65666 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 11, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31298 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–57–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company 150, 172, 175, 180,

182, 185, 206, 210, and 336 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that would have applied to certain

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 150,

172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 210, and

336 series airplanes. The proposed AD

would have affected those airplanes

equipped with 0513166 series plastic

control wheels. The proposed AD would

have required you to repetitively inspect

these wheels for cracks, conduct a pull

test on these wheels, and replace any

control wheels that are cracked or that

do not pass the pull test. Replacement

of the control wheels would have been

with ones that were FAA-approved and

were not 0513166 series plastic control

wheels. After evaluating all the

comments received on the proposal, we

have determined that the cracking or

failure of the control wheel is not a

safety hazard and that a special

airworthiness information bulletin

would be more appropriate. There have

been only four service difficulty reports

made in the FAA database; however,

there were neither associated accidents

nor incidents. Most of the affected

airplanes have dual control wheels with

each wheel having two handles for

redundancy, which would provide an

alternative means to control the airplane

should actual failure occur. For these

reasons, we are withdrawing the NPRM.

ADDRESSES: You may look at

information related to this action at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–CE–57–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eual

Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,

Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–

4102; facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What Action Has FAA Taken to Date?

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would have applied to certain Cessna

Aircraft Company (Cessna) 150, 172,

175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 210, and 336

series airplanes. The proposal was

published in the Federal Register as an

NPRM on December 29, 2000 (65 FR

82954). The comment period was

extended from February 2, 2001, to

April 4, 2001 on January 22, 2001 (66

FR 6499). The proposed rule would

have required you to:

—Repetitively inspect and pull test the

0513166 series control wheels; and

—Replace any control wheels that fail

the inspection or pull test.

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

The FAA invited interested persons to

participate in the making of this

amendment. The comments, in most

part, reflect the public’s desire to have

FAA withdraw the proposal and instead

issue a special airworthiness

information bulletin or general aviation

alert. The reason for this is because

there are only four service difficulty

reports of control wheel cracks in the

FAA database and most of the affected

airplanes have dual control wheels with

each wheel having two handles for

redundancy, which would provide an

alternative means to control the airplane

should actual failure occur.

The FAA’s Determination

What Is FAA’s Final Determination on

This Issue?

After re-evaluating all information

related to this subject, we have

determined that:

—The unsafe condition is appropriately

addressed through a special

airworthiness bulletin (No. CE–01–

41);

—Because there are only four service

difficulty reports of control wheel

cracks in the FAA database regarding

this subject on the affected airplanes,

there is no need for the NPRM, Docket

No. 98–CE–57–AD; and

—We should withdraw the NPRM.

Withdrawal of this action does not

prevent us from taking or commit us to

any future action.

Regulatory Impact

Does This Proposed AD Withdrawal

Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory

Action?

Since this action only withdraws a

proposed AD, it is not an AD and,

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act,or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, FAA withdraws the

notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket

No. 98–CE–57–AD, published in the

Federal Register on December 29, 2000

(65 FR 82954) with the comment period

extended from February 2, 2001, to

April 4, 2001 on January 22, 2001 (66

FR 6499).

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 11, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31299 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

15 CFR Parts 738 and 742

[Docket No. 011019257–1257–01]

RIN 0694–AC48

Removal of Licensing Exemption for

Exports and Reexports of Missile

Technology-Controlled Items Destined

to Canada

AGENCY: Bureau of Export

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Export

Administration (BXA) is reviewing the

existing license exemption contained

within the Export Administration

Regulations (EAR) for the export of

missile technology (MT)-controlled

items to Canada, because of the

recommendations contained in the

Government Accounting Office Report

entitled: ‘‘Export Controls: Regulatory