomplishment

of the actions specified in Revision D of

the CPCP Report, or a revision of the

maintenance inspection program per

Revision D, is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

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 93–20–03 to continue to

require the visual inspections and repair

of certain structures, if necessary, or a

revision of the FAA-approved

maintenance inspection program. This

proposal would require accomplishment

of various visual inspections for

corrosion of certain structures, and

repair, if necessary; or incorporation of

Revision D of the Corrosion Prevention

and Control Program, dated August 15,

1999, into the FAA-approved

maintenance inspection program.

Specific visual inspection and repair

procedures have been described

previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 187

Lockheed Model L–1011 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

117 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 93–20–03 take

approximately 20 work hours per

inspection to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

currently required actions on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $140,400, or

$1,200 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

The new visual inspections proposed

in this AD action would take

approximately 249 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

proposed requirements of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$1,747,980, or $14,940 per airplane.

If an operator chooses to accomplish

the proposed revision to the

maintenance inspection program, 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 proposed requirements of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$7,020, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

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

20762 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 39–8710 (58 FR

60775, November 18, 1993), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Lockheed: Docket 2000–NM–145–AD.

Supersedes AD 93–20–03, Amendment

39–8710.

Applicability: All Model L–1011 series

airplanes, 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 (k) 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 structural failure of the airplane

due to corrosion, accomplish the following:

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 93–

20–03

Note 2: This AD references Lockheed

Document Number LR 31889, ‘‘Corrosion

Prevention and Control Program, TriStar L–

1011,’’ dated March 15, 1991, including

‘‘Errata Sheet, LR 31889, Corrosion

Prevention and Control Program, TriStar L–

1011,’’ issued September 29, 1992, and

Revision D, dated August 15, 1999 (hereafter,

those publications are referred to as ‘‘the

Document’’), for corrosion tasks, definitions

of corrosion levels, compliance times, and

reporting requirements. In addition, this AD

specifies inspection and reporting

requirements beyond those included in the

Document. Where there are differences

between the AD and the Document, the AD

prevails.

Note 3: As used throughout this AD, the

term ‘‘the FAA’’ is defined differently for

different operators, as follows: For those

operators complying with paragraph (a) or (c)

of this AD, ‘‘the FAA’’ is defined as ‘‘the

Manager of the Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO).’’ For those operators operating

under 14 CFR part 121 or 129, and complying

with paragraph (b) or (d) of this AD, ‘‘the

FAA’’ is defined as ‘‘the cognizant

Maintenance Inspector at the appropriate

FAA Flight Standards office.’’

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of

this AD, complete each of the corrosion tasks

specified in Section 4 of the Document in

accordance with the procedures of the

Document, and the schedule specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.

Corrosion task numbers C–32–710–01 (nose

landing gear) and C–32–730–01 (main

landing gear, left and right) are not required

to be accomplished as part of this AD.

Note 4: A ‘‘corrosion task,’’ as defined in

Section 4 of the Document, includes

inspections; procedures for a corrective

action, including repairs, under identified

circumstances; application of corrosion

inhibitors; and other follow-on actions.

Note 5: Corrosion tasks completed in

accordance with the Document before the

effective date of this AD may be credited for

compliance with the initial corrosion task

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

Note 6: Where non-destructive inspection

(NDI) methods are employed, in accordance

with Section 4 of the Document, the

standards and procedures used must be

acceptable to the Administrator in

accordance with 14 CFR part 43.13.

(1) Complete the initial corrosion task of

each ‘‘airplane area’’ specified in Section 4 of

the Document as follows:

(i) For airplane areas that have not yet

exceeded the ‘‘implementation age’’ (IA) for

a corrosion task as of one year after December

17, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93–20–03,

amendment 39–8710): Initial compliance

must occur no later than the IA plus the

repeat (R) interval.

(ii) For airplane areas that have exceeded

the IA for a particular corrosion task, as of

one year after December 17, 1993: Initial

compliance must occur within one R interval

for that task, measured from a date one year

after December 17, 1993.

(iii) For airplanes that have reached or

exceeded 20 years after the date of

manufacture as of one year after December

17, 1993: Initial compliance must occur for

each corrosion task within one R interval for

that task, but not to exceed 6 years, measured

from a date one year after December 17, 1993,

whichever occurs first.

(iv) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), or (a)(1)(iii) of this AD, for airplane

areas that exceed the IA for that area, the

operator must accomplish the initial

corrosion task for each such area at a

minimum rate equivalent to one such area

per year, beginning one year after December

17, 1993.

Note 7: This paragraph does not require

inspection of any area that has not exceeded

the IA for that area.

Note 8: This minimum rate requirement

may cause an undue hardship on some small

operators. In those circumstances, requests

for adjustments to the implementation rate

will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this

AD.

(2) Repeat each corrosion task at a time

interval not to exceed the R interval specified

in the Document for that task.

(b) As an alternative to the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to one year

after December 17, 1993, revise the FAAapproved maintenance inspection program to

include the corrosion prevention and control

program specified in the Document; or to

include an equivalent program that is

approved by the FAA. In all cases, the initial

corrosion task for each airplane area must be

completed in accordance with the

compliance schedule specified in paragraph

(a)(1) of this AD. Corrosion task numbers C–

32–710–01 (nose landing gear) and C–32–

730–01 (main landing gear, left and right) are

not required to be accomplished as part of

this AD.

(1) Any operator complying with paragraph

(b) of this AD may use an alternative

recordkeeping method to that otherwise

required by 14 CFR part 91.417 or part

121.380 for the actions required by this AD,

provided it is approved by the FAA and is

included in a revision to the FAA-approved

maintenance inspection program.

(2) Subsequent to the accomplishment of

the initial corrosion task, extensions of R

intervals specified in the Document must be

approved by the FAA.

New Requirements of This AD

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of

this AD, within 5 years after the effective

date of this AD: Complete each of the

corrosion tasks at the times specified in

paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of

this AD in accordance with the procedures

specified in the Document. (Corrosion tasks

number C–32–710–01 (nose landing gear)

and C–32–730–01 (main landing gear, left

and right) are not required to be

accomplished as part of this AD.)

Note 9: A ‘‘corrosion task,’’ as defined in

Section 4 of the Document, includes

inspections; procedures for a corrective

action, including repairs, under identified

circumstances; application of corrosion

inhibitors; and other follow-on actions.

Note 10: Corrosion tasks completed in

accordance with the Document before the

effective date of this AD may be credited for

compliance with the initial corrosion task

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

Note 11: Where non-destructive inspection

(NDI) methods are employed, in accordance

with Section 4 of the Document, the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20763

standards and procedures used must be

acceptable to the Administrator in

accordance with FAR Section 43.13.

(1) Accomplish corrosion tasks C–55–320–

05 and C–55–330–05, per Revision D of the

Document. Thereafter, accomplish these

corrosion tasks at intervals not to exceed 5

years.

(2) Accomplish corrosion task C–57–540–

02, per Revision D of the Document.

Thereafter, accomplish this corrosion task at

intervals not to exceed 5 years.

(3) Accomplish corrosion task C–57–530–

04, per Revision D of the Document.

Thereafter, accomplish this corrosion task at

intervals not to exceed 5 years.

(4) Accomplish corrosion task C–53–310–

03, per Revision D of the Document.

Thereafter, accomplish this corrosion task at

intervals not to exceed 10 years.

Inspection of the Horizontal Stabilizer

(d) Within 15 years time-in-service or 5

years after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later: Conduct a free-play

inspection of the horizontal stabilizer pivot

bearing, disassemble ALL horizontal

stabilizer pivot bearing assemblies, and

perform a detailed visual inspection of the

pivot bearing assembly components to detect

corrosion, in accordance with the procedures

specified in Task C–55–350–01 of Revision D

of the Document. Thereafter, repeat this

inspection at intervals not to exceed 5 years.

Note 12: This paragraph does not require

inspection of any area that has not exceeded

the IA for that area.

Note 13: 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.’’

Acceptable Alternative Compliance With

Certain Requirements

(e) As an alternative to the requirements of

paragraph (c) and (d) of this AD: Within 90

days after the effective date of this AD, revise

the FAA-approved maintenance program to

incorporate and implement Revision D of

Lockheed Document Number LR 31889,

‘‘Corrosion and Protection Control Program,

TriStar L–1011’’, dated August 15, 1999.

Accommodating Scheduling Requirements

(f) To accommodate unanticipated

scheduling requirements of paragraph (c) or

(d) of this AD, it is acceptable for an R

interval to be increased by up to 10%, but not

to exceed 6 months. The FAA must be

informed, in writing, of any such extension

within 30 days after such adjustment of the

schedule.

(g)(1) If, during any inspection conducted

in accordance with this AD, Level 3

corrosion is determined to exist in any

airplane area, accomplish the actions

specified in either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or

(g)(1)(ii) of this AD within 7 days after such

determination. Information collection

requirements contained in this regulation

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

(i) Submit a report of that determination to

the FAA and complete the corrosion task in

the affected areas on all Model L–1011 series

airplanes in the operator’s fleet; or

(ii) Submit to the FAA for approval one of

the following:

(A) A proposed schedule for performing

the corrosion tasks in the affected areas on

the remaining Model L–1011 series airplanes

in the operator’s fleet, which is adequate to

ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is

detected in a timely manner, along with

substantiating data for that schedule; or

(B) Data substantiating that the Level 3

corrosion found is an isolated occurrence.

Note 14: Notwithstanding the provisions of

Section 1 of the Document, which would

permit corrosion that otherwise meets the

definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is

determined to be a potentially urgent

airworthiness concern requiring expeditious

action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator

finds that it ‘‘can be attributed to an event not

typical of the operator’s usage of other

airplanes in the same fleet,’’ this paragraph

requires that data substantiating any such

finding be submitted to the FAA for

approval.

(2) The FAA may impose schedules other

than those proposed, upon finding that such

changes are necessary to ensure that any

other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a

timely manner.

(3) Within the time schedule approved

under paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD,

accomplish the corrosion tasks in the affected

areas of the remaining Model L–1011 series

airplanes in the operators’ fleet.

(h) If, as a result of any inspection after an

initial inspection conducted in accordance

with the requirements of this AD, it is

determined that corrosion findings exceed

Level 1 in any area, within 60 days after such

determination, implement a means, approved

by the FAA, to reduce future findings of

corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better.

(i) Before any operator places into service

any airplane subject to the requirements of

this AD, a schedule for the accomplishment

of corrosion tasks required by this AD must

be established in accordance with paragraph

(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable:

(1) For airplanes previously maintained in

accordance with this AD, the first corrosion

task in each airplane area to be performed by

the new operator must be accomplished in

accordance with the previous operator’s

schedule or with the new operator’s

schedule, whichever would result in the

earlier accomplishment date for that task.

After each corrosion task has been performed

once, each subsequent task must be

performed in accordance with the new

operator’s schedule.

(2) For airplanes that have not been

previously maintained in accordance with

this AD, the first corrosion task for each

airplane area to be performed by the new

operator must be accomplished prior to

further flight or in accordance with a

schedule approved by the FAA.

(j) Reports of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion

must be submitted at least quarterly to

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems in

accordance with Section 5 of Revision 4 of

the Document.

Note 15: Reporting of Level 2 and Level 3

corrosion found as a result of any

opportunity inspections is highly desirable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(k) 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, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 16: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(l) 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 18,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10181 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–294–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 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 747 series airplanes, that

currently requires inspection of the aft

trunnion of the wing landing gear for

cracks and corrosion, and corrective

action, if necessary. This action would

require new repetitive inspections for

cracks or corrosion of the aft trunnion

outer cylinders of the wing landing gear,

follow-on actions, and repetitive