Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33019

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 11,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15208 Filed 6–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–SW–02–AD; Amendment

39–12272; AD 2001–01–52 R1]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada Model 407

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; rescission.

SUMMARY: This amendment rescinds an

existing airworthiness directive (AD)

that applies to Bell Helicopter Textron

Canada (BHTC) Model 407 helicopters

and currently requires, before further

flight, imposing never exceed velocity

(Vne) restrictions on the helicopter. The

requirements of that AD were intended

to prevent tail rotor blades from striking

the tailboom, separation of the aft

section of the tailboom with the tail

rotor gearbox and vertical fin, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter. That AD was prompted by

an accident suspected of being the result

of a tail rotor strike caused by high

airspeed. Since the issuance of that AD,

accident investigation findings have not

substantiated that a tail rotor strike

caused by high airspeed was the cause

of the accident. This amendment

rescinds that AD. This amendment is

prompted by the FAA’s determination

that the Vne restrictions and

accompanying actions imposed by that

AD do not correct an unsafe condition.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2001.

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: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by rescinding AD 2001–01–52,

Amendment 39–12100 (66 FR 9031,

February 6, 2001), which applies to

BHTC Model 407 helicopters, was

published in the Federal Register on

April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18884). AD 2001–

01–52 requires, before further flight,

reducing the maximum approved Vne to

100 KIAS if an airspeed-actuated pedal

stop is not installed or to 110 KIAS if

an airspeed-actuated pedal stop is

installed; inserting a copy of the AD into

the RFM; installing a temporary placard

on the flight instrument panel to

indicate the reduced Vne limit; and

installing a new redline Vne limit at

either 100 or 110 KIAS, as specified in

the AD, on all airspeed indicators. That

AD was prompted by an accident in

which a helicopter was destroyed on

water impact following an in-flight

occurrence at approximately 140 KIAS.

One of the possible contributing factors

was an in-flight tail rotor strike to the

tailboom. As a precautionary measure,

pending further investigation into the

accident, and after reviewing the AD

issued by the certifying authority for the

helicopter (Transport Canada), the FAA

issued AD 2001–01–52 to reduce the

Vne.

Further investigations conducted

since the issuance of AD 2001–01–52

did not substantiate that the accident

resulted from a tail rotor strike caused

by high airspeed. Information provided

by BHTC and reviewed by the FAA

supports these findings. Transport

Canada has issued a superseding AD,

CF–2001–01R1, dated April 3, 2001,

stating that the Vne restriction is no

longer necessary. Transport Canada

advises that no data has emerged from

the investigation to confirm that the

accident was initiated by a tail rotor

strike. While the possibility of a tail

rotor strike has not been completely

discounted as the cause of the accident,

a tail rotor strike occurrence while

operating within the approved flight

envelope has been discounted. The

ongoing accident investigation is

currently considering other factors.

After reviewing the available data, the

FAA has determined that it is

appropriate to rescind AD 2001–01–52

to prevent operators from performing an

unnecessary action. The Vne restrictions

and accompanying actions imposed by

that AD do not correct an unsafe

condition. The ongoing investigation

found no information to indicate that

the accident was caused by a tail rotor

strike during flight at high airspeed. The

cause of the accident precipitating AD

2001–01–52 remains under

investigation.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposal or the FAA’s determination of

the cost to the public. The FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 200

helicopters of U.S. registry are affected

by AD 2001–01–52. The actions that are

currently required by that AD take

approximately 3 work hours per

helicopter to manufacture and install

each airspeed limitation placard. The

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts cost approximately $10

per helicopter. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $38,000 to

install an airspeed limitation placard on

all helicopters in the U.S. fleet.

However, adopting this rescission

eliminates those costs.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the FAA,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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.

33020 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Amendment 39–12100 (66 FR

9031, February 6, 2001).

AD 2001–01–52 R1 Bell Helicopter Textron

Canada: Amendment 39–12272. Docket

No. 2001–SW–02–AD. Rescinds AD

2001–01–52, Amendment 39–12100.

Applicability: Model 407 helicopters,

certificated in any category.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 8,

2001.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15445 Filed 6–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY–230–FOR]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with

exceptions, an amendment to the

Kentucky regulatory program (Kentucky

program) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). Kentucky is proposing

revisions to the Kentucky Revised

Statutes (KRS) pertaining to ownership

and control, easement of necessity for

the limited purpose of abatement of

violations, and roads above highwalls.

This rule addresses only the easement of

necessity provision. The remaining

provisions will be addressed in a future

rulemaking (KY–225–FOR).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Field Office

Director, Lexington Field Office, 2675

Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky

40503. Telephone: (859) 260–8400.

Email: bkovacic@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky Program

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Kentucky

Program

On May 18, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Kentucky program. You can find

background information on the

Kentucky program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval in the May 18, 1982 Federal

Register (47 FR 21404). Subsequent

actions concerning the Kentucky

program and previous amendments are

codified at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.12,

917.13, 917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 9, 2000

(Administrative Record No. KY–1473),

Kentucky submitted a proposed

amendment to its approved permanent

regulatory program. House Bill (HB) 502

continues in effect the current

administrative regulations on ownership

and control. HB 599 creates a new

section of KRS Chapter 350. HB 792

amends KRS 350.445(3). Only the

provisions of HB 599 will be addressed

in this rule.

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the May 31,

2000, Federal Register (65 FR 34625),

invited public comment, and provided

an opportunity for a public hearing on

the adequacy of the proposed

amendment. The public comment

period closed on June 30, 2000.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, according to SMCRA and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are our findings concerning

the proposed amendment. Any revisions

that we do not specifically discuss

below concern nonsubstantive wording

changes or revised cross-references and

paragraph notations to reflect

organizational changes that result from

this amendment.

House Bill 599. Subsection (1)

recognizes an easement of necessity on

behalf of the permittee or operator for

the limited purpose of abating a

violation, with certain conditions. The

permittee or operator must have been

issued a notice or order directing

abatement of the violation on the basis

of an imminent danger to health and

safety of the public or significant

imminent environmental harm. The

notice or order must require access to

property for which the permittee or

operator does not have legal right of

entry and the landowner or legal

occupant has refused access.

Subsection (2) establishes conditions

under which the Cabinet terminates a

notice of noncompliance or cessation

order for a violation, other than a

violation described in Subsection (1), if

the party responsible for abatement of

the violation has been denied access to

the land necessary to allow abatement.

Those conditions, in general terms, are:

(a) Prior to terminating a notice of

noncompliance or cessation order, and

within 30 days of a request by a

permittee to terminate a violation based

on lack of success, the Cabinet shall

verify the denial of access and advise

the surface owners and legal occupants

of the consequences of refusing to allow

access to the property; and (b) the

Cabinet shall explain the consequences

by certified mail and shall make a good

faith effort to notify all owners of

interest and legal occupants of the

consequences of the refusal to allow

access.

Subsection (3) prohibits the Cabinet

from terminating a notice or order if it

determines that the denial of the access

has been procured through collusion

between the permittee and the

landowner who is refusing access. It

defines ‘‘collusion’’ and provides that

any act of collusion will subject the

permittee to certain penalties.

Subsection (4) prohibits termination

of a notice or order under this section

if there is any common ownership and

control between the permittee or

operator and the landowner or legal

occupant. It also prohibits termination

where there is any other legal

relationship between the permittee or

operator and the landowner or legal

occupant, except where a court has

determined that the legal relationship

does not provide for a right of access.

Subsection (5) requires the Cabinet to

direct abatement measures to be taken

by the permittee to prevent damage to

lands for which access has not been

denied.

Subsection (6) provides that

termination of a notice or order under

this Section shall not affect the

assessment of a civil penalty for the

violation, and provides that nothing in

this Section affects a person’s right for

damages or injunctive relief.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

843.11(f) and 843.12(e) specify,

respectively, that the exclusive grounds

for termination of cessation orders and

notices of violation are the abatement of

all conditions, practices, or violations

listed in the order or notice. A permittee

is responsible for the reclamation of its

surface coal mining operation, including

abatement of all violations, regardless of

impediments that may be raised by

recalcitrant surface owners. See Elk

Valley Mining Company v. OSM, Case

No. NX6–65–R (March 31, 1988) (‘‘It

would be contrary to the purposes of the

Act for the Applicant to be able to

shield itself from enforcement of the Act

by his failure to reach a lease agreement

with a private party.’’) See, also, Wilson