Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54311 

surrounding Oyster Creek is of 

particular concern and requires 

extensive review and consideration. The 

petitioner states that traffic congestion is 

a growing concern in Ocean County as 

the infrastructure has not kept up with 

the population growth. Any large scale 

evacuation would likely be fraught with 

difficulties that would endanger lives. 

The Proposed Amendment 

The petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend its regulations to provide that a 

renewed license will be issued only if 

the plant operator demonstrates that the 

plant meets all criteria and requirements 

that would be applicable if the plant 

was being proposed de novo for initial 

construction. The petitioner also 

requests that § 54.29 be amended to 

provide that a renewed license may be 

issued by the Commission if the 

Commission finds that, upon a de novo 

review, the plant would be entitled to 

an initial operating license in 

accordance with all criteria applicable 

to initial operating licenses, as set out in 

the Commission’s regulations, including 

10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 

50, 51, 54, 55, 71, 100, and the 

appendices to these regulations. The 

petitioner requests that corresponding 

amendments be made to §§ 54.4, 54.19, 

54.21, and 54.23, and that § 54.30 be 

rescinded. The petitioner states that the 

criteria to be examined as part of a 

renewal application should include 

such factors as demographics, siting, 

emergency evacuation, site security, etc. 

The petitioner believes that this analysis 

should be performed in a manner that 

focuses the NRC’s attention on the 

critical plant-specific factors and 

conditions that have the greatest 

potential to affect public safety. 

Problems With the Current Process 

The petitioner believes that the 

process and criteria currently 

established in part 54 is seriously 

flawed. The petitioner states that the 

process for license renewal appears to 

be based on the theory that if the plant 

was originally licensed at the site, it is 

satisfactory to renew the license, barring 

any significant issues having to do with 

passive systems, structures, and 

components (SSCs). The petitioner 

states that the regulations for license 

renewal should be broadened and 

sufficiently comprehensive to cover all 

of the facets (including consideration of 

a worst-case scenario) that were 

considered for initial construction. 

Alternatively, the petitioner states that 

the license renewal process should 

examine all issues related to the plant 

and its original license, and then 

concentrate on any issues that are new 

to that plant or have changed since the 

original license was issued or that 

deviate from the original licensing basis. 

Key Renewal Issues 

The petitioner states that as Oyster 

Creek approaches the end of its 40 year 

operating license, it is necessary to 

answer important questions about the 

plant. The petitioner states that these 

questions are specific to the Oyster 

Creek plant and those who live near the 

plant deserve to have these questions 

reviewed. These questions include the 

following: 

• Could a new plant, designed and 

built to current standards, be licensed 

on the same site today? With the growth 

of Ocean County, which continues 

today, it is not certain that a nuclear 

plant would be permitted there today. 

• The design of Oyster Creek’s reactor 

has been prohibited for nearly four 

decades. Does that reactor conform to 

today’s standards? Would Oyster Creek 

receive a license today with that 

reactor? 

• In light of the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, would Oyster 

Creek’s storage system, which is located 

close to Route 9, be acceptable today? 

• Is the evacuation plan realistic in 

today’s Ocean County? Would the 

tremendous growth of Ocean County 

over the past four decades, and the 

failure of Ocean County’s infrastructure 

to keep pace with this growth, inhibit 

Oyster Creek’s likelihood of receiving an 

operating license? 

• Would a license be permitted in 

light of the public opposition to the 

plant? To date, 21 municipalities in 

Ocean County, as well as Congressmen 

Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Commissioner Bradley, and the Ocean 

County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 

have expressed either their concern for 

a thorough review and/or their 

opposition to the re-licensing. 

• In recent weeks, two studies 

released by the National Academy of 

Sciences have raised serious concerns 

about nuclear plant security and the 

health effects of low-level radiation 

upon people who reside near nuclear 

plants. Should these two scientific 

studies and other relevant scientific data 

regarding human health and antiterrorism be taken into account when 

considering Oyster Creek’s license 

renewal application? 

Conclusion 

The petitioner states that many key 

factors that affect nuclear plant 

licensing evolve over time: Population 

grows, local/state Federal regulations 

evolve, public awareness increases, 

technology improves, and plant 

economic values change. The petitioner 

believes that all of these factors should 

be examined and weighed in the formal 

10 CFR part 54 relicensing process. 

Accordingly, the petitioner requests that 

the NRC amend its regulations related to 

license renewal as described previously 

in the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed 

Amendment.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of September, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–18192 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22156; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Burkhardt 

Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO 

KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR 

Sailplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt 

GmbH & CO KG (Grob) Model G103 

TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. This proposed 

AD would require you to replace the 

elevator lever, part number (P/N) 103–

3521, with a part of improved design, 

P/N 103–3523. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

Germany. We are issuing this proposed 

AD to prevent cracks in the elevator 

lever, which could cause the elevator 

lever to fail. This failure could result in 

loss of control of the sailplane. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by October 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to 

submit comments on this proposed AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

54312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

To get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD, contact 

Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt 

GmbH & CO KG, Letenbachstrasse 9, D–

86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, 

Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 

998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. 

To view the comments to this 

proposed AD, go to http://dms.dot.gov. 

This is docket number FAA–2005–

22156; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–

43–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4130; facsimile: 

(816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

How do I comment on this proposed 

AD? We invite you to submit any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments regarding this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2005–22156; Directorate 

Identifier 2005-CE–43–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We will 

post all comments we receive, without 

change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including 

any personal information you provide. 

We will also post a report summarizing 

each substantive verbal contact with 

FAA personnel concerning this 

proposed rulemaking. Using the search 

function of our docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). This is 

docket number FAA–2005–22156; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD. 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Are there any specific portions of this 

proposed AD I should pay attention to? 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this proposed AD. If you contact us 

through a nonwritten communication 

and that contact relates to a substantive 

part of this proposed AD, we will 

summarize the contact and place the 

summary in the docket. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD in light of those comments 

and contacts. 

Docket Information 

Where can I go to view the docket 

information? You may view the AD 

docket that contains the proposal, any 

comments received, and any final 

disposition in person at the DMS Docket 

Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

(eastern time), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone 1–800-647–5227) is 

located on the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation NASSIF 

Building at the street address stated in 

ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. The comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

the DMS receives them. 

Discussion 

What events have caused this 

proposed AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt 

(LBA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Germany, recently notified 

FAA that an unsafe condition may exist 

on all Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR 

sailplanes. The LBA reports an instance 

of elevator level failure on one of the 

affected sailplanes. Cracks in the 

elevator lever caused the elevator lever 

to fail. 

The cracks are a result of inadequate 

design in the structural strength and 

durability. 

The elevator lever, part number (P/N) 

103–3521, is made from the same cast 

alloy as the airbrake over-center levers, 

P/Ns 103–4123 (left) and 103–4124 

(right), used on Grob Model G103 TWIN 

ASTIR sailplanes. Cracks found on these 

parts caused us to issue AD 97–24–10, 

which requires replacing P/Ns 103–4123 

and 103–4124 with parts of improved 

design, P/N 103B–4123 and 103B–4124. 

What is the potential impact if FAA 

took no action? If not prevented, cracks 

in the elevator lever could cause the 

elevator lever to fail. This failure could 

result in loss of control of the sailplane. 

Is there service information that 

applies to this subject? Grob has issued 

Service Bulletin No. MSB 315–67/1, 

dated December 20, 2004. 

What are the provisions of this service 

information? The service bulletin 

specifies replacing elevator lever, P/N 

103–3521 made of aluminum cast alloy, 

with P/N 103–3523 made from sheet 

aluminum. 

What action did the LBA take? The 

LBA classified this service bulletin as 

mandatory and issued German AD 

Number D–2004–292R1, dated February 

28, 2005, to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these sailplanes in 

Germany. 

Did the LBA inform the United States 

under the bilateral airworthiness 

agreement? These Grob Model G103 

TWIN ASTIR sailplanes are 

manufactured in Germany and are typecertificated 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. 

Under this bilateral airworthiness 

agreement, the LBA has kept us 

informed of the situation described 

above. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

What has FAA decided? We have 

examined the LBA’s findings, reviewed 

all available information, and 

determined that AD action is necessary 

for products of this type design that are 

certificated for operation in the United 

States. 

Since the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other Grob Model G103 TWIN ASTIR 

sailplanes of the same type design that 

are registered in the United States, we 

are proposing AD action to prevent 

cracks in the elevator lever, which could 

cause the elevator lever to fail. This 

failure could result in loss of control of 

the sailplane. 

What would this proposed AD 

require? This proposed AD would 

require you to replace P/N 103–3521, 

aluminum cast alloy elevator lever, with 

P/N 103–3523, sheet aluminum elevator 

lever. 

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 

39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 

2002, we published a new version of 14 

CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 

2002), which governs FAA’s AD system. 

This regulation now includes material 

that relates to altered products, special 

flight permits, and alternative methods 

of compliance. This material previously 

was included in each individual AD. 

Since this material is included in 14 

CFR part 39, we will not include it in 

future AD actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

How many sailplanes would this 

proposed AD impact? We estimate that 

this proposed AD affects 60 sailplanes 

in the U.S. registry. 

What would be the cost impact of this 

proposed AD on owners/operators of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54313 

affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do this proposed 

replacement: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost 

per sailplane 

Total cost 

on U.S. 

operators 

20 × $65 per hour = $1,300 ............................................................................................ $715 $2,015 $120,900 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

What authority does FAA have for 

issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 

of the United States Code specifies the 

FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this AD. 

Regulatory Findings 

Would this proposed AD impact 

various entities? We have determined 

that this proposed AD would not have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. 

Would this proposed AD involve a 

significant rule or regulatory action? For 

the reasons discussed above, I certify 

that this proposed AD: 

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. 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. 

We prepared a summary of the costs 

to comply with this proposed AD (and 

other information as included in the 

Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in 

the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 

this summary by sending a request to us 

at the address listed under ADDRESSES. 

Include ‘‘AD Docket FAA–2005–22156; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD’’

in your request. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Burkhardt Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH 

& CO KG: Docket No. FAA–2005–22156; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD. 

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit 

Comments on This Proposed AD? 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by 

October 14, 2005. 

What Other ADs Are Affected By This 

Action? 

(b) None. 

What Sailplanes Are Affected By This AD? 

(c) This AD affects Model G103 TWIN 

ASTIR sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are 

certificated in any category. 

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in 

This AD? 

(d) This AD is the result of mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

Germany. The actions specified in this AD 

are intended to prevent cracks in the elevator 

lever, which could cause the elevator lever to 

fail. This failure could result in loss of 

control of the sailplane. 

What Must I Do To Address This Problem? 

(e) To address this problem, you must do 

the following: 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) Check the sailplane service history records 

to determine if part number (P/N) 103–3521, 

aluminum cast alloy elevator lever, has been 

replaced with P/N 103–3523, sheet aluminum elevator lever.

Within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after the effective date of this AD.

The owner/operator holding at least a private 

pilot certificate as authorized by section 

43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 43.7) may check the sailplane service 

history records as specified in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this 

portion of the AD following section 43.9 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

43.9). 

(2) If you can positively determine by checking 

the sailplane service history records that the 

replacement specified in paragraph (e)(1) of 

this AD has been done, no further action is 

required.

Not applicable ................................................... Not applicable. 

54314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(3) If you cannot positively determined by 

checking the sailplane service history 

records that the replacement specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this AD has been done, 

replace P/N 103–3521 with P/N 103–3523.

Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.Following GROB Luft-und Raumfahrt Service 

Bulletin MSB 315–67/1 dated December 20, 

2004. 

(4) Do not install any P/N 103–3521, aluminum 

cast alloy elevator lever.

As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not applicable. 

May I Request an Alternative Method of 

Compliance? 

(f) You may request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD by following the procedures in 14 

CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, 

send your request to your principal 

inspector. The principal inspector may add 

comments and will send your request to the 

Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane 

Directorate, FAA. For information on any 

already approved alternative methods of 

compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4130; facsimile: 

(816) 329–4090. 

Is There Other Information That Relates to 

This Subject? 

(g) German AD Number D–2004–292R1, 

dated February 28, 2005, also addresses the 

subject of this AD. 

May I Get Copies of the Documents 

Referenced in This AD? 

(h) To get copies of the documents 

referenced in this AD, contact Burkhardt 

Grob Luft-Und Raumfahrt GmbH & CO KG, 

Letenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 TussenhausenMattsies, Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 

998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, 

DC, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

This is docket number FAA–2005–22156; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–43–AD. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 8, 2005. 

David R. Showers, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18205 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22401; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–93–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Hamburger 

Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Model HFB 320 

HANSA Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Hamburger Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. 

Model HFB 320 HANSA airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require revising the 

Limitations Section of the Airplane 

Flight Manual to prohibit operation of 

the airplane past its designed life limit 

for the primary structure, which is 

15,000 flight hours or 15,000 fight 

cycles, whichever occurs first; and to 

require contacting the FAA for approval 

of analysis that the airplane is safe to 

continue operation beyond the designed 

life limit. This proposed AD is 

prompted by a report that all airplanes 

in operation might have met or 

exceeded the designed life limit for the 

primary structure. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent continued operation of an 

airplane beyond its designed life limit 

for the primary structure, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• By fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus 

Deutschland G.m.b.H, Customer Service 

HFB 320, Postfach 95 01 09, D–21111 

Hamburg, Germany. 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. 

This docket number is FAA–2005–

22401; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2004–NM–93–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2005–22401; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NM–93–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments submitted by the 

closing date and may amend the 

proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets,