21146 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(ii) In the evaluation of all for-cause test

results;

(iii) Before making return-to-duty

recommendations subsequent to a worker’s

removal from duty in accordance with

§ 26.27(b) or the licensee’s fitness-for-duty

policy;

(iv) Before an individual being granted

unescorted access when a statement from an

individual obtained pursuant to § 26.27(a)

shows a history of substance abuse or record

of prior fitness-for-duty violations; and

(v) If a history of substance abuse is

otherwise identified.

(2)(i) If the licensed physician or MRO

determines that there is neither conclusive

evidence of a policy violation nor a

significant basis for concern that the

individual may be impaired while on duty,

then he or she shall report the result as

negative.

(ii) If the licensed physician or MRO

determines that there is not conclusive

evidence of a policy violation but that there

is a significant basis for concern that the

individual may be impaired while on duty,

then he or she shall report the result as not

representing an FFD violation but as a

condition under which the individual may

not be able to safely and competently

perform duties. Because these results should

not constitute a violation of the licensee’s

policy or the NRC rule, punitive actions

under the rule should not be taken based

upon the results. However, the licensed

physician, MRO, or the licensee management

personnel who are empowered to take

appropriate actions shall initiate actions to

ensure that any possible limiting condition

does not represent a threat to workplace or

public health and safety. When deemed

appropriate, the matter may also be referred

to the EAP.

(h) Breath alcohol content indicating a

blood alcohol concentration between 0.02

percent and 0.04 percent must be reported to

the MRO for review and evaluation. The

MRO shall determine whether it is

appropriate to extrapolate back in time to

estimate the highest BAC that the worker had

while on duty with the assumption that no

alcohol was consumed while on duty. In

these cases, the MRO will calculate a range

of possible peak BACs that could have

existed while the worker was on duty and

make a determination whether the result is

a confirmed positive test for alcohol. A

similar extrapolation process must be

conducted for the results of an analysis of a

blood specimen for alcohol, as provided by

§ 26.24(h).

(i) ‘‘Result scientifically insufficient.’’

Additionally, the Medical Review Officer,

based on review of inspection reports, quality

control data, multiple specimens, and other

pertinent results, may determine that the

result is scientifically insufficient for further

action and declare the test specimen

negative. In this situation, the Medical

Review Officer may request reanalysis of the

original specimen before making this

decision. The Medical Review Officer may

request that reanalysis be performed by the

same laboratory, or that an aliquot of the

original specimen be sent for reanalysis to an

alternate laboratory which is certified in

accordance with the HHS Guidelines. The

licensee’s testing facility and the HHScertified laboratory shall assist in this review

process as requested by the Medical Review

Officer by making available the individual(s)

responsible for day-to-day management of the

licensee’s test facility, of the HHS-certified

laboratory or other individuals who are

forensic toxicologists or who have equivalent

forensic experience in urine drug testing, to

provide specific consultation as required by

the licensee. The licensee shall maintain for

a minimum of three years, records that

summarize any negative findings based on

scientific insufficiency and shall make them

available to the NRC on request, but shall not

include any personal identifying information

in such reports.

Appendix A [Amended]

30. Section 3.2 of Appendix A is removed.

31. In section 4.1 of Appendix A to part 26

is revised to read as follows:

4.1 Use of HHS-Certified Laboratories

(a) Licensees subject to this part and their

contractors shall use only laboratories

certified under the HHS ‘‘Mandatory

Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug

Testing Programs’’, Subpart C—‘‘Certification

of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug

Testing for Federal Agencies,’’ (53 FR 11970,

11986–11989) dated April 11, 1988, and

subsequent amendments thereto for

screening and confirmatory testing except for

screening tests at a licensee’s testing facility

conducted in accordance with § 26.24(d).

Information concerning the current

certification status of laboratories is available

from: The Division of Workplace Programs,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, Room 13–A–54, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

(b) Licensees or their contractors may use

only HHS-certified laboratories that agree to

follow the same rigorous chemical testing,

quality control, and chain-of-custody

procedures when testing for more stringent

cut-off levels as may be specified by licensees

for the classes of drugs identified in this part,

for analysis of blood specimens for alcohol,

and for any other substances included in

licensees’ drug panels. Because the HHScertification process does not apply to these

matters, the defensibility of such tests

depends on appropriate measures by

licensees to assure the reported test results

are valid.

(c) All contracts related to this part

between licensees and their contractors and

HHS-certified laboratories must require

implementation of all obligations of this

appendix applicable to HHS-certified

laboratories.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of April, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–11046 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–16–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Britten-Norman Ltd. (formerly BrittenNorman) BN–2A and BN2A MK. 111

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

75–26–15, which currently requires

repetitively inspecting the aileron mass

balance clamp unit attachment for

looseness on Pilatus Britten-Norman

Ltd. (Pilatus Britten-Norman) BN–2A

and BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes, and

modifying the aileron and mass balance

clamp unit if any looseness is found.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s

policy on aging commuter-class aircraft

is to eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of certain repetitive

short-interval inspections when

improved parts or modifications are

available. The proposed action would

retain the repetitive inspections

required by AD 75–26–15, and would

require modifying the aileron and mass

balance unit (at a certain time) as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. The actions specified in the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

failure of the aileron mass balance

attachment, which could result in loss

of control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the

proposal in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–CE–16–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.Comments may be inspected at

this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, holidays

excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Pilatus Britten-Norman Limited,

Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United

Kingdom PO35 5PR; telephone 44–1983

872511; facsimile 44–1983 873246. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Dorenda Baker, Program Officer,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21147

Brussels Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East

Office, c/o American Embassy, B–1000

Brussels, Belgium; telephone (32 2)

508.2715; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; or

Mr. Jeffrey Morfitt, Project Officer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;

facsimile (816) 426–2169.

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 that

summarizes 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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 96–CE–16–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 96–CE–16–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

The FAA has determined that reliance

on critical repetitive inspections on

aging commuter-class airplanes carries

an unnecessary safety risk when a

design change exists that could

eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of those critical

inspections. In determining what

inspections are critical, the FAA

considers (1) the safety consequences if

the known problem is not detected

during the inspection; (2) the

probability of the problem not being

detected during the inspection; (3)

whether the inspection area is difficult

to access; and (4) the possibility of

damage to an adjacent structure as a

result of the problem.

These factors have led the FAA to

establish an aging commuter-class

aircraft policy that requires

incorporating a known design change

when it could replace a critical

repetitive inspection. With this policy

in mind, the FAA conducted a review

of existing AD’s that apply to Pilatus

Britten-Norman BN–2A and BN2A MK.

111 series airplanes. Assisting the FAA

in this review were (1) Pilatus BrittenNorman; (2) the Regional Airlines

Association (RAA); and (3) several

operators of the affected airplanes.

From this review, the FAA has

identified AD 75–26–15, Amendment

39–2464, as one that should be

superseded with a new AD that would

require incorporating a modification

that would eliminate the need for shortinterval and critical repetitive

inspections. AD 75–26–15 currently

requires repetitively inspecting the

attachment of the aileron mass balance

clamp unit for looseness on Pilatus

Britten-Norman BN–2A and BN2A MK.

111 series airplanes, and modifying any

aileron and mass balance clamp unit

where looseness is found.

Accomplishment of the inspections and

modification required by AD 75–26–15

is in accordance with Britten-Norman

Service Bulletin No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue

1, dated October 24, 1973.

Based on its aging commuter-class

aircraft policy and after reviewing all

available information, the FAA has

determined that AD action should be

taken to eliminate the repetitive shortinterval inspections required by AD 75–

26–15, and to prevent failure of the

aileron mass balance attachment, which

could result in loss of control of the

airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Pilatus Britten-Norman

BN–2A and BN2A MK. 111 series

airplanes of the same type design, the

proposed AD would supersede AD75–

26–15 with a new AD that would (1)

retain the requirements of repetitively

inspecting the aileron mass balance

clamp unit attachment for looseness and

modifying any aileron and mass balance

unit immediately where looseness is

found; and (2) require modifying the

aileron and mass balance unit (at a

certain time) if not previously required.

The modification would terminate the

need for the repetitive inspections of the

aileron and mass balance unit

attachment. Accomplishment of the

proposed actions would continue to be

in accordance with Britten-Norman

Service Bulletin No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue

1, dated October 24, 1973.

The FAA estimates that 109 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that would take

approximately 10 workhours

(inspection: 1 workhour; modification: 9

workhours) per airplane to accomplish

the proposed action, and that the

average labor rate is approximately $60

an hour. Parts cost approximately $160

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$82,840. This figure only takes into

account the cost of the proposed initial

inspection and proposed inspectionterminating modification and does not

take into account the cost of the

proposed repetitive inspections. The

FAA has no way of determining the

number of repetitive inspections each of

the owners/operators would incur over

the life of the affected airplanes.

This figure is also based on the

assumption that none of the affected

airplane owners/operators have

accomplished the proposed

modification. This action would

eliminate the repetitive inspections

required by AD 75–26–15. The FAA has

no way of determining the operational

levels of each individual operator of the

affected airplanes, and subsequently

cannot determine the repetitive

inspection costs that would be

eliminated by the proposed action. The

FAA estimates these costs to be

substantial over the long term.

Pilatus Britten-Norman does not know

the number of parts distributed to the

affected airplane owners/operators.

Numerous sets of parts were sent out to

the owners/operators of the affected

airplanes, but over the years Pilatus

Britten-Norman has not retained these

records. The company believes that

most of the affected airplanes already

have the proposed inspectionterminating modification incorporated.

The intent of the FAA’s aging

commuter airplane program is to ensure

safe operation of commuter-class

airplanes that are in commercial service

without adversely impacting private

operators. Of the approximately 109

airplanes in the U.S. registry that would

be affected by the proposed AD, the

FAA has determined that approximately

25 percent are operated in scheduled

passenger service by 11 different

operators. A significant number of the

remaining 75percent are operated in
21148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

other forms of air transportation such as

air cargo and air taxi.

The proposed action would allow

1,000 hours TIS after the effective date

of the AD before mandatory

accomplishment of the design

modification. The average utilization of

the fleet for those airplanes in

commercial commuter service is

approximately 25 to 50 hours TIS per

week. Based on these figures, operators

of commuter-class airplanes involved in

commercial operation would have to

accomplish the proposed modification

within 5 to 10 calendar months after the

proposed AD would become effective.

For private owners, who typically

operate between 100 to 200 hours TIS

per year, this would allow 5 to 10 years

before the proposed modification would

be mandatory. The time it would take

those in air cargo/air taxi operations

before the proposed action would be

mandatory is unknown because of the

wide variation between each airplane

used in this service. The exact numbers

would fall somewhere between the

average for commuter operators and

private operators.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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) 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 has been placed 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 Airworthiness Directive (AD)

75–26–15, Amendment 39–2464, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd.: Docket No. 96–

CE–16–AD. Supersedes AD 75–26–15,

Amendment 39–2464.

Applicability: Models BN–2, BN–2A, BN–

2A–6, BN–2A–8, BN–2A–2, BN–2A–9, BN–

2A–3, BN–2A–20, BN–2A–21, BN–2A–26,

BN–2A–27, BN2A MK. 111, BN2A MK. 111–

2, and BN2A MK. 111–3 airplanes (all serial

numbers), 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 (f) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent failure of the aileron mass

balance attachment, which could result in

loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the first flight of each day after

the effective date of this AD (see NOTE 2 of

this AD), inspect the attachment of the

aileron mass balance clamp unit for

looseness in accordance with the

‘‘Inspection’’ section of Britten-Norman

Service Bulletin (SB) No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue

1, dated October 24, 1973.

Note 2: The ‘‘prior to first flight of each day

after the effective date of this AD’’

compliance time required by paragraph (a) of

this AD is exactly the same as required by AD

75–26–15 (superseded by this AD).

(b) If a loose attachment of the aileron mass

balance clamp unit is found during any of the

inspections required by this AD, prior to

further flight, modify the aileron and mass

balance clamp unit in accordance with the

‘‘b. Sequence of Operations’’ section of

Britten-Norman SB No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue 1,

dated October 24, 1973.

(c) Within the next 1,000 hours time-inservice after the effective date of this AD,

unless already accomplished as specified and

required by paragraph (b) of this AD, modify

the aileron and mass balance clamp unit in

accordance with the ‘‘b. Sequence of

Operations’’ section of Britten-Norman SB

No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue 1, dated October 24,

1973.

(d) Accomplishing the modification

required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD

is considered terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.

(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.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), Europe, Africa, Middle East

office, FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000

Brussels, Belgium. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Brussels ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels ACO.

Note 4: Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 75–26–15

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

(g) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Pilatus BrittenNorman Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight,

United Kingdom PO35 5PR; or may examine

this document at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 75–

26–15, Amendment 39–2464.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 2,

1996.

Bobby W. Sexton,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11533 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U