Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49207 

encryption, and wherever possible, 

comments should include the electronic 

signature of the author. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document marked 

‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination as to 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from 

public sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligations 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting persons which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

after which such information might no 

longer be considered confidential; and 

(7) why disclosure of the information 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which the Department of 

Energy Seeks Comments 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this proposed determination. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments from interested 

parties on the following issues related to 

the proposed determination for natural 

draft commercial packaged boilers: 

• Definition of ‘‘natural draft 

commercial packaged boiler’’; 

• Whether classifying natural draft 

commercial packaged boilers as covered 

equipment is necessary to carry out the 

purposes of Part A–1 of EPCA; and 

• Availability or lack of availability of 

technologies for improving the energy 

efficiency of natural draft commercial 

packaged boilers. 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit, in writing and by September 12, 

2013, comments and information on 

matters addressed in this notice and on 

other matters relevant to a 

determination for natural draft 

commercial packaged boilers. DOE is 

also interested in receiving views 

concerning other issues relevant to 

amending the test procedure and energy 

conservation standards for natural draft 

commercial packaged boilers. 

After the expiration of the period for 

submitting written statements, DOE will 

consider all comments and additional 

information that is obtained from 

interested parties or through further 

analyses, and it will prepare a final 

determination. If DOE confirms in the 

final determination that natural draft 

commercial packaged boilers qualify as 

covered equipment, DOE may consider 

amendments to the test procedure and 

energy conservation standards for 

natural draft commercial packaged 

boilers as part of the upcoming 

rulemaking for commercial packaged 

boilers generally. Members of the public 

will be given an opportunity to submit 

written and oral comments on any 

proposed amended test procedure and 

standards. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19560 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0725; Directorate 

Identifier 98–CE–01–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Maule 

Aerospace Technology, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise 

airworthiness directive (AD) 98–15–18 

that applies to certain Maule Aerospace 

Technology, Inc. M–4, M–5, M–6, M–7, 

MT–7, MX–7, MXT–7, and M–8 

airplanes that are equipped with rear 

wing lift struts, part number (P/N) 

2079E, and/or front wing lift struts, P/ 

N 2080E. AD 98–15–18 currently 

requires repetitively inspecting certain 

wing lift struts for internal corrosion 

and replacing of any wing lift strut 

where corrosion is found. Since we 

issued AD 98–15–18, we have been 

informed by the manufacturer that 

Model MXT–7–420 airplanes are no 

longer in existence, are no longer type 

certificated, and should be removed 

from the Applicability section. We have 

also been informed that paragraph (b) in 

AD 98–15–18 is being misinterpreted 

and is causing confusion. This proposed 

AD would remove Model MXT–7–420 

airplanes from the Applicability section 

and clarify the intent of the language 

currently in paragraph (b) of AD 98–15– 

18. This proposed AD would retain all 

other requirements of the existing AD. 

We are proposing this AD to correct the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 27, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Maule Air, 

Inc., 2099 GA Hwy 133 South, Moultrie, 

Georgia 31768; telephone: (229) 985– 

2045; fax: (229) 890–2402; Internet: 

http://www.mauleairinc.com/pdf/ 

servicebulletins/ 

service_bulletin_11_old.pdf. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49208 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory ‘‘Keith’’ Noles, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; 

phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474– 

5606; email: gregory.noles@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0725; Directorate Identifier 

98–CE–01–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On July 14, 1998, we issued AD 98– 

15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 

39018, July 21, 1998), and later reissued 

with a correction on September 18, 1998 

(63 FR 51520, September 28, 1998), 

(‘‘AD 98–15–18’’), for certain Maule 

Aerospace Technology Corp. (currently 

Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc.) M– 

4, M–5, M–6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–7 

series airplanes and Models MT–7–235 

and M–8–235 airplanes equipped with 

original equipment (OEM) manufacture 

Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. rear 

wing lift struts, part number (P/N) 

2079E, and/or front wing lift struts, P/ 

N 2080E (or FAA-approved equivalent 

part numbers). AD 98–15–18 

superseded AD 95–26–18, Amendment 

39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996), 

(‘‘AD 95–26–18’’), and requires 

repetitively inspecting the wing lift 

struts for corrosion and replacing any 

wing lift strut where corrosion is found 

with either an OEM airworthy part or a 

new sealed wing lift strut. Installing a 

new sealed wing lift strut is a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspection and replacement 

requirements. 

AD 95–26–18 required a one-time 

inspection of certain wing lift struts for 

internal corrosion and replacement of 

any wing lift strut where corrosion was 

found. AD 95–26–18 resulted from 

reports of an accident where the wing 

separated from one of the affected 

airplanes. 

AD 98–15–18 resulted from a need to 

require the inspections to be repetitive 

and to provide the option of using 

ultrasonic procedures to accomplish the 

inspection requirements. 

We issued both ADs to detect and 

correct corrosion on the front and rear 

wing lift struts, which could cause the 

wing lift strut to fail. This failure could 

result in the wing separating from the 

airplane. 

Actions Since AD 98–15–18 Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 98–15–18, we 

have been informed by the manufacturer 

that only one Model MXT–7–420 

airplane was built and was later 

dismantled and removed from the type 

certificate data sheet (TCDS). 

We have also been informed that the 

language in paragraph (b) of AD 98–15– 

18 has been misinterpreted and has 

caused confusion. Paragraph (b) of AD 

98–15–18 currently states, ‘‘If holes are 

drilled into the sealed wing lift strut 

assemblies installed as specified in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this AD in order to 

attach cuffs, door clips, or other 

hardware, inspect the wing lift struts at 

intervals not to exceed 24 calendar 

months using the procedures specified 

in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2), 

including all subparagraphs, of this 

AD.’’ 

Our intention was to specify that if a 

sealed wing lift strut assembly is 

installed as a replacement part, the 

repetitive inspection requirement is 

terminated only if the seal is never 

improperly broken. We also intended to 

specify that if the seal is improperly 

broken, then that wing lift strut becomes 

subject to continued repetitive 

inspections. 

We did not intend to promote drilling 

holes into or otherwise unsealing a 

sealed strut. Properly unsealing and 

resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still 

considered a terminating action for the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

this proposed AD as long as all 

appropriate regulations and issues are 

considered, such as static strength, 

fatigue, material effects, immediate and 

long-term (internal and external) 

corrosion protection, resealing methods, 

etc. Current FAA regulations in 14 CFR 

43.13(b) specify that maintenance 

performed will result in the part’s 

condition to be at least equal to its 

original or properly altered condition. 

There are provisions in this proposed 

AD for approving such actions as an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC). 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 98–15–18 and 

would remove Model MXT–7–420 

airplanes from the Applicability section. 

This proposed AD would also clarify 

our intent of required actions if the seal 

on a sealed wing lift strut is ever 

improperly broken. 

Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 

98–15–18 

Since AD 98–15–18 was issued, the 

AD format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table: 

TABLE 1—REVISED PARAGRAPH

IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 

99–01–05 

Corresponding 

requirement in this 

proposed AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (h) 

paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (i)(1) 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) paragraph (i)(1)(i) 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) paragraph (i)(1)(ii) 

paragraph (a)(2) paragraph (i)(2) 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) paragraph (i)(2)(i) 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) paragraph (i)(2)(ii) 

paragraph (a)(3) paragraph (j)(1) 

paragraph (a)(4) and 

(c) 

paragraph (j)(2) 

paragraph (b) removed 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 1,196 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

However, the only difference in the 

costs presented below and the costs 

associated with AD 98–15–18 is the 

change in the labor rate from $65 per 

hour to $85 per hour. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49209 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspection of the wing lift 

struts.

11 × $85 per hour = $935 per 

inspection cycle.

$40 $975 per inspection cycle ...... $1,166,100 per inspection 

cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of airplanes 

that might need these replacements: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost per wing lift strut Parts cost per 

wing lift strut 

Cost per 

product per 

wing lift strut 

Replacement of the wing lift strut ................................. 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 ........................... $500 $925 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the 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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 

FR 39018, July 21, 1998), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc.: Docket 

No. FAA–2013–0725; Directorate 

Identifier 98–CE–01–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by September 27, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD revises AD 98–15–18, 

Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 

1998), which superseded AD 95–26–18, 

Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 

1996.) 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the following Maule 

Aerospace Technology, Inc. airplanes, all 

serial numbers, identified in table 1 of 

paragraph (c) of this AD, that are: 

(1) Equipped with original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) Maule Aerospace 

Technology, Inc. rear wing lift struts, part 

number (P/N) 2079E (or FAA-approved 

equivalent part numbers), and/or front wing 

lift struts, P/N 2080E (or FAA-approved 

equivalent part numbers); and 

(2) certificated in any category. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) OF THIS AD—APPLICABILITY

Models 

Bee Dee M–4 .................... M–4 ................................... M–4C ................................. M–4S ................................. M–4T 

M–4–180C ......................... M–4–180S ......................... M–4–180T ......................... M–4–210 ........................... M–4–210C 

M–4–210S ......................... M–4–210T ......................... M–4–220 ........................... M–4–220C ......................... M–4–220S 

M–4–220T ......................... M–5–180C ......................... M–5–200 ........................... M–5–210C ......................... M–5–210TC 

M–5–220C ......................... M–5–235C ......................... M–6–180 ........................... M–6–235 ........................... M–7–235 

M–7–235A ......................... M–7–235B ......................... M–7–235C ......................... MT–7–235 ......................... MX–7–160 

MX–7–180 ......................... MX–7–180A ...................... MX–7–180B ...................... MX–7–235 ......................... MX–7–420 

MXT–7–160 ....................... MXT–7–180 ....................... MXT–7–180A .................... M–8–235 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: This 

AD does not apply to airplanes equipped 

with four Maule sealed lift struts, P/N 2200E 

and P/N 2201E. These sealed lift struts are 

identified by two raised weld spots on the 

upper end of the strut just below the serial 

number plate. Removal of the upper cuff is 

needed to locate the weld spots. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

The subject of this AD was originally 

prompted by reports of corrosion damage 

found on the wing lift struts. We are revising 

AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 

39018, July 21, 1998), because of reports that 

the language currently in paragraph (b) is 

being misinterpreted and is causing 

confusion. Since we issued AD 98–15–18, we 

have been informed by the manufacturer that 

Model MXT–7–420 airplanes are no longer in 

existence, are no longer type certificated, and 

should be removed from the Applicability 

section. This AD removes Model MXT–7–420 

airplanes from the Applicability section and 

clarifies the intent of the language currently 

in paragraph (b) of AD 98–15–18, which is 

being removed by this AD. Our intention was 

to specify that if a sealed wing lift strut 

assembly is installed as a replacement part, 

the repetitive inspection requirement is 

terminated only if the seal is never 

improperly broken. This AD also retains all 

the actions currently required in AD 98–15– 

18. There are no new requirements in this AD 

and it does not add any additional burden to 

the owners/operators of the affected 

airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct corrosion on the front and rear 

wing lift struts, which could cause the wing 

lift strut to fail. This failure could result in 

the wing separating from the airplane. 

(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 98– 

15–18 

Since AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39– 

10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998), was 

issued, the AD format has been revised, and 

certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As 

a result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed 

in the following table: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (f) OF THIS

AD—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 

98–15–18 

Corresponding 

requirement in this 

AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (h) 

paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (i)(1) 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) paragraph (i)(1)(i) 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) paragraph (i)(1)(ii) 

paragraph (a)(2) paragraph (i)(2) 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) paragraph (i)(2)(i) 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) paragraph (i)(2)(ii) 

paragraph (a)(3) paragraph (j)(1) 

paragraph (a)(4) and 

(c) 

paragraph (j)(2) 

paragraph (b) Removed 

(g) Compliance 

Unless already done (compliance with AD 

98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 

39018, July 21, 1998)), do the following 

actions within the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h) through (j) of this 

AD, including all subparagraphs. 

Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This 

AD does not require any actions over that 

already required by AD 98–15–18, 

Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 

1998). This AD clarifies the FAA’s intention 

that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is 

installed as a replacement part, the repetitive 

inspection requirement is terminated only if 

the seal is never improperly broken. If the 

seal is improperly broken, then that wing lift 

strut becomes subject to continued repetitive 

inspections. We did not intend to promote 

drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a 

sealed strut. Properly unsealing and resealing 

a sealed wing lift strut is still considered a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspection requirements of this AD as long as 

all appropriate regulations and issues are 

considered, such as static strength, fatigue, 

material effects, immediate and long-term 

(internal and external) corrosion protection, 

resealing methods, etc. 

(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts 

At whichever of paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), 

or (h)(3) of this AD that occurs later, remove 

the wing lift struts following the 

INSTRUCTIONS section in PART I of Maule 

Air, Inc. Service Bulletin (Maule SB) No. 11, 

dated October 30, 1995. Before further flight 

after the removal, do one of the actions in 

either paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of 

this AD, including all subparagraphs. 

(1) Upon accumulating 2 years time-inservice on an OEM Maule wing lift strut, P/ 

N 2079E and/or P/N 2080E; 

(2) Within 3 calendar months after 

September 9, 1998 (the effective date retained 

from AD 98–15–18, Amendment 39–10669 

(63 FR 39018, July 21, 1998)); or 

(3) Within 2 years after the last inspection 

done in accordance with AD 95–26–18, 

Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 

1996) (which was superseded by AD 98–15– 

18). 

(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts 

(1) Before further flight after the removal 

required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect 

each wing lift strut for corrosion and 

perceptible dents following the 

INSTRUCTIONS section in PART I of Maule 

SB No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. 

(i) If no corrosion is visible and no 

perceptible dents are found on any wing lift 

strut during the inspection required in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further 

flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing 

lift strut. Apply the corrosion inhibitor 

following the INSTRUCTIONS section in 

PART I of Maule SB No. 11, dated October 

30, 1995. Repetitively thereafter inspect each 

wing lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 

calendar months following the procedures in 

paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including 

all subparagraphs. 

(ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are 

found on any wing lift strut during the 

inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

AD or during any repetitive inspection 

required in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD, 

before further flight, replace the affected 

wing lift strut with one of the replacement 

options specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) 

of this AD. Do the replacement following the 

procedures specified in those paragraphs, as 

applicable. 

(2) Before further flight after the removal 

required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect 

each wing lift strut for corrosion following 

the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. 

This inspection must be done by a Level 2 

or Level 3 inspector certified using the 

guidelines established by the American 

Society for Non-destructive Testing or the 

‘‘Military Standard for Nondestructive 

Testing Personnel Qualification and 

Certification’’ (MIL–STD–410E). 

(i) If no corrosion is found on any wing lift 

strut during the inspection specified in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and all 

requirements in the Appendix to this AD are 

met, before further flight apply corrosion 

inhibitor to each wing lift strut following 

INSTRUCTIONS section in PART I of Maule 

SB No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing lift 

strut every 24 calendar months provided no 

corrosion is found and all of the 

requirements in the Appendix of this AD are 

met. 

(ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift 

strut during the inspection required 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or during any 

repetitive inspection required in paragraph 

(i)(2)(i) of this AD, or if any requirement in 

the Appendix of this AD is not met, before 

further flight after any inspection in which 

corrosion is found or the Appendix 

requirements are not met, replace the affected 

wing lift strut with one of the replacement 

options specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) 

of this AD. Do the replacement following the 

procedures specified in those paragraphs, as 

applicable. 

(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options 

(1) Install OEM Maule P/N wing lift struts 

(or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) 

that have been inspected following the 

procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) 

of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and 

are found to be airworthy. Do the 

installations following the INSTRUCTIONS 

section in PART II of Maule SB No. 11, dated 

October 30, 1995. Repetitively thereafter 

inspect the newly installed wing lift struts at 

intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months 

following the procedures in either paragraph 

(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including all 

subparagraphs. 

(2) Install new Maule sealed wing lift 

struts, P/N 2200E or P/N 2201E, as applicable 

(or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) 

following the INSTRUCTIONS section in 

PART II of Maule SB No. 11, dated October 

30, 1995. Installing one of these new sealed 

wing lift strut assemblies terminates the 

repetitive inspection requirements in 

paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, 

including all subparagraphs, for that wing lift 

strut assembly. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49211 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 98–15–18, 

Amendment 39–10669 (63 FR 39018, July 21, 

1998) and AD 95–26–18, Amendment 39– 

9476 (61 FR 623, January 9, 1996) are 

approved as AMOCs for this AD. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 

(404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email: 

gregory.noles@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Maule Air, Inc., 2099 GA 

Hwy 133 South, Moultrie, Georgia 31768; 

telephone: (229) 985–2045; fax: (229) 890– 

2402; Internet: http://www.mauleairinc.com/ 

pdf/servicebulletins/ 

service_bulletin_11_old.pdf. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Appendix To Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0725 

Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic 

Inspection of Maule Wing Lift Struts 

Equipment Requirements 

1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or 

flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital 

thickness readout capable of reading to 

0.001-inch and an A-trace waveform display 

will be needed to do this inspection. 

2. An ultrasonic probe with the following 

specifications will be needed to do this 

inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch 

(or smaller) diameter dual element or delay 

line transducer designed for thickness 

gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic 

system shall be capable of accurately 

measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel 

down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/¥ 

0.002-inch throughout a 0.020-inch to 0.050- 

inch thickness range while calibrating shall 

be the criteria for acceptance. 

3. Either a precision machined step wedge 

made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with 

equivalent sound velocity) or at least three 

shim samples of same material will be 

needed to do this inspection. One thickness 

of the step wedge or shim shall be less than 

or equal to 0.020-inch, one shall be greater 

than or equal to 0.050-inch and at least one 

other step or shim shall be between these two 

values. 

4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water 

based ultrasonic couplants are recommended 

in the setup and inspection procedures. 

Water-based couplants, containing 

appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be 

utilized, provided they are removed from 

both the reference standards and the test item 

after the inspection procedure is completed 

and adequate corrosion prevention steps are 

then taken to protect these items. 

• Note: Couplant is defined as ‘‘a 

substance used between the face of the 

transducer and test surface to improve 

transmission of ultrasonic energy across the 

transducer/strut interface.’’ 

• Note: If surface roughness due to paint 

loss or corrosion is present, the surface 

should be sanded or polished smooth before 

testing to assure a consistent and smooth 

surface for making contact with the 

transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a 

minimal amount of structural material. Paint 

repairs may be necessary after the inspection 

to prevent further corrosion damage from 

occurring. Removal of surface irregularities 

will enhance the accuracy of the inspection 

technique. 

Instrument Setup 

1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for 

thickness measurements as specified in the 

instrument’s user’s manual. Because of the 

variety of equipment available to perform 

ultrasonic thickness measurements, some 

modification to this general setup procedure 

may be necessary. However, the tolerance 

requirement of step 13 and the record 

keeping requirement of step 14, must be 

satisfied. 

2. If battery power will be employed, check 

to see that the battery has been properly 

charged. The testing will take approximately 

two hours. Screen brightness and contrast 

should be set to match environmental 

conditions. 

3. Verify that the instrument is set for the 

type of transducer being used, i.e. single or 

dual element, and that the frequency setting 

is compatible with the transducer. 

4. If a removable delay line is used, remove 

it and place a drop of couplant between the 

transducer face and the delay line to assure 

good transmission of ultrasonic energy. 

Reassemble the delay line transducer and 

continue. 

5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/ 

microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless 

an alternative instrument calibration 

procedure is used to set the sound velocity. 

6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per 

item 3 of the Equipment Requirements. Place 

the probe on the thickest sample using 

couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back 

and forth to ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to the 

sample. Adjust the delay and range settings 

to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the 

first backwall echo from the steel near the left 

side of the screen and the second backwall 

echo near the right of the screen. Note that 

when a single element transducer is used, the 

initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface 

will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the 

gain to place the amplitude of the first 

backwall signal at approximately 80% screen 

height on the A-trace. 

7. ‘‘Ring’’ the transducer on the thinnest 

step or shim using couplant. Select positive 

half-wave rectified, negative half-wave 

rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain 

the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage, 

pulse width, and damping to obtain the best 

signal resolution. These settings can vary 

from one transducer to another and are also 

user dependent. 

8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the 

gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo 

and ends at the second backwall echo. 

(Measuring between the first and second 

backwall echoes will produce a measurement 

of the steel thickness that is not affected by 

the paint layer on the strut). If instability of 

the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate 

level, and/or damping to stabilize the 

thickness reading. 

9. Check the digital display reading and if 

it does not agree with the known thickness 

of the thinnest thickness, follow your 

instrument’s calibration recommendations to 

produce the correct thickness reading. When 

a single element transducer is used this will 

usually involve adjusting the fine delay 

setting. 

10. Place the transducer on the thickest 

step of shim using couplant. Adjust the 

thickness gate width so that the gate is 

triggered by the second backwall reflection of 

the thick section. If the digital display does 

not agree with the thickest thickness, follow 

your instruments calibration 

recommendations to produce the correct 

thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the 

velocity may be necessary to get both the 

thinnest and the thickest reading correct. 

Document the changed velocity value. 

11. Place couplant on an area of the lift 

strut which is thought to be free of corrosion 

and ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to surface. Minor 

adjustments to the signal and gate settings 

may be required to account for coupling 

improvements resulting from the paint layer. 

The thickness gate level should be set just 

high enough so as not to be triggered by 

irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper 

surface of the lift strut above the inspection 

area would be a good location to complete 

this step and should produce a thickness 

reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch. 

12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both 

thick and thin shim measurements are within 

tolerance and the lift strut measurement is 

reasonable and steady. 

13. Verify that the thickness value shown 

in the digital display is within +/¥ 0.002- 

inch of the correct value for each of the three 

or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. 

Make no further adjustments to the 

instrument settings. 

14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual 

thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims 

available as a record of setup. 

Inspection Procedure 

1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing 

lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all 

dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely 

affect the accuracy of the inspection 

technique. Light sanding or polishing may 

also be required to reduce surface roughness 

as noted in the Equipment Requirements 

section. 

2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1⁄4-inch 

grid on the surface of the first 11 inches from 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the lower end of the strut as shown in Maule 

Air, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 11, dated 

October 30, 1995, as applicable. This can be 

done using a soft (#2) pencil and should be 

done on both faces of the strut. As an 

alternative to drawing a complete grid, make 

two rows of marks spaced every 1⁄4-inch 

across the width of the strut. One row of 

marks should be about 11 inches from the 

lower end of the strut, and the second row 

should be several inches away where the 

strut starts to narrow. Lay the flexible ruler 

between respective tick marks of the two 

rows and use tape or a rubber band to keep 

the ruler in place. See Figure 1. 

3. Apply a generous amount of couplant 

inside each of the square areas or along the 

edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant 

may be necessary. 

4. Place the transducer inside the first 

square area of the drawn grid or at the first 

1⁄4-inch mark on the ruler and ‘‘ring’’ the 

transducer to the strut. When using a dual 

element transducer, be very careful to record 

the thickness value with the axis of the 

transducer elements perpendicular to any 

curvature in the strut. If this is not done, loss 

of signal or inaccurate readings can result. 

5. Take readings inside each square on the 

grid or at 1⁄4-inch increments along the ruler 

and record the results. When taking a 

thickness reading, rotate the transducer 

slightly back and forth and experiment with 

the angle of contact to produce the lowest 

thickness reading possible. Pay close 

attention to the A-scan display to assure that 

the thickness gate is triggering off of 

maximized backwall echoes. 

• Note: A reading shall not exceed .041 

inch. If a reading exceeds .041 inch, repeat 

steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup 

section before proceeding further. 

6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the 

thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the 

signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain 

reasonable and steady readings. If any 

instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13 

and 14 of the Instrument Setup section 

before proceeding further. 

7. In areas where obstructions are present, 

take a data point as close to the correct area 

as possible. 

• Note: The strut wall contains a 

fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the 

strut chord. The bead may interfere with 

accurate measurements in that specific 

location. 

8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less 

shall require replacement of the strut prior to 

further flight 

9. If at any time during testing an area is 

encountered where a valid thickness 

measurement cannot be obtained due to a 

loss of signal strength or quality, the area 

shall be considered suspect. These areas may 

have a remaining wall thickness of less than 

0.020-inch, which is below the range of this 

setup, or they may have small areas of 

localized corrosion or pitting present. The 

latter case will result in a reduction in signal 

strength due to the sound being scattered 

from the rough surface and may result in a 

signal that includes echoes from the pits as 

well as the backwall. The suspect area(s) 

shall be tested with a Maule ‘‘Fabric Tester’’ 

as specified in Maule Air, Inc. Service 

Bulletin No. 11, dated October 30, 1995. 

10. Record the lift strut inspection in the 

aircraft log book. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP13AU13.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49213 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

6, 2013. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19638 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0692; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–024–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2011–14– 

06 that applies to all Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 series 

airplanes. That AD currently requires 

revising the maintenance program. 

Since we issued that AD, we have 

determined that more restrictive 

limitations are necessary. This proposed 

AD would require revising the 

maintenance program to incorporate 

new limitations. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent fatigue cracking, 

accidental damage, or corrosion in 

principal structural elements, and 

possible failure of certain life limited 

parts, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 27, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1405; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0692; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–024–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On June 24, 2011, we issued AD 

2011–14–06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 

FR 42024, July 18, 2011). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2011–14–06, 

Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR 42024, 

July 18, 2011), we have determined that 

more restrictive limitations are 

necessary. The European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), which is the 

Technical Agent for the Member States 

of the European Community, has issued 

EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012– 

0008, dated January 16, 2012 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

The airworthiness limitations for Airbus 

aeroplanes are currently published in 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) 

documents. The airworthiness limitations 

applicable to the Safe Life Airworthiness 

Limitation Items (SL ALI) are specified in 

Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1, 

which is approved by the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA). 

EASA AD 2006–0162 [which corresponds to 

FAA AD 2007–20–05, Amendment 39–15215 

(72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007) which was 

superseded by FAA AD 2011–14–06, 

Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR 42024, July 18, 

2011)] was issued to require the 

implementation of the instructions and 

airworthiness limitations as specified in 

Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1 

original issue. Failure to comply with the 

instructions of ALS Part 1 could result in an 

unsafe condition. 

This [EASA] AD retains the requirements of 

EASA AD 2006–0162, which is superseded, 

extends the applicability by adding the 

Models A318–121, A318–122, A320–215 and 

A320–216, and requires the implementation 

of the instructions and airworthiness 

limitations as specified in Airbus A318/ 

A319/A320/A321 ALS part 1 revision 02, 

approved on 13 May 2011. 

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, 

accidental damage, or corrosion in 

principal structural elements and 

possible failure of certain life limited 

parts, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. The 

required actions also include revising 

the maintenance program to include 

Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS 

Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, 

dated January 8, 2008. You may obtain 

further information by examining the 

MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/ 

A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life 

Airworthiness Limitation Items, 

Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011; and 

A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4— 

Ageing Systems Maintenance, dated 

January 8, 2008. The actions described 

in this service information are intended 

to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1