Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21159

reduction of the intervals of the existing

AD does not adversely impact any U.S.

operators, since no airplanes on the U.S.

Register have yet reached those

accumulated flight-cycle or flight-hour

thresholds.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 75 airplanes

of U.S. registry that would be affected

by this proposed AD.

The inspection that is currently

required by AD 95–07–05, and retained

in this AD, takes approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish

(excluding 10 work hours for access and

close-up), at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Based on this figure, the

cost impact of the currently required

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $4,500, or $60 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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 39–9187 (60 FR

17990, April 10, 1995), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–164–AD.

Supersedes AD 95–07–05, Amendment

39–9187.

Applicability: Model A300–600 series

airplanes, certificated in any category, on

which Airbus Modification 10161 has not

been installed in production.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 fatigue cracks in the bolt holes

of the wing spars, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of a wing spar,

accomplish the following:

Ultrasonic Inspections

(a) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the bolt holes

inboard and outboard of rib 9 on the bottom

booms of the front and rear wing spars, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–57–6037, dated August 1, 1994, or

Revision 1, dated August 31, 1995, at the

applicable time specified in paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,800

flight cycles or 11,000 flight hours,

whichever occurs first.

(1) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 8842 (reference Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–6039) has not been

installed: Inspect at the earlier of the times

specified by paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii)

of this AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 17,000 total

flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles

after May 10, 1995 (the effective date of AD

95–07–05, amendment 39–9187), whichever

occurs later.

(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 39,000

total flight hours.

(2) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 8842 has been installed: Inspect

at the earlier of the times specified by

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Within 17,000 flight cycles after

accomplishment of Airbus Modification

8842, or within 2,000 flight cycles after May

10, 1995, whichever occurs later.

(ii) Within 39,000 flight hours after

accomplishment of Airbus Modification

8842.

Corrective Action

(b) If any crack is found, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–57–6037, dated

August 1, 1994, or Revision 1, dated August

31, 1995. Thereafter, perform the repetitive

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(d) 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 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 94–208–

169(B)R2, dated October 8, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14,

2000.

Charles D. Huber,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9899 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–81–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky

Aircraft-manufactured Model CH–54A

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

21160 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Sikorsky

Aircraft-manufactured Model CH–54A

helicopters, that currently requires

initial and recurring inspections and

rework or replacement, if necessary, of

the second stage lower planetary plate

(plate). This action would require the

same actions as the existing AD but

would add two additional type

certificate (TC) holders to the

applicability of the AD and change one

TC holder who has transferred

ownership of the affected helicopters

since the issuance of the existing AD.

This proposal is prompted by the

discovery that the applicability section

of the existing AD is incomplete. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

plate due to fatigue cracking which

could result in failure of the main

gearbox, failure of the drive system, 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–81–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also

send comments electronically to the

Rules Docket at the following address:

9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov. Comments

may be inspected at the Office of the

Regional Counsel between 9:00 a.m. and

3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Rotorcraft

Directorate, FAA, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0110, telephone (817) 222–5123,

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 mailed

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. 99–SW–81–

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, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 99–SW–81–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On March 25, 1999, the FAA issued

AD 99–07–16, Amendment 39–11102

(64 FR 15669, April 1, 1999), to require

initial and recurring inspections and

rework or replacement, if necessary, of

the plate. Cracks on the plate, part

number 6435–20229–102, initiate at and

radiate from the lightening holes in the

plate web due to fatigue. That action

was prompted by cracked plates that

were found during overhaul and

inspections. The requirements of that

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

plate due to fatigue cracking, which

could result in failure of the main

gearbox, failure of the drive system, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has discovered that two TC holders

were inadvertently omitted from the

applicability section and one TC holder

has transferred the TC for an affected

model helicopter.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Sikorsky Aircraftmanufactured Model CH–54A

helicopters of the same type design, the

proposed AD would supersede AD 99–

07–16 to require initial and recurring

inspections and rework or replacement,

if necessary, of the plate.

The FAA estimates that 12 helicopters

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 work hours per

helicopter to accomplish the proposed

inspections and 56 hours to remove and

replace the plate, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $8,000 per helicopter.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $142,080 to

replace the plates in the entire fleet.

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 39–11102 (64 FR

15669, April 1, 1999), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Siller Helicopters; Aviation International

Rotors, Inc. (Air, Inc); Columbia

Helicopters, Inc.; Chet Raspberry, Inc.

(CRI); Silver Bay Logging, Inc.: Docket

No. 99–SW–81–AD. Supersedes AD 99–

07–16, Amendment 39–11102, Docket

No. 97–SW–60–AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21161

Applicability: Model CH–54A helicopters

with lower planetary plate, part number (P/

N) 6435–20229–102, installed, certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For helicopters 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, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the second stage

lower planetary plate (plate), P/N 6435–

20229–102, due to fatigue cracking, which

could lead to failure of the main gearbox,

failure of the drive system, and subsequent

loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish

the following:

(a) On or before accumulating 1,300 hours

time-in-service (TIS), conduct a fluorescent

magnetic particle inspection of the plate, P/

N 6435–20229–102, in the circumferential

and longitudinal directions using the wet

continuous method. Pay particular attention

to the area around the 9 lightening holes.

(1) If any crack is discovered, replace the

plate with an airworthy plate prior to further

flight.

(2) If no crack is discovered, rework the

plate as follows:

(i) Locate the center of each 1.750 inchdiameter lightening hole and machine holes

0.015 to 0.020 oversize on a side (0.030 to

0.040 diameter oversize). Machined surface

roughness must not exceed 63 microinches

AA rating (see Figure 1).

(ii) Radius each hole 0.030 to 0.050 inches

on each edge as shown in Figure 1.

(iii) Mask the top and bottom surfaces of

the plate to expose 3.20 inch minimum width

circumferential band as shown in Figure 1.

(iv) Vapor blast or bead exposed surfaces

to remove protective finish. Use 220

aluminum oxide grit at a pressure of 80 to 90

pounds per square inch.

(v) Shot peen exposed surfaces and inside

and edges of lightening holes to 0.008–

0.012A intensity. Use cast steel shot, size

170; 200 percent coverage is required. Use

the tracer dye inspection method to ensure

the required coverage. Also, visually inspect

the shot peened surfaces for correct shot peen

coverage. Inspect the intensity of the shot by

performing an Almen strip height

measurement.

(vi) Clean reworked surfaces using acetone.

Touch up the reworked areas using Presto

Black or an equivalent touchup solution.

Ensure that the touchup solution is at a

temperature between 70 °F to 120 °F during

use. Keep the reworked surfaces wet with

touchup solution for 3 minutes to obtain a

uniform dark color. Rinse and dry the

reworked areas.

(vii) Polish the reworked surfaces with a

grade 00 or finer steel wool and polish with

a soft cloth. Coat the reworked surfaces with

preservative oil.

(viii) Identify the reworked plate by adding

‘‘TS–107’’ after the part number using a lowstress depth-controlled impression-stamp

with a full fillet depth of not more than 0.003

inch (see Figure 1).

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

21162 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21163

(b) For any plate, P/N 6435–20229–102, that has been reworked and identified with ‘‘TS–107,’’ on or before the accumulation

of 1,500 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 70 hours TIS, accomplish the following:

(1) Inspect the plate for a crack in the area around all nine lightening holes using a Borescope or equivalent inspection method

(see Figure 2).

(2) If a crack is found, replace the plate with an airworthy plate prior to further flight.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

21164 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(c) On or before the accumulation of 2,600

hours TIS, remove from service plates, P/N

6435–20229–102, reidentified as P/N 6435–

20229–102–TS–107 after rework. This AD

revises the airworthiness limitation section of

the maintenance manual by establishing a

retirement life of 2,600 hours TIS for the

main gearbox assembly second stage lower

planetary plate, P/N 6435–20229–102,

reidentified as P/N 6435–20229–102–TS–107

after rework.

(d) 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, Rotorcraft

Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may concur or comment and

then send it to the Manager, Rotorcraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Certification

Office.

(e) 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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 13,

2000.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9900 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

20 CFR Part 349

RIN 3220–AB25

Finality of Decisions Regarding

Unemployment and Sickness

Insurance

AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement

Board proposes to adopt regulations

pertaining to the finality of decisions

under the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act (Act). The present rules

dealing with finality of decisions under

that statute are incomplete and are

contained in a Board Order which is not

readily available to the public.

Therefore, the Board has determined

that the present rules should be revised

and published as a regulation.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address any comments

concerning this proposed rule to the

Secretary to the Board, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marguerite P. Dadabo, Senior Attorney,

Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751–

4945, TTD (312) 751–4701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Board’s rules and procedures regarding

the finality of decisions with respect to

benefits under the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act are

presently contained in a Board Order,

which is not readily available to the

public. Also the Board Order does not

contain any time limits on reopening.

The proposed regulation addresses the

finality of benefit decisions. This

proposed rule is similar to part 261 of

the Board’s regulations on reopening of

decisions under the Railroad Retirement

Act (20 CFR 261).

Proposed § 349.1 describes who may

open a final decision issued by the

agency. Proposed § 349.2 describes

when a final decision may be reopened.

A final decision may be reopened

within 12 months of the date of notice

of such decision. A final decision may

also be reopened within 4 years of the

date of notice if new and material

evidence is furnished or if the decision

was not reasonably consistent with the

evidence of record at the time the

decision was made. A decision may be

reopened at any time if the decision was

obtained by fraud or similar fault, or if

the decision was that the employee was

not a qualified employee and is later

found to be one because of a correction

in his or her record of compensation, or

if the decision was wholly or partially

unfavorable to a claimant, but only to

correct clerical error or an error that

appears on the face of the evidence that

was considered when the decision was

made. See proposed § 349.2(c).

Proposed § 349.3 provides that a

change of legal interpretation or

administrative ruling upon which a

decision was based is not a basis for

reopening.

Proposed § 349.4 provides that a

decision may be reopened after the 1

year and 4 year time limits set forth in

§ 349.2 if the Board had begun an

investigation within those time limits.

However, if the Board does not

diligently pursue the investigation, the

agency will not reopen the decision if

the decision was favorable to the

claimant.

Proposed §§ 349.5–349.7 are

procedural and provide that if a

decision is reopened, the claimant will

be given notice and will have a right to

reconsideration and/or a hearing. Any

hearing shall be conducted in

accordance with part 320 of the Board’s

regulations (20 CFR 320).

Finally, proposed § 349.8 provides

that the three-member Board has the

discretion to reopen or not to reopen

any decision under these regulations.

The Board, with the concurrence of

the Office of Management and Budget,

has determined that this is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866; therefore, no

regulatory impact analysis is required.

There are no information collections

associated with this rule.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 349

Railroad employees, Railroad

unemployment insurance.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Railroad Retirement

Board proposes to add a new part 349

to 20 CFR Chapter II as follows:

PART 349—FINALITY OF DECISIONS

REGARDING UNEMPLOYMENT AND

SICKNESS INSURANCE

Sec.

349.1 Reopening and revising decisions.

349.2 Conditions for reopening.

349.3 Change of legal interpretation or

administrative ruling.

349.4 Late completion of timely

investigation.

349.5 Notice of revised decision.

349.6 Effect of revised decision.

349.7 Time and place to request a review

and/or hearing on revised decision.

349.8 Discretion of the three-member Board

to reopen or not to reopen.

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 355 and 362(l).

§ 349.1 Reopening and revising decisions.

(a) This part sets forth the Board’s

rules governing finality of decisions

with respect to benefits under the

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.

After the expiration of the time limits

for review as set forth in part 320 of this

chapter, decisions may be reopened and

revised only under the conditions

described in this subpart, by the bureau,

office or entity that made the earlier

decision or by a bureau, office, or other

entity at a higher level which has the

claim properly before it. Whether a final

decision is reopened or not reopened is

solely within the discretion of the

Board.

(b) A final decision, as that term is

used in this part, means any decision

under § 320.5 of this chapter where the

time limit for review, as set forth in part

320 of this chapter or in the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act, has

expired.

(c) Reopening a final decision under

this part means a conscious

determination on the part of the agency

to reconsider an otherwise final