Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13269

provide the information needed to

support reviews of plant performance,

to be conducted on a quarterly basis,

with the results posted on the NRC’s

Internet site.

The petitioner believes that

performance indicators are an essential

element of the reactor oversight program

and that their omission would degrade

the ability of the reactor oversight

program to assess nuclear plant

performance levels. According to the

petitioner, the current NRC staff may be

able to compensate for missing

performance indicators from one or two

nuclear plants by conducting additional

inspections. Also, the petitioner states

that NRC inspectors could be expected

to revert to broader inspection

procedures that they used as recently as

last spring. However, the petitioner

states that as time passes and familiarity

with the old ways fades, that capability

also diminishes. In addition, the

petitioner asserts that it is uncertain that

the NRC staff has, or will continue to

have, sufficient inspection staff to

compensate for the eventuality where an

owner operating numerous reactors

suddenly decides not to submit the

performance indicator information for

any plant. The petitioner believes that

the suggested amendment would satisfy

the objective of maintaining safety by

ensuring that the NRC continues to

receive the vital information that it

needs to assess nuclear plant

performance levels.

Enhancing Public Confidence—The

petitioner believes that public

confidence only can be enhanced by

requiring plant owners to submit

information that is needed for the NRC

to conduct its oversight program. As an

analogy, the petitioner offers that, just as

the Internal Revenue Service does not

rely on the voluntary submission of tax

returns by American taxpayers, the NRC

should not rely on voluntary submission

of vital safety information by nuclear

plant owners.

Improving the Effectiveness and

Efficiency of NRC Processes—The

petitioner indicates that the substantive

changes made by the NRC within its

reactor oversight program were

predicated on the assumption that

nuclear plant owners would submit the

performance indicator information. For

example, the NRC inspection program

was scaled back to only confirmatory

checks in areas covered by performance

indicators. The petitioner believes that

any effectiveness and efficiency gains

realized from the reactor oversight

program would be sacrificed if one or

more plant owners opted not to submit

performance indicator information and

that NRC’s effectiveness would be

impaired by having to inspect what had

been covered by the performance

indicator.

Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory

Burden—The petitioner states that all

nuclear plant owners in the U.S. today

must consider the submission of the

performance indicator information as a

necessary regulatory burden; otherwise

they would not have participated in the

voluntary program that has been in

place since April 2000. The petitioner

believes that if the performance

indicator information showed that

safety levels declined, that plant owners

must not have the option of viewing the

submission as an unnecessary

regulatory burden to avoid NRC scrutiny

of the problem areas. The petitioner

states that by merely codifying current

industry practice, no unnecessary

regulatory burden is introduced.

Conclusion

The petitioner believes that the NRC

must require performance indicator

information from all nuclear power

plant owners if the NRC is to meet its

stated objectives of maintaining safety,

enhancing public confidence, improving

the effectiveness and efficiency of its

processes, and reducing regulatory

burden. The petitioner notes that the

recent example of the vehicle tire safety

issue emphasizes the need for definitive

requirements for submission of safety

information to Federal regulators. The

petitioner states that Congressional

hearings revealed that the tire company

had information on potential safety

problems that it delayed transmitting to

the Federal regulator. The petitioner

further states that the tire company was

not aggressive in responding to requests

by the Federal regulator for information.

The petitioner concludes that the NRC

must revise its regulations to prevent

similar abuses.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–5215 Filed 3–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–50–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Kaman

Aerospace Corporation Model K–1200

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) for Kaman Aerospace

Corporation (Kaman) Model K–1200

helicopters. The AD would require

reducing the life limit of the rotor shaft

and teeter pin assembly, and

establishing a life limit for the flap

clevis. This proposal is prompted by the

discovery of cracks in parts that were

returned to the manufacturer. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

rotor shaft, teeter pin assembly, or flap

clevis due to fatigue cracks, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 4, 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–

50–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:

Richard Noll, Aviation Safety Engineer,

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12

New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781)

238–7160, fax (781) 238–7199.

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

13270 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 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. 2000–SW–

50–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–50–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

This document proposes the adoption

of a new airworthiness directive (AD)

for Kaman Model K–1200 helicopters.

The AD would require:

• Reducing the life limit for the rotor

shaft from 10,000 hours time-in-service

(TIS) to 3,750 TIS;

• Reducing the life limit of the teeter

pin assembly from 10,000 hours TIS to

550 hours TIS; and

• Establishing a life limit of the flap

clevis of 640 hours TIS.

This proposal is prompted by the

discovery of cracks in parts that were

returned to the manufacturer. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

rotor shaft, teeter pin assembly, or flap

clevis due to fatigue cracks, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Kaman Model K–1200

helicopters of the same type design, the

proposed AD would require:

• Reducing the life limit of the rotor

shaft, part number (P/N) K974112–001,

–003, –005, –007, –009, or –101, from

10,000 hours TIS to 3,750 hours TIS;

• Reducing the life limit of the teeter

pin assembly, P/N K910005–007 or

–009, from 10,000 hours to 550 hours

TIS; and

• Establishing a life limit of the flap

clevis, P/N K911049–011, –017, –019, or

–021, of 640 hours TIS.

The FAA estimates that 9 helicopters

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take 0.25

hour per helicopter to accomplish the

proposed changes to the Limitations

section of the applicable maintenance

manual, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $135, plus an increase

in hourly operating costs of

approximately $13 for each affected

helicopter.

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 a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

Kaman Aerospace Corporation: Docket No.

2000–SW–50–AD.

Applicability: Model K–1200 helicopters,

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 (c) 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 within 25 hours

time-in-service, unless accomplished

previously.

To prevent failure of the rotor shaft, teeter

pin assembly, or flap clevis due to fatigue

cracks, and subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Remove any rotor shaft, part number

(P/N) K974112–001, –003, –005, –007, –009,

or –101, that has 3,750 or more hours timein-service (TIS) and replace it with an

airworthy rotor shaft. Remove any teeter pin

assembly, P/N K910005–007 or –009, that has

550 or more hours TIS and replace it with an

airworthy teeter pin assembly. Remove any

flap clevis, P/N K911049–011, –017, –019, or

–021, that has 640 or more hours TIS and

replace it with an airworthy flap clevis.

(b) This AD revises the Limitations section

of the maintenance manual by reducing the

life limit of the rotor shaft, P/N K974112–

001, 003, –005, –007, –009, and –001, to

3,740 hours TIS; reducing the life limit of the

teeter pin assembly, P/N K910005–007 and

–009, to 550 hours TIS; and establishing a life

limit for the flap clevis, P/N K911049–011,

–017, –019, and –021, of 640 hours TIS.

(c) 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, Boston

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Operators

shall submit their requests through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

concur or comment and then send it to the

Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Boston Aircraft

Certification Office.

(d) 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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13271

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February

21, 2001.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5170 Filed 3–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–82–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft LTD Models PC–12 and PC–12/

45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

99–17–08, which currently requires

modifying the generator 2 excitation by

removing certain diodes and installing a

new 5-amp circuit breaker and

suppression filter found on certain

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models

PC–12 and PC–12/45 airplanes. The

Federal Aviation Administration has

determined that the A250 voltage spike

suppression filter in the modification kit

can cause the circuit breaker 235 to trip

because of overload. In extreme

circumstances, this can lead to

overheating of wiring. The proposed AD

would require modifying the generator 2

excitation by removing certain diodes,

installing a new 5-amp circuit breaker

and new suppression filter requirement

in accordance with revised procedures.

The proposed AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Switzerland.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent damage to

electrical components if generator 2 is

not switched off before engine

shutdown and it overheats. This could

result in loss of electrical power to

certain critical airplane components.

DATES: The FAA must receive any

comments on this proposed rule by

April 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of

comments to FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–CE–82–

AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. Comments may be

inspected at this location between 8

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

Friday, except holidays.

You may get service information that

applies to the proposed AD from Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 65 09; facsimile:

+41 41 610 33 51. You may also read

this information at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on this proposed

AD? We invite your comments on the

proposed rule. You may send whatever

written data, views, or arguments you

choose. You need to include the rule’s

docket number and send your

comments in triplicate to the address

mentioned under the caption

ADDRESSES. We will consider all

comments received by the closing date

mentioned above, before acting on the

proposed rule. We may change the

proposals contained in this notice

because of the comments received.

Are there any specific portions of the

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule that might call for a

need to change the proposed rule. You

may read all comments we receive. We

will file a report in the Rules Docket

that summarizes each FAA contact with

the public that concerns the substantive

parts of this proposal.

The FAA is reexamining the writing

style we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on the ease

of understanding this document, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.faa.gov/language/.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want us to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 99–CE–82–AD.’’ We will date stamp

and mail the postcard back to you.

Discussion

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? The FAA issued AD 99–17–08,

Amendment 39–11256 (64 FR 45149,

August 19, 1999), against Pilatus models

PC–12 and PC–12/45 airplanes, to

prevent damage to electrical

components if generator 2 is not

switched off before engine shutdown

and it overheats. This could result in

loss of electrical power to certain

critical airplane components of Pilatus

Models PC–12 and PC–12/45 airplanes.

AD 99–17–08 requires that you do the

following on the affected airplanes:

—modify the generator 2 excitation by

removing certain diodes; and

—install a new 5-amp circuit breaker

and suppression filter.

AD 99–17–08 was the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Switzerland.

What has happened since AD 99–17–

08 to begin this action? The Federal

Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which

is the airworthiness authority for

Switzerland, recently notified FAA of

the need to change AD 99–17–08. The

FOCA reports that after installation of

Pilatus Service Bulletin SB 21–012 and

turning on electrical power on one of

the affected airplanes, the circuit

breaker CB 235 tripped.

Investigation revealed that the

suppression filter (A250) (part number

524.52.12.358) was shorted. The

suppression diode, installed in the filter

was shorted and the wrong type. The

manufacturer’s A250 voltage spike

suppression filter is inadequate and

must be replaced with a new A250

voltage spike suppression filter.

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Pilatus issued:

—Service Bulletin No 24–012, dated

February 19, 1999; and

—Service Bulletin No 24–014, dated

October 27, 1999.

What are the provisions of these

service bulletins? These service

bulletins include procedures for:

—modifying the generator 2 excitation

by removing certain diodes and

installing a new 5-amp circuit breaker

and suppression filter;

—removing the A250 voltage spike

suppression filter; and

—installing the new A250 voltage spike

suppression filter.

What action did the FOCA take? The

FOCA classified both service bulletins

as mandatory and issued Swiss AD HB

99–143, dated February 19, 1999, and

AD HB 99–542, dated October 29, 1999,

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in Switzerland.