Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30345

proposed actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $340,800, or $4,800 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

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 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

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:

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket

96–NM–143–AD.

Applicability: All Model G–159 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 (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 detect and correct corrosion of the skin

of certain structural assemblies, which could

cause local instability failures of the wing

under certain load conditions and result in

degradation of wing capability; accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 9 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a non-destructive test

(NDT) to detect corrosion of the skins of the

aileron rudder, rudder trim tab, flap,

evaluator, fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and

horizontal stabilizer; in accordance with

Gulfstream Aerospace GI Customer Bulletin

No. 337, dated December 10, 1993.

(1) If no corrosion is detected, repeat the

NDT inspections thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 18 months.

(2) If any corrosion is detected that meets

the criteria of ‘‘light’’ corrosion, as defined by

Gulfstream Tool No. ST905–377, repeat the

NDT inspections of that component

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12

months.

(3) If any corrosion is detected that meets

the criteria of ‘‘moderate’’ corrosion, as

defined by Gulfstream Tool No. ST905–377,

repeat the NDT inspection of that component

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9 months.

(4) If any corrosion is detected that meets

the criteria of ‘‘severe’’ corrosion, as defined

by Gulfstream Tool No. ST905–377, prior to

further flight, replace the component with a

serviceable component, in accordance with

the Gulfstream I Maintenance Manual.

(b) Within 9 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a non-destructive test

(NDT) to detect corrosion of the lower wing

plank splices, in accordance with Gulfstream

Aerospace GI Customer Bulletin No. 337,

dated December 10, 1993.

(1) If no corrosion is detected, repeat the

NDT inspection at intervals not to exceed 18

months.

(2) If any corrosion is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with the

customer bulletin.

Reporting Requirement

(c) Within 10 days of performing the

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD: Submit a report of inspection findings

(both positive and negative) to Gulfstream

Aerospace Corporation; Attention: Technical

Operations—Mail Station D–10; P.O. Box

2206; Savannah, Georgia 31402–0080.

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.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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, Wichita

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, Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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 airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 29,

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14145 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–290–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,

and –50 Series Airplanes; and C–9

(Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes; and C–9 (military) airplanes.

30346 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

This proposal would require replacing

the transformer ballast assembly in the

first officer’s console with a new,

improved ballast assembly. This action

is necessary to prevent overheating of

the ballast transformers due to aging

fluorescent tubes that cause a higher

power demand on the ballast

transformers, which could result in

smoke in the cockpit. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

290–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

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–

anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 99–NM–290–

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

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Data and Service

Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elvin Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5344;

fax (562) 627–5210.

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 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 99–NM–290–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–290–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

As part of its practice of re-examining

all aspects of the service experience of

a particular aircraft whenever an

accident occurs, the FAA has become

aware of instances of smoke emanating

from the ballast transformers of the

cockpit fluorescent lights on McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes.

Investigation revealed that aging

fluorescent tubes result in a higher

power demand on the ballast

transformers, which causes the

transformer to overheat. This condition,

if not corrected, could result in smoke

in the cockpit.

Other Related Rulemaking

The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing

and operators of McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50

series airplanes, and C–9 (military)

airplanes, is continuing to review all

aspects of the service history of those

airplanes to identify potential unsafe

conditions and to take appropriate

corrective actions. This proposed

airworthiness directive (AD) is one of a

series of actions identified during that

process. The process is continuing and

the FAA may consider additional

rulemaking actions as further results of

the review become available.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC9–33A114, dated November

1, 1999. The service bulletin describes

procedures for replacing the transformer

ballast assembly in the first officer’s

console with a new, improved ballast

assembly. Accomplishment of the action

specified in the service bulletin 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

require accomplishment of the action

specified in the service bulletin

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 836 Model

DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes, and C–9 (military) airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 543

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost between $1,379 and $1,860

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be between

$781,377 and $1,042,560, or $1,439 or

$1,920 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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30347

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

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99–NM–290–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes; and C–9

(military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9–33A114,

dated November 1, 1999; 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 (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 overheating of the ballast

transformers due to aging fluorescent tubes

that cause a higher power demand on the

ballast transformers, which could result in

smoke in the cockpit, accomplish the

following:

Replacement

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of the AD, replace the transformer

ballast assembly from the first officer’s

console with a new, improved transformer

ballast assembly, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC9–33A114, dated November 1, 1999.

Spares

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

person shall install a transformer assembly,

part number BA170–1, –11, –21, or ‘‘MOD.B,

on any airplane.

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, Los

Angeles 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,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 29,

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14144 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[SPATS No. ND–042–FOR; North Dakota

State Program Amendment XXXI]

Permanent Program and Abandoned

Mine Land Reclamation Plan

Submissions; North Dakota

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing on proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of a proposed

amendment to the North Dakota

regulatory program (hereinafter, the

‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

North Dakota proposes very minor

revisions to its statute concerning

surface coal mining and reclamation

operations such as changing the name of

the ‘‘Superintendent of the State

Historical Board’’ to the ‘‘Director of the

State Historical Society,’’ and changing

some of the language in the statute to

make it plainer and easier to

understand.

DATES: We will accept written

comments on this amendment until 4

p.m., m.d.t. July 6, 2001. If requested,

we will hold a public hearing on the

amendment on July 2, 2001. We will

accept requests to speak until 4 p.m.,

m.d.t. on June 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail or hand

deliver written comments and requests

to speak at the hearing to Guy Padgett

at the address listed below.

You may review copies of the North

Dakota program, this amendment, a

listing of any scheduled public hearings,

and all written comments received in

response to this document at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. You may receive

one free copy of the amendment by

contacting OSM’s Casper Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Casper Field Office

Director

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

100 East ‘‘B’’ Street

Federal Building, Room 2128

Casper, WY 82601–1918

James R. Deutsch, Director

Reclamation Division

North Dakota Public Service

Commission