10238 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket 2000–

NM–212–AD.

Applicability: Model BAe.125 series 800A

(C–29A and U–125 military), 1000A, and

1000B airplanes, Hawker 800 (U–125A

military) airplanes; up to and including serial

number 258406; and Hawker 800XP series

airplanes, up to and including serial number

258483 and 1000 series airplanes; 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 (d) 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 the turbine air discharge duct

or water separator outlet duct from

disconnecting from the cold air unit turbine

or from the water separator, resulting in the

loss of air supply to maintain adequate cabin

pressure, accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) For Model BAe.125 series 800A (C–29A

and U–125 military) series airplanes, Hawker

800 (U–125A military) airplanes up to and

including serial number 258406, and Hawker

800XP series airplanes up to and including

serial number 258459: Remove the clamps,

bedding tapes, and rubber connecting sleeves

at the ends of the air turbine discharge duct

and the water separator, and replace the

clamps and rubber connecting sleeves with

new, improved components, in accordance

with the Accomplishment Instructions of

Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 21–3377,

Revision 1, dated July 2000, at the earliest of

the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1),

(a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD.

(1) Prior to any extended over-water

operation.

(2) Within the next 300 hours time-inservice after the effective date of this AD.

(3) Within the next six months after the

effective date of this AD.

Note 2: An extended over-water operation

is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as ‘‘ * * * an

operation over water at a horizontal distance

of more than 50 nautical miles from the

nearest shoreline. * * * ’’

(b) For Model Hawker 800XP series

airplanes having serial numbers 258460

through 258483, Model BAe.125 series

1000A/1000B airplanes, and Hawker 1000

series airplanes: Remove the aluminum

bedding strips from the air conditioning duct

sleeves attached to both ends of the turbine

air discharge duct and at the outlet end of the

water separator, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 21–3414, Revision 1,

dated July 2000, at the earliest of the times

specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and

(b)(3) of this AD.

(1) Prior to any extended over-water

operation.

(2) Within the next 300 hours time-inservice after the effective date of this AD.

(3) Within the next six months after the

effective date of this AD.

Actions Accomplished Previously and

Terminating Actions

(c) For certain airplanes, actions described

in the original issuance of Raytheon Service

Bulletin SB 21–3377, may have been

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD. On those airplanes, those actions are

not required to be repeated, as allowed by the

phrase, ‘‘unless accomplished previously.’’

However, any action described in Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 21–3377, Revision 1,

dated July 2000, or Raytheon Service Bulletin

SB 21–3414, Revision 1, dated July 2000, that

has not been accomplished on those

airplanes must be accomplished in

accordance with this AD. Accomplishment of

the actions specified in both Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 21–3377, Revision 1,

dated July 2000, and Raytheon Service

Bulletin SB 21–3414, Revision 1, dated July

2000, is considered to be terminating action

for the requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

7, 2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager,, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3675 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–45–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201,

–202, –301, –311, –314, and –315 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Bombardier Model DHC–8–102, –103,

–106, –201, –202, –301, –311, –314, and

–315 series airplanes. This proposal

would require revising the Bombardier

maintenance program to incorporate

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking in certain structures; and

corrective actions, if necessary. This

proposal is prompted by issuance of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10239

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to ensure that fatigue cracking

of certain principal structural elements

is detected and corrected; such fatigue

cracking could adversely affect the

structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

45–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9–

anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–

45–AD’’ in the subject line and need not

be submitted in triplicate. Comments

sent via the Internet as attached

electronic files must be formatted in

Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or

ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional

Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

New York Aircraft Certification Office,

10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley

Stream, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Serge Napoleon, Aerospace Engineer,

ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York

11581; telephone (516) 256–7512; fax

(516) 568–2716.

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 shall

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 action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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 comments

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–45–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–45–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Canada, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

all Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106,

–201, –202, –301, –311, –314, and –315

series airplanes. TCCA advises that

fatigue cracks have been found in the

outer closing angles at both front and

rear spar locations on the airplane

fuselage. The closing angles consist of

three segments (left, center, and right),

which are part of the structure that

connects the fuselage to the wing front

and rear spar webs located in the wing/

fuselage interface area. Reports received

by the FAA indicate that cracks were

detected in the closing angles on a

number of in-service Model DHC–8–102

and –103 series airplanes. Investigation

revealed that those cracks were

generated by metal fatigue due to cyclic

loading on the wing. Cracking of any

closing angles identified as principal

structural elements (PSE’s) could

adversely affect the structural integrity

of the airplanes.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued de

Havilland Temporary Revisions (TR’s)

to the DHC–8 Maintenance Program

Manuals, as listed in Table 1 of this AD.

The TR documents include inspection

procedures of the Airworthiness

Limitations List, Structural Inspection

Program Task No. 5310/31A, which

specify threshold and repetitive

inspections. Those documents are to be

incorporated into the DHC–8

Maintenance Program Manuals to revise

the Bombardier maintenance program.

TCCA has approved the TR

documents and has issued Canadian

airworthiness directive CF–2000–07,

dated March 3, 2000, to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Canada. The Canadian

airworthiness document includes

procedures for revising the Bombardier

maintenance program and detecting and

correcting fatigue cracking in the wing/

fuselage PSE closing angles.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in these documents is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in Canada and are type

certificated 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. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the TCCA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

determined that the DHC–8

Maintenance Program Manuals,

Airworthiness Limitations List (AWL),

must be revised by incorporating the

threshold and repetitive inspection

intervals of the AWL, Structural

Inspection Program Task No. 5310/31A,

specified by the TR documents, into the

Bombardier maintenance program. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

TCCA, 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.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

10240 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the TR documents and in this

proposed AD, except as discussed

below.

Difference Between Proposed Rule and

Canadian Airworthiness Directive

Operators should note that the

previously referenced Canadian

airworthiness directive specifies

contacting the manufacturer for the

disposition of any cracking found in any

closing angle identified as a principal

structural element. However, this

proposal would require the repair of any

such cracking or replacement of the

closing angles per a method approved

by the FAA.

Difference Between TR Document, and

Canadian Airworthiness Directive and

Proposed Rule

Operators should note that TR AWL–

71, dated September 3, 1999, lists Model

DHC–8–101 series airplanes in the table

of the Structural Inspection Program

included in that TR. However, that

airplane model is not cited in the

Canadian airworthiness directive or in

the applicability of the proposed rule. In

addition, the manufacturer has informed

the FAA that Model DHC–8–101 no

longer exists, as it was converted into

Model DHC–8–102 in 1986.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 195 Model

DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202,

–301, –311, –314, and –315 series

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to revise the

Bombardier maintenance program, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $11,700, or $60 per

airplane.

It would take approximately 5 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

structural inspections, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $58,500, or $300 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted. The cost

impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland,

Inc.): Docket 2000-NM–45–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–102, –103,

–106, –201, –202, –301, –311, –314, and –315

series airplanes, 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 (d) 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 ensure continued structural integrity of

these airplanes, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish the actions required

by either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD,

as applicable.

Maintenance Program Revisions

(1) Revise the Bombardier maintenance

program by incorporating the threshold and

repetitive inspection intervals specified in

the Temporary Revisions (TR’s) to the DHC–

8 Maintenance Program Manuals,

Airworthiness Limitations List (AWL),

Structural Inspection Program Task No.

5310/31A, into the Bombardier maintenance

program. The TR’s for specific airplane

models are listed in Table 1, as follows:

TABLE 1.—LIST OF TEMPORARY REVISIONS

Bombardier models TR number Date

DHC–8–102, –103, and –106 series airplanes ...................... TR AWL–71 September 3, 1999.

DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, –311, –314,

and –315 series airplanes.

TR AWL 2–15 September 3, 1999.

DHC–8–301, –311, –314, and –315 series airplanes ............ TR AWL 3–78 November 19, 1999.

Note 2: When the TR documents listed in

Table 1 in paragraph (a)(1) of thisAD are

incorporated into the general revisions of the

DHC–8 Maintenance Program Manual, you

may insert the general revisions into the

Bombardier maintenance program, provided

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10241

that the information contained in the general

revisions is identical to that specified in the

TR documents.

Structural Inspections

(2) For airplanes having closing angles that

are identified as principal structural

elements: Do the inspections specified by the

applicable TR listed in Table 1 of paragraph

(a) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 10,000

flight cycles at the time specified in

paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of

this AD, as applicable.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated less

than 8,000 flight cycles as of the effective

date of this AD: Do the threshold inspection

prior to the accomplishment of 10,000 flight

cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

8,000 flight cycles or more as of the effective

date of this AD: Do the threshold inspection

within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD.

(iii) For airplanes on which a 40,000 flight

cycle inspection specified by the applicable

TR listed in Table 1 of paragraph (a) of this

AD has been done, no cracks have been

found, and/or the closing angles have been

replaced: Start the 10,000 flight cycle

repetitive inspection at the time specified by

either paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) or (a)(2)(iii)(B)

of this AD, as applicable.

(A) From the date at which the 40,000

flight cycle inspection was done.

(B) From the date the closing angles were

replaced.

Corrective Actions

(b) If any crack is detected during any

structural inspection required by paragraph

(a)(2) of this AD, before further flight, repair

any such cracking or replace the closing

angles per a method approved by the

Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, or the Transport Canada

Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent). For a

repair or replacement method to be approved

by the Manager, New York ACO, as required

by this paragraph, the Manager’s approval

letter must specifically reference this AD.

(c) Except as provided by paragraph (d) of

this AD: After the actions specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals may be approved for the

structural elements specified by the

documents listed in Table 1 of paragraph

(a)(1) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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, New York

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2000–07, dated March 3, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

7, 2001.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3674 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–38–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Marathon

Power Technologies Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes

adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD) for certain nickel cadmium

batteries produced by Marathon Power

Technologies Company (Marathon). The

AD would require visually inspecting

screws installed on Marathon batteries

and replacing certain unairworthy

screws. This proposal is prompted by an

explosion of a G.E./Saft battery due to

failure of an unairworthy screw. Certain

Marathon batteries are a similar design

and could have the same unairworthy

screws. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent an

explosion of a battery, structural

damage, and subsequent loss of power

to the electrical systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–SW–

38–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:

Aaron Cornelius, Aviation Safety

Engineer, FAA, Special Certification

Office, Fort Worth, TX 76193–0190;

telephone (817) 222–4637, fax (817)

222–5785.

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 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. 2000–SW–

38–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. 2000–SW–38–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

This document proposes adopting a

new AD for certain nickel cadmium

batteries produced by Marathon. The

AD would require inspecting any

affected battery to verify that each #10–

32 socket head cap screw (screw) is part

number (P/N) 10488–020 with two rows

of straight knurls, which is the correct

screw hardware. This AD also requires,

before further flight, replacing any

screw found with only one knurl or no

knurl with a screw, P/N 10488–020,

with two knurls. This proposal is