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

20928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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–80–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–80–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On June 16, 1999, the FAA issued AD

99–13–12, Amendment 39–11207 (64

FR 33747, June 24, 1999), to require at

specified time intervals visually

inspecting and preflight checking for

cracks around the horizontal stabilizer

opening. The AD also requires within 50

hours time-in-service (TIS) removing the

horizontal stabilizer supports and

visually inspecting the edges of the

tailboom skins around the horizontal

stabilizer openings for a crack using a

fluorescent-penetrant inspection. That

action was prompted by crack growth

analysis that indicated the need to

detect cracks before they propagate from

underneath the horizontal stabilizer

supports. The requirements of that AD

are intended to detect a crack in the

tailboom skin, prevent separation of the

tailboom from the helicopter, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, several

additional cracks in tailbooms were

found during mandatory inspections.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other BHTC Model 206L, L–

1, L–3, and L–4 helicopters of the same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 99–13–12 to require the

following:

• Inspecting the tailboom skins for a

crack;

• Replacing any cracked tailboom

with an airworthy modified tailboom;

• Modifying the tailboom within the

next 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) by

adding a doubler on the left side of the

tailboom in the area of the left

horizontal stabilizer, and

• Inspecting the modified tailboom

for a crack at intervals not to exceed

1200 hours TIS.

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.

Transport Canada, which is the

airworthiness authority for Canada, has

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on BHTC Model

206L, L–1, L–3, and L–4 helicopters.

Transport Canada advises that cracks

were found on the tailboom skins in the

area of the horizontal stabilizer.

BHTC has issued Alert Service

Bulletin 206L–99–115, Revision D,

dated January 26, 2000 (ASB), which

specifies modifying the tailboom by

adding a doubler on the left side of the

tailboom in the area of the left

horizontal stabilizer and inspecting the

modified tailboom for a crack at

intervals not to exceed 1200 hours of

operation. Transport Canada classified

Revision A of this ASB as mandatory

and issued AD CF–98–42R2, dated July

22, 1999. Transport Canada has

subsequently issued AD CF–1998–42R3,

dated February 17, 2000, which

extended the compliance date.

These helicopter models are

manufactured in Canada 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, Transport

Canada has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of Transport

Canada, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of these

type designs that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

The FAA estimates that 1546

helicopters of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 52 work

hours to inspect and replace the

tailbooms, if necessary, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $22,954 per helicopter.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $40,310,404

if all tailbooms must be replaced.

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 39–11207 (64 FR

33747, June 24, 1999), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Docket No.

99–SW–80–AD. Supersedes AD 99–13–

12, Amendment 39–11207, Docket No.

99–SW–23–AD.

Applicability: Model 206L, serial numbers

(S/N) 45004 through 45049, 45051 through

45153, and 46601 through 46617; Model

206L–1, S/N 45154 through 45790; Model

206L–3, S/N 51001 through 51612; and

Model 206L–4, S/N 52001 through 52163,

52165 through 52212, and 52214 through

52216, with tailboom, part number (P/N)

206–033–004-all dash numbers, 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 (g) 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20929

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect a crack in the tailboom skin and

to prevent separation of the tailboom from

the helicopter and subsequent loss of control

of the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Before further flight and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 10 hours time-inservice (TIS) until accomplishing the onetime fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI)

required by paragraph (c)(2) of this AD,

visually inspect for any crack in the shaded

areas shown in Figure 1. Use a 10-power or

higher magnifying glass. If a crack is found,

replace the tailboom with an airworthy

tailboom modified according to the

requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD

before further flight.

(b) At intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS,

visually check for any crack in the tailboom

as depicted by the shaded areas shown in

Figure 1. If any crack is found, replace the

tailboom with an airworthy tailboom

modified according to the requirements of

paragraph (e) of this AD before further flight.

The visual check may be performed by an

owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a

private pilot certificate and must be entered

into the aircraft records showing compliance

with paragraph (b) of this AD in accordance

with sections 43.11 and 91.417 (a)(2)(v) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

sections 43.11 and 91.417 (a)(2)(v)).

(c) Within 50 hours TIS:

(1) Remove all 4 horizontal stabilizer

supports, P/N 206–023–100-all dash

numbers, from the tailboom and the

horizontal stabilizer.

(2) Perform a one-time FPI of the edges of

the tailboom skins for any crack around the

left and right horizontal stabilizer openings

(Figure 1). Remove paint and primer to

inspect the edges and exterior skin surface in

the skin area at least 3⁄4 inch around the

edges of the horizontal stabilizer openings.

(3) If a crack is found, replace the tailboom

with an airworthy tailboom modified

according to the requirements of paragraph

(e) of this AD before further flight.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

20930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20931

(d) At intervals not to exceed 100 hours

TIS after completion of the FPI, accomplish

the following:

(1) Remove all 4 horizontal stabilizer

supports, P/N 206–023–100-all dash

numbers, from the tailboom and the

horizontal stabilizer.

(2) Visually inspect the entire edge of the

horizontal stabilizer opening on both sides of

the tailboom for any crack using a 10-power

or higher magnifying glass.

(3) If a crack is found, replace the tailboom

with an airworthy tailboom modified

according to the requirements of paragraph

(e) of this AD before further flight.

(e) Within the next 300 hours TIS, inspect

and modify the tailboom in accordance with

Parts I, II, and III of Bell Helicopter Textron

Canada (BHTC) Alert Service Bulletin 206L–

99–115, Revision D, dated January 26, 2000

(ASB). If a crack is found while

accomplishing Part I of the ASB, replace the

tailboom with an airworthy tailboom

modified as required by this paragraph before

further flight. After accomplishing the

modification, inspect the modified tailboom

at intervals not to exceed 1200 hours TIS in

accordance with Part IV of the ASB.

(f) Modifying and inspecting the tailboom

in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD

is terminating action for the requirements of

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this AD.

(g) 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, Regulations

Group, 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, Regulations Group.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(h) Special flight permits may be issued for

a one-time flight, not to exceed 5 hours TIS

and a maximum of one landing 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. The visual preflight

check required by paragraph (b) of this AD

must be accomplished prior to making a onetime flight.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Transport Canada (Canada) AD CF–98–

42R3, dated February 17, 2000.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 12,

2000.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9819 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–9]

Proposed Amendment to Class D and

Class E5 Airspace, Greenwood, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

amend Class D and Class E airspace at

Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood,

MS. An Area Navigation (RNAV)

Runway (RWY) 18 Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP) has been

developed for Greenwood, MS. As a

result, additional controlled airspace

extending upward from the surface and

extending upward from 700 feet above

Ground Level (AGL) is needed to

accommodate the SIAP.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ASO–9, Manager, Airspace Branch,

ASO–520, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel for

Southern Region, Room 550, 1701

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia

30337, telephone (404) 305–5586.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy B. Shelton, Manager, Airspace

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305–5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket and be submitted in

triplicate to the address listed above.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

on this action must submit with those

comments a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–9.’’ The

postcard will be date/time stamped and

returned to the commenter. All

communications received before the

specified closing date for comments will

be considered before taking action on

the proposed rule. The proposal

contained in this action may be changed

in light of the comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination in the Office of the

Regional Counsel for Southern Region,

Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,

College Park, Georgia 30337, both before

and after the closing date for comments.

A report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerned with this rulemaking will be

filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Manager,

Airspace Branch, ASO–520, Air Traffic

Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320. Communications must

identify the docket number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRMs should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

amend Class D and Class E5 airspace at

Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood,

MS. An RNAV RWY 18 SIAP has been

developed for Greenwood-Leflore

Airport. Additional controlled airspace

extending upward from the surface and

extending upward from 700 feet AGL is

needed to accommodate the SIAP. Class

D airspace designations are published in

Paragraph 5000, Class E4 airspace

designations are published in Paragraph

6004, and Class E5 airspace

designations are published in Paragraph

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated

September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class D and Class E5 airspace

designations listed in this document

would be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant