Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 64931

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Customer

Support, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes,

BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France;

telephone: 011 33 5 62 41 73 00; facsimile:

011 33 5 62 41 76 54; or the Product Support

Manager, SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE,

North Perry Airport, 7501 Pembroke Road,

Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:

(954) 894–1160; facsimile: (954) 964–4191.

You may examine these documents at FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(i) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

77–15–06, Amendment 39–2975.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French AD 2001–400(A), dated September

19, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 6, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–30953 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–SW–39–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD

Helicopters Inc. Model MD–900

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes

superseding an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for MD Helicopters Inc.

Model MD–900 helicopters. That AD

currently requires inspecting the main

rotor upper hub assembly drive plate

attachment flange (flange), determining

the torque of each flange nut (nut), and

if a crack is found, before further flight,

replacing the hub assembly. In addition

to the current requirements, this action

would require visually inspecting the

outer surface of the flange at specified

intervals and removing the drive plate

and visually inspecting the flange for a

crack at specified intervals and

replacing any unairworthy hub

assembly. This proposal is prompted by

reports that cracks starting at the drive

plate attachment holes were found in

the main rotor hub. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect a crack in the flange

and to prevent failure of the hub

assembly, loss of drive to the main rotor,

and subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–SW–

39–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may

also send comments electronically to

the Rules Docket at the following

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at the

Office of the Regional Counsel between

9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Mowery, Aviation Safety Engineer,

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Airframe Branch, 3960

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California

90712, telephone (562) 627–5322, 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

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, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this document 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 mailed

comments submitted in response to this

proposal must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2001–SW–

39–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. 2001–SW–39–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On December 17, 1999, the FAA

issued Emergency AD 99–26–20 to

require certain inspections of the hub

assembly for a crack, ensuring the

correct torque of each nut, and replacing

any cracked hub assembly with an

airworthy hub assembly. That action

was prompted by three occurrences of

cracked hub assemblies. The FAA

discovered errors after issuing

Emergency AD 99–26–20 and corrected

those errors by superseding that

Emergency AD with AD 2001–07–09,

Amendment 39–12175 (66 FR 19383,

April 16, 2001). The requirements of

that AD were intended to prevent failure

of the hub assembly, loss of drive to the

main rotor, and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has received reports indicating that

additional cracks have been found in

the main rotor hub emanating from the

drive plate attachment holes.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist

or develop on other MD Helicopters Inc.

Model MD–900 helicopters of the same

type design. Therefore, the proposed AD

would supersede AD 2001–07–09 to

contain the current requirements and to

also require the following:

• Visually inspect the outer surface of

the flange using a light and a 10x or

higher magnifying glass at intervals not

to exceed 100 hours TIS.

• Remove the drive plate and visually

inspect the flange for a crack at intervals

not to exceed 300 hours TIS.

• Replace any unairworthy hub

assembly before further flight.

The FAA estimates 28 helicopters of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 1 work hour per

helicopter to verify the torque, 3 work

hours per helicopter to perform the

inspection, and 10 work hours per

helicopter to replace the hub assembly,

64932 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

if necessary. The proposed actions

would require approximately 1 work

hour for a 100-hour TIS inspection, and

3 work hours for a 300-hour TIS

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts to

replace the hub assembly, if necessary,

would cost approximately $21,610 per

helicopter. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $159,770 for

the first year, assuming 5 hub assembly

replacements and assuming each

helicopter has 6 torque verifications, 6

inspections, two 100-hour inspections,

and one 300-hour inspection.

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 39–12175 (66 FR

19383, April 16, 2001), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

MD Helicopters, Inc.: Docket No. 2001–SW–

39–AD. Supersedes AD 2001–07–09,

Amendment 39–12175, Docket No.

2000–SW–15–AD.

Applicability: Model MD–900 helicopters,

with main rotor upper hub (hub) assembly,

part number (P/N) 900R2101006–105 or

900R2101006–107, 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 (e) 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 failure of the hub assembly,

loss of drive to the main rotor, and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,

accomplish the following:

(a) For the hub assembly, P/N

900R2101006–107,

(1) Within 6 hours time-in-service (TIS),

visually inspect the main rotor upper hub

assembly drive plate attach flange (flange) for

a crack and determine the torque of each

flange attach nut (nut) in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions, Part I,

paragraph 2.A., steps (1) through (7) of MD

Helicopter Inc. Service Bulletin SB 900–072,

dated December 10, 1999 (SB). If a crack is

found, before further flight, remove and

replace the hub assembly with an airworthy

hub assembly.

(2) Within 25 hours TIS, accomplish Part

II, of the Accomplishment Instructions,

paragraph 2.B., steps (1) through (6), (8), and

(9) of the SB. If a crack is found, before

further flight, remove and replace the hub

assembly with an airworthy hub assembly.

(b) For the hub assembly, P/N

900R2101006–105,

(1) Within 6 hours TIS, visually inspect the

flange for a crack and determine the torque

of each nut in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions, Part I,

paragraph 2.A., steps (1) through (7) of the

SB.

Note 2: The SB effectivity does not include

hub assembly, P/N 900R2101006–105;

however, certain provisions of this AD do

apply to this P/N.

(2) If any nut has less than 180 inch

pounds (20.34 Nm) of torque, before further

flight, remove the drive plate and fretting

buffer and inspect the flange in accordance

with the procedures in paragraph (b)(3) of

this AD. If a crack is detected, before further

flight, remove and replace the hub assembly

with an airworthy hub assembly. Reassemble

in accordance with the procedures in

paragraph (b)(3) of this AD.

(3) Within 25 hours TIS, remove the main

rotor drive plate assembly and anti-fretting

ring and visually inspect the main rotor hub

assembly as follows:

(i) If present, remove sealant from the drive

plate attachment to the hub assembly.

(ii) Mark the main rotor hub holes to

correspond with the drive plate hole

numbers (see Figure 1 of this AD).

(iii) Remove the main rotor drive plate

(drive plate) assembly and anti-fretting ring

(fretting buffer).

(iv) Inspect drive plate to rotor hub

assembly mating surfaces and the fretting

buffer for fretting.

(v) Using paint stripper (Consumable Item

List C313 or equivalent) and cleaning solvent

(C420 or equivalent), remove the paint from

the upper mating surface of the hub assembly

to enable an accurate visual inspection of

each drive plate attachment bolt hole (bolt

hole) area for cracking (Figure 1). Ensure the

paint stripper and solvent DO NOT

contaminate the upper bearing and upper

grease seal areas.

(vi) Using a 10 × or higher magnifying glass

and light, inspect the mating surface area and

the area around and inside the 10 boltholes

of the hub assembly for a crack. If a crack is

found, prior to further flight, replace the hub

assembly with an airworthy hub assembly.

(vii) If no crack is found, remove fretting

debris from the mating surfaces of the hub

assembly and the drive plate assembly,

reassemble, fillet seal (C211 or equivalent)

the surface of the drive plate to fretting buffer

to hub assembly mating lines, and seal all

exposed unpainted upper surfaces of the hub

assembly.

(viii) Reinstall the main rotor drive plate

using 10 new sets of replacement attachment

hardware. Torque the nuts to 160 inch

pounds above locknut locking/run-on torque

in the sequence shown (Figure 1). Record in

the rotorcraft logbook, or equivalent record,

the locknut locking/run-on torque for each

nut.

(ix) After the next flight, verify that the

torque on each of the 10 nuts is at least 160

inch pounds above the locknut locking/runon torque (minimum torque). Retorque as

required without loosening nuts.

(x) Thereafter, at intervals of at least 4

hours TIS, not to exceed 6 hours TIS, verify

that the torque of each of the 10 nuts is at

least the minimum torque. Retorque as

required without loosening nuts. This torque

verification is no longer required after the

torque on each of the 10 nuts has stabilized

at a torque value of 160 or more inch pounds

for each nut during two successive torque

verifications.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 64933

BILLING CODE 4913–10–C

(c) Within 100 hours TIS and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS,

visually inspect the outer surface of the

flange for a crack using a light and a 10 × or

higher magnifying glass. If a crack is

detected, replace the unairworthy hub

assembly with an airworthy hub assembly

before further flight.

(d) At intervals not to exceed 300 hours

TIS, remove the drive plate and visually

inspect the flange for a crack using a light

and a 10 × or higher magnifying glass. If a

crack is detected, replace the unairworthy

hub assembly with an airworthy hub

assembly before further flight.

(e) 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

(LAACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their

requests through an FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or

comment and then send it to the Manager,

LAACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the LAACO.

(f) If any nut torque is below minimum

torque and no hub assembly crack is found

before disassembly inspection, after retorque

64934 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

in accordance with the applicable

Maintenance Manual, a special flight permit

for one flight below 100 knots indicated

airspeed may be issued in accordance with

14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the

helicopter to a location where the

requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December

11, 2001.

David A. Downey,

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31042 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Attorney General

28 CFR Part 97

[OAG 100P; AG Order No. 2539–2001]

RIN 1105–AA77

Establishment of Minimum Safety and

Security Standards for Private

Companies That Transport Violent

Prisoners

AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General,

Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In the Interstate

Transportation of Dangerous Criminals

Act of 2000 (‘‘the Act’’), Congress

instructed the Department of Justice

(‘‘the Department’’) to promulgate

regulations providing minimum safety

and security standards for private

companies that transport violent

prisoners on behalf of State and local

jurisdictions. The Act provides that the

regulations shall not impose stricter

standards with respect to private

prisoner transport companies than are

applicable to certain Department

agencies that transport violent prisoners

under comparable circumstances. This

rule proposes minimum standards in

only those areas that Congress identified

in the Act.

DATES: Comment date: Comments must

be submitted on or before February 15,

2002.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments to Lizette Benedi, Office of

Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20530. Comments may

also be submitted by fax at (202) 353–

9164 and by electronic mail at

Jeannas.Act.Comments@usdoj.gov. To

ensure proper handling, please

reference ‘‘Jeanna’s Act’’ on your

correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

matters relating to this proposed rule,

please contact Lizette Benedi, (202)

514–3824.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

What Does This Rule Propose?

This rule proposes a limited number

of minimum safety and security

standards for private companies that

engage in the business of transporting

violent prisoners on behalf of State and

local jurisdictions. The proposed rule

requires private prisoner transport

companies to establish measures

designed to improve public safety by

preventing escapes of violent prisoners

and establishing appropriate safeguards

and procedures in the event of the

escape of a violent prisoner.

In addition, the rule proposes

minimum standards to ensure the safety

of violent prisoners during

transportation.

Why Is This Rule Needed?

In enacting the Interstate

Transportation of Dangerous Criminals

Act of 2000, Public Law 106–560 (114

Stat. 2784)(enacted December 21, 2000),

Congress found that State and local

jurisdictions are increasingly turning to

private companies to transport their

violent prisoners, and that escapes have

occurred. Congress determined that

minimum regulations for the private

prisoner transport industry were

necessary to provide protection against

risks to the public that are inherent in

the transportation of violent prisoners

and to assure the safety of those being

transported.

Does Compliance With These

Regulations Mean That Private Prisoner

Transport Companies Have Met All of

Their Legal Obligations?

No. These regulations implement the

Act and do not pre-empt any applicable

Federal, State, or local law that may

impose additional obligations on private

prisoner transport companies or

otherwise regulate the transportation of

violent prisoners. For example, all

Federal laws and regulations governing

interstate commerce (e.g., Federal laws

regulating the possession of weapons

and Federal Aviation Administration

rules and regulations governing travel

on commercial aircraft) will continue to

apply to private prisoner transport

companies.

Because these regulations implement

the Act, they affect only limited aspects

of a private prisoner transport

company’s operations. Therefore, these

regulations are not intended to be model

guidelines or a complete set of

standards for the private prisoner

transport industry. Private prisoner

transport companies should be aware

that compliance with these regulations

will mean only that they will not be

subject to the sanctions established in

the Act. The regulations are not meant

to prevent or discourage private

prisoner transport companies from

adopting additional or more stringent

standards relating to the transportation

of prisoners. Similarly, these regulations

do not limit the authority of Federal,

State, or local governments to impose

additional safety requirements or

impose a higher standard of care upon

private companies that transport violent

prisoners.

The purpose of these regulations is to

enhance public security and the safety

of both prisoners and guards during

transportation. The regulations are not

intended to create a defense to any civil

action, whether initiated by a unit of

government or any other party. Thus, for

example, compliance with these

regulations is not intended to and does

not establish a defense against an

allegation of negligence or breach of

contract. Regardless of whether a

contractual agreement establishes

minimum precautions, the companies

affected by these regulations will remain

subject to the standard of care that is

imposed by statute and common law

upon their activities (or other activities

of a similarly hazardous nature).

Overview of the Standards That This

Rule Proposes

This proposed rule would (1) require

that private prisoner transport

companies comply with minimum

standards for fingerprint-based criminal

background checks and preemployment

drug testing for potential employees; (2)

provide minimum standards for the

length and type of employee training;

and (3) establish restrictions on the

number of hours that transportation

employees can be on duty during a

given time period.

This rule also proposes that private

prisoner transport companies comply

with minimum standards for the use of

restraints while transporting violent

prisoners, and it establishes categories

of violent offenders required to wear

identifying clothing. Further, the rule

proposes a minimum guard-to-prisoner

ratio that must be observed while

transporting violent prisoners, and

proposes that private prisoner transport

companies comply with standards

regarding employee uniforms and

employee identification.

In addition, the rule proposes to

require private prisoner transport