Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3769 

Law Penalty description 

Adjusted 

maximum civil 

penalty 

amount 

12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(A) ............................................................. Tier 1 penalty ............................................................................. $5,953 

12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(B) ............................................................. Tier 2 penalty ............................................................................. 29,764 

12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(C) ............................................................. Tier 3 penalty ............................................................................. 1,190,546 

15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) ................................................................ Per violation ................................................................................ 2,074 

15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) ................................................................ Annual cap ................................................................................. 2,073,133 

12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) .................................................................. Per failure ................................................................................... 97 

12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) .................................................................. Annual cap ................................................................................. 195,047 

12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(2)(A) ............................................................. Per failure, where intentional ...................................................... 195 

12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2) .................................................................. Per violation ................................................................................ 30,058 

15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(1) ................................................................ First violation .............................................................................. 11,906 

15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(2) ................................................................ Subsequent violations ................................................................ 23,811 

(b) The adjustments in paragraph (a) 

of this section shall apply to civil 

penalties assessed after January 15, 

2021, whose associated violations 

occurred on or after November 2, 2015. 

Dated: January 12, 2021. 

Grace Feola, 

Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00925 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–1046; Product 

Identifier 2018–CE–049–AD; Amendment 

39–21371; AD 2020–26–16] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA– 

28–151, PA–28–161, PA–28–181, PA– 

28–235, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200, 

PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT– 

201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA– 

32–300, PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, 

and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by a report of a wing 

separation caused by fatigue cracking in 

a visually inaccessible area of the lower 

main wing spar cap. This AD requires 

calculating the factored service hours 

for each main wing spar to determine 

when an inspection is required, 

inspecting the lower main wing spar 

bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any 

cracked main wing spar. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 16, 

2021. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, 

Vero Beach, Florida 32960; phone: (772) 

567–4361; website: https://

www.piper.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 

4148. It is also available at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

1046. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2018–1046; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

final rule, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax: (404) 

474–5605; email: william.mccully@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Piper Models PA–28– 

140, PA–28–150, PA–28–151, PA–28– 

160, PA–28–161, PA–28–180, PA–28– 

181, PA–28–235, PA–28R–180, PA– 

28R–200, PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, 

PA–28RT–201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32– 

260, and PA–32–300 airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on December 21, 2018 (83 FR 

65592). The NPRM was prompted by a 

fatal accident involving wing separation 

on a Piper Model PA–28R–201 airplane. 

An investigation revealed a fatigue crack 

in a visually inaccessible area of the 

lower main wing spar cap. The NPRM 

included other model airplanes with 

similar wing spar structures as the 

Model PA–28R–201. Based on airplane 

usage history, the FAA determined that 

only those airplanes with higher risk for 

fatigue cracks (airplanes with a 

significant history of operation in flight 

training or other high-load 

environments) should be subject to the 

inspection requirements proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Because airplanes used in training 

and other high-load environments are 

typically operated for hire and have 

inspection programs that require 100- 

hour inspections, the FAA determined 

the number of 100-hour inspections an 

airplane has undergone would be the 

best indicator of the airplane’s usage 

history. Accordingly, the FAA 

developed a factored service hours 

formula based on the number of 100- 

hour inspections completed on the 

airplane. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require a review of the airplane 

maintenance records to determine the 

number of 100-hour inspections and the 

application of the factored service hours 

formula to identify when an airplane 

meets the criteria for the proposed eddy 

current inspection of the lower main 

wing spar bolt holes. The FAA also 

proposed to require inspecting the lower 

main wing spar bolt holes for cracks 

once a main wing spar exceeds the 

specified factored service hours and 

3770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The supporting materials for NTSB accident 

NYC93FA140 are available in the NTSB Docket at 

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist

.cfm?docketID=4323&CFID=1643539&CFTOKEN=

74133c21c3cf3d72-C9941D08-5056-942C-92883

A7C17DB9FF3. 

2Report No. 87–89 is available in the NTSB 

Docket for NTSB accident FTW87FA088 at https:// 

dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/

document.cfm?docID=475398&docketID

=62694&mkey=96975. 

3Report No. 93–34 is available in the NTSB 

Docket for NTSB accident NYC93FA140 at https:// 

dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?doc

ID=487590&docketID=4323&mkey=38586. 

4The NTSB Aviation Accident Final Report for 

NTSB accident NYC93FA140 is available on the 

NTSB’s website at https://app.ntsb.gov/ 

pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID

=20001211X13212&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType

=FA. 

replacing any main wing spar when a 

crack is indicated. The maintenance 

records review to determine the factored 

service hours proposed in the NPRM 

would only apply when an airplane has 

either accumulated 5,000 or more hours 

time-in-service (TIS); has had either 

main wing spar replaced with a 

serviceable (more than zero hours TIS) 

main wing spar; or has missing and/or 

incomplete maintenance records. 

The FAA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an 

AD that would apply to certain Piper 

Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, PA– 

28–235, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200, 

PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT– 

201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA– 

32–300, PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, 

and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. The 

SNPRM published in the Federal 

Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34121). 

The SNPRM was prompted by 

comments received on the NPRM and 

further analysis by the FAA. The FAA 

determined that some additional 

airplane models are likely affected by 

the unsafe condition and should be 

included in the applicability, while 

other models that are not affected 

should be removed from the 

applicability. Consequently, in the 

SNPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the 

applicability and the estimated cost 

associated with the proposed AD 

actions. The SNPRM also clarified the 

language in the applicability and some 

of the proposed actions. In addition, the 

SNPRM no longer allowed replacement 

of the wing spar with a used part. The 

FAA determined replacement of the 

wing spar with a part of unknown 

operational history would not ensure an 

acceptable level of safety. After the 

NPRM was published, Piper issued a 

service bulletin that contains 

procedures for the eddy current 

inspection. The SNPRM proposed to 

require using the eddy current 

inspection contained in that service 

bulletin instead of the inspection 

procedure in the appendix to the NPRM. 

The FAA developed a flow chart that 

may assist operators in complying with 

this AD. The flow chart may be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2018–1046. 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address 

the unsafe condition on these products. 

Discussion of Final AD 

Comments 

The FAA received comments on the 

SNPRM from 42 commenters. The 

majority of the commenters were 

individuals. The remaining commenters 

included Piper, governmental agencies 

such as the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) and the Civil 

Aviation Safety Authority of Australia 

(CASA), and organizations such as the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA), the General Aviation and 

Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA), 

the Experimental Aircraft Association 

(EAA), and the Piper Flying 

Association. The following presents the 

comments received on the SNPRM and 

the FAA’s response to each comment. 

A. Supportive Comments 

The NTSB and two individual 

commenters supported the AD without 

any recommended changes. Three other 

individual commenters supported the 

AD but requested changes discussed 

below. 

B. Requests for Additional Information 

CASA requested information on 

whether a bolt hole eddy current 

inspection would have detected the 

crack in the 1993 accident airplane. 

The FAA agrees to provide the 

requested information. Because it was 

located slightly beyond the detectable 

range of a bolt hole eddy current 

inspection, the crack in the 1993 

accident airplane would not have been 

detected by an eddy current inspection 

of the bolt holes. Although the airplane 

had previously undergone dye penetrant 

inspection of the bolt holes, the crack 

would not have been detectable under 

that method either due to its location 

beyond the bolt hole perimeter and 

beneath the web doubler.1 The 1993 

accident disclosed evidence of a fatigue 

crack initiation in a wing spar similar to 

that of the 2018 accident aircraft, 

N106ER (the accident that prompted 

this AD). In addition to having high 

hours TIS, the fatigue crack was very 

near the inspection location addressed 

by this AD. As such, the FAA included 

the 1993 accident in the risk analysis 

process for this AD. 

CASA and an individual commenter 

requested information comparing the 

failures in the 1987 and 1993 accidents 

with the failure of N106ER (the accident 

that prompted this AD). CASA 

specifically asked whether these wing 

spars failed at the same outer bolt hole 

location. 

The FAA agrees to provide additional 

information. Both airplanes in question 

(N8191V, the 1987 accident; and 

N2093A, the 1993 accident) experienced 

wing separations at the outboard bolt 

holes of the lower spar cap. The NTSB 

Metallurgist’s Factual Report in the 

1987 accident, Materials Laboratory 

Report No. 87–89, dated August 17, 

1987, found that fatigue had initiated at 

two locations on the lower surface of the 

left wing spar cap near the forward most 

outboard, spar to carry through, bolt 

hole. The report further found the 

fatigue had propagated completely 

through the forward flange and partially 

into the aft flange and spar web.2 The 

Metallurgist’s Factual Report in the 

1993 accident, Report No. 93–34, dated 

December 15, 1993, found that the lower 

cap was fractured through the most 

outboard pair of bolts connecting the 

spar and carry-through.3 The FAA notes 

that the NTSB Final Report for the 1993 

accident states the investigation could 

not determine whether an uncracked 

wing would have failed.4

CASA and an individual commenter 

requested information on the inspection 

method used to detect cracks on aircraft 

N104ER. CASA asked whether the 

inspection method described in Piper 

Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 

27, 2020 (Piper SB No. 1345), was used. 

The individual commenter asked 

whether bolt hole eddy current is the 

most suitable method if it was used on 

N104ER and did not reveal the cracks 

that caused the wing failure. 

The FAA agrees to provide the 

requested information. Aircraft N104ER 

was used in the investigation of the 

2018 accident due to the similarities in 

structure and operational use to the 

accident aircraft. The initial high 

frequency eddy current inspection of 

N104ER was conducted by a local FAAapproved repair station contracted by 

the owner. The FAA could not 

determine why the inspection 

conducted by the FAA-approved repair 

station did not detect cracks because 

this inspection did not involve the 

investigative team. Also, the inspection 

occurred prior to the development of the 

inspection procedures required by this 

AD. The investigative team conducted a 

second high frequency eddy current 

inspection, in the development of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3771 

5The supporting materials for NTSB accident 

ERA18FA120 are available in the NTSB Docket at 

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist

.cfm?docketID=62694&CFID=95094&CFTOKEN=

b616b3892cb482f1-5B544A63-5056-942C-92C71C2

E6BFF1D97. 

inspection procedures required by the 

AD, with the wings removed, which 

detected a crack. The team conducted 

an additional high frequency eddy 

current inspection after reinstalling the 

wings to validate the inspection process, 

which confirmed the presence of a 

crack.5

Another commenter requested 

information on the methodology used 

by the FAA for identifying specific wing 

loads, the applied stress locations, and 

their influence on fatigue life, and the 

rationale for selecting those aircraft 

within 95 percent of the baseline load 

case for the applicability. 

The FAA agrees to provide the 

requested information. The 

methodology used by the FAA for 

identifying specific wing loads for gust, 

maneuvering, and landing loads comes 

from 14 CFR part 23 (Amdt 63) Subpart 

C-Structure and Advisory Circular 23– 

13A Fatigue, Fail-Safe, and Damage 

Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic 

Structure for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, 

and Commuter Category Airplanes. 

A subsequent analysis calculated 

damage factors using variables for each 

of the various PA–28/32 models. The 

variables include maximum design 

weight (Wmax), maximum design 

cruising speed (Vcmax), spar cross section 

properties, and spanwise center of 

pressure location for each loading 

category mentioned above. The results 

for each model/load category are 

divided by the PA–28R–201 (accident 

aircraft model) results. Any model with 

a damage factor ratio greater than 0.94 

is included in the effectivity of this AD. 

The 0.94 factor cutoff was arrived at 

by observing a natural break in the 

resulting damage factor numbers and 

the Palmgren–Miner linear damage 

hypothesis or Miner’s Rule. This theory 

shows that a linear decrease in stress 

(damage factor in this case) results in an 

exponential increase in fatigue life. The 

FAA believes this level of risk is 

appropriate for the purpose of this onetime inspection. The applied stress 

location is at the lower spar cap 

attachment to the fuselage carry through 

channel, outboard row of fasteners. This 

is the location of the fatigue failure on 

the accident airplane. 

C. Comments Regarding the FAA’s 

Justification of the Unsafe Condition 

Piper and GAMA requested the AD be 

withdrawn because the completed 

NTSB investigation invalidates the 

FAA’s basis for issuing an AD. These 

commenters asserted that, based on the 

NTSB’s findings, the operator’s failure 

to follow existing maintenance 

requirements was responsible for the 

accident involving N106ER. 

The FAA disagrees that the NTSB’s 

investigation invalidates the FAA’s 

basis for issuing this AD. The spar 

surface is not visually accessible during 

routine inspections required by existing 

maintenance requirements, because the 

lower spar cap is obscured by the 

installation of the web doubler on the 

upper surface and the wing skin on the 

lower surface. Therefore, a welldeveloped crack may only be visually 

detected after the spar crack progresses 

into the doubler. The claim that an 

operator may fail to detect a crack that 

had progressed to an extent that caused 

cracking in the overlying web doubler 

only serves to reinforce the need for 

detecting fatigue cracks in the spar 

before they reach a critical nature. 

D. Comments Regarding Applicability 

Piper, AOPA, EAA, and several 

individual commenters requested the 

FAA revise the applicability of the AD 

because it is still too broad and includes 

models not representative of the 

accident airplane. 

EAA requested the FAA ensure that 

only the appropriate aircraft, in general, 

are subject to the AD. Piper and AOPA 

asserted that the AD should not include 

Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, PA– 

32R–300, and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. 

In support, Piper stated that the PA–28– 

151, PA–28–181, and PA–32R–300 

models have ‘‘stress per g’’ 

measurements that do not meet the 95 

percent threshold established by the 

FAA for comparison to the accident 

airplane. CASA and eight individual 

commenters questioned why the 

proposed AD applies to the Model PA– 

28–151 when that model is structurally 

similar to the Model PA–28–161, which 

the FAA proposed to remove from the 

applicability in the SNPRM. Two 

individual commenters requested the 

AD apply to the Model PA–28–161, 

because of the longer wing structure. 

Piper and three individual commenters 

stated the PA–32R–300 and certain PA– 

32–300 models do not share the same 

wing construction and installation 

details as the accident airplane model. 

The FAA disagrees with removing 

Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, and 

PA–32R–300 from the applicability of 

the AD. The FAA used the following 

load cases, provided by Piper, for 

comparison to the accident airplane: 

Gust damage factor, maneuver damage 

factor, and landing damage factor. The 

included models each had one or more 

load cases that exceed 94 percent of the 

baseline Model PA–28R–201. Several 

models had individual load cases 

exceeding 100 percent of the baseline 

value. 

The FAA partially agrees with the 

comments regarding the similarity 

between the Model PA–28–151 and the 

Model PA–28–161. In determining 

pertinent load cases, the FAA used 

factors such as maximum gross takeoff 

weight and maximum cruise speed in 

combination with structural 

considerations. In the SNPRM, the FAA 

proposed to remove Model PA–28–161 

from the applicability based on initial 

load calculations based on a maximum 

gross takeoff weight of 2,240 lbs. 

Additional analysis indicated that the 

maximum gross takeoff weight is not 

uniform among all Model PA–28–161 

variants, and that some variants are 

certificated to a maximum gross takeoff 

weight that brings the gust damage 

factor load case to above 94 percent of 

the baseline. Accordingly, this AD 

applies to the Model PA–28–161. 

The FAA disagrees with removing the 

Model PA–32R–300 and certain Model 

PA–32–300 airplanes from the 

applicability based on wing 

construction. 

Although the FAA acknowledges the 

differing wing structures among some 

models, that structure was taken into 

consideration during loads analysis in 

terms of inertia calculations for the each 

cross section. 

E. Comments Regarding the Compliance 

Time 

An individual commenter expressed 

concern that the FAA’s factored service 

hours did not align with the compliance 

time in Piper SB No. 1345. The 

commenter stated that Piper’s 

compliance time of 5,000 hours TIS is 

simpler and a more conservative 

approach to safety. 

The FAA partially agrees. While using 

hours TIS is a simpler approach, it 

would create the possibility of requiring 

an unnecessary inspection long before 

any fatigue crack might be expected to 

form. The FAA established 5,000 

factored service hours as a method of 

delaying or eliminating inspection 

requirements for many personal use, 

lower risk airplanes. This AD will 

require an inspection within 100 hours 

TIS after reaching 5,000 factored service 

hours. 

Another commenter requested the 

FAA determine the compliance time 

based on an estimate of the number of 

airplanes that will need to be inspected 

and the number of qualified eddy 

current inspectors, to allow sufficient 

time for all airplanes in the fleet to be 

3772 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

inspected. The commenter stated it is 

unacceptable for airplanes to be 

grounded for a significant amount of 

time because of an insufficient number 

of eddy current inspectors or 

equipment. 

The FAA disagrees that a change to 

the compliance time is necessary. The 

FAA anticipates that less than 50 

percent of applicable airplanes will 

have accumulated the 5,000 TIS 

necessary for the logbook review. The 

FAA also anticipates that the majority of 

those airplanes will not need an 

inspection after the logbook review. 

Calculating the number of qualified and 

available eddy current inspectors would 

be too speculative, as it is largely based 

on current demand. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA convert the AD into an emergency 

AD so that data from the inspections can 

be collected as soon as possible. 

Considering the number of known 

failures, the severity of the outcome, 

and number of cracks detected during 

the investigation, the FAA determined 

that an emergency AD was not 

necessary. The FAA did not change this 

AD based on these comments. 

F. Comments Regarding the 

Requirements Proposed in the SNPRM 

Request To Allow Replacement of the 

Spar With a Used Spar 

The Piper Flying Association and four 

individual commenters requested the 

FAA change the proposed requirement 

to install a new (zero hours TIS) spar if 

cracks were detected. These 

commenters stated that any spar that 

has passed the eddy current inspection 

is an airworthy spar and should be 

allowed as a replacement spar. Two of 

the commenters noted that the 

unavailability of new spars would 

effectively ground aircraft that fail the 

eddy current inspection. 

The FAA agrees and has revised this 

AD to allow the installation of a used 

(more than zero hours TIS) wing spar 

that has passed the eddy current 

inspection. 

An individual commenter requested 

the FAA compel Piper to restore 

availability of replacement parts. 

The FAA disagrees. As a federal 

agency, the FAA is responsible for all 

directives, policies, and mandates 

issued under its authority. The FAA 

does not have the authority to require a 

manufacturer to produce new parts. 

Requests for Information About the 

Service Bulletin 

An individual commenter asked how 

operators can record compliance with 

the AD when the required service 

bulletin does not apply to all of the 

models in the AD. Another individual 

commenter asked why the AD only 

incorporates part of the instructions in 

Piper SB No. 1345. 

The FAA’s regulations specify that 

when there is a conflict between an AD 

and a service document incorporated by 

reference in the AD, operators must 

follow the requirements of the AD. See 

14 CFR 39.27. Since this AD differs from 

Piper SB No. 1345, as described in the 

Differences Between this AD and the 

Service Information section, the AD 

only requires the inspection method 

portion of Piper SB No. 1345. 

Requests for Different Inspection 

Methods 

An individual commenter suggested 

guided wave technology as a better, less 

intrusive, and less expensive inspection 

method. Another individual commenter 

suggested using dye penetrant 

inspection without bolt removal as a 

less aggressive method for early 

detection, even if it meant more 

frequent inspections. 

The FAA disagrees. The FAA, Piper, 

and the NTSB considered several 

inspection options. Guided wave is not 

a preferred method for this AD due to 

accessibility issues and the need to 

detect longitudinal, as opposed to 

circumferential, cracks. To be detectable 

using a dye penetrant or fluorescent 

penetrant method, a crack that initiated 

at a wing spar attach bolt hole would 

have had to propagate through the web 

doubler and beyond the perimeter of the 

washer(s). A crack of that size would 

have already dangerously compromised 

the strength of the spar cap. 

The FAA did not change this AD 

based on these comments. 

Requests for Different Repair Options 

An individual commenter observed 

that if one wing indicates fatigue cracks, 

then replacing both wings may be 

warranted, since the opposite wing 

would have experienced the same usage 

history. 

The FAA partially agrees. Fatigue 

cracking in one wing would warrant an 

increased level of concern for the 

opposite wing. However, the FAA 

determined that replacement of both 

wings is not required when only one 

wing has failed the inspection. Certain 

factors that can accelerate the initiation 

of a fatigue crack on one wing may not 

be present on the opposite wing (for 

example, prior damage from operations 

or maintenance). 

Another individual commenter 

requested the FAA consider a cold 

working process (split sleeve cold 

expansion) on the bolt holes to 

minimize future fatigue cracking. 

The FAA partially agrees. Piper 

provided the FAA with cold working 

data in support of a proposed repair and 

fatigue mitigation process for the wing 

spars. Cold working has been 

considered and may be investigated 

further should the inspection reports 

received as a result of this AD indicate 

that such action is required. 

One individual commenter suggested 

using different washers, adjusting the 

bolt torque to the lowest value of the 

acceptable range, and installing a 

doubler plate to alleviate stress 

concentrations. 

The FAA disagrees. Load transfer into 

the spar cap does not rely on a washer 

to help evenly transfer the load. A larger 

washer would not lower the stress 

concentration as the critical geometry is 

the fastener diameter and the edge 

distance associated with the diameter, 

not the washer size. Staying within the 

torque values for the bolt will not 

alleviate the loading in the bolt enough 

to decrease the stress concentration and 

could lead to further issues such as the 

bolt being under torqued, which would 

worsen the fatigue life. A doubler repair 

has been considered and may be 

investigated further should the 

inspection reports received as a result of 

this AD indicate that such action is 

required. 

An additional individual commenter 

asked if changing the outer holes to the 

next smaller size would result in a more 

favorable stress distribution. 

The FAA disagrees. While a smaller 

hole may decrease the load in the 

fastener, the gain is offset by the 

increase in stress concentration. 

The FAA has not changed the AD 

based on these comments. 

Request for Safe Life 

An individual commenter suggested 

establishing a life limit as a solution 

based on a comparison of any safe life 

analysis conducted by Piper with the 

known fatigue failures. 

The FAA partially agrees. Fatigue safe 

life has been considered and may be 

pursued as an option should the 

inspection reports received as a result of 

this AD indicate that further action is 

required. Because this AD is interim in 

nature and intended to gather fleet 

condition data based on these 

comparisons, this AD does not contain 

repetitive or terminating actions. 

The FAA did not make any changes 

to this AD based on this comment. 

Request To Revise the Reporting 

Information 

Piper requested the FAA revise the 

inspection results form to include 

Piper’s mailing address. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3773 

The FAA agrees and has added 

Piper’s mailing address to the 

inspection results form. 

G. Comments Previously Addressed in 

the SNPRM 

AOPA, EAA, and several individuals 

submitted comments that were 

substantially the same as comments the 

FAA received on the NPRM. These 

comments pertain to issues such as the 

FAA’s decision to issue the AD as 

interim action, whether the FAA should 

issue a special airworthiness 

information bulletin or airworthiness 

concern sheet instead of an AD, how the 

FAA determined the AD applicability, 

whether the FAA should issue this AD 

considering the cost and risk associated 

with the removal and reinstallation of 

the airplane wings/bolts, alternatives for 

instances where maintenance records 

were missing or incomplete, how to 

count 100-hour inspections, the FAA’s 

hourly labor rate, the estimated number 

of hours for the eddy current inspection, 

and indirect costs. The FAA previously 

addressed each of these comments in 

the SNPRM. 

H. Out of Scope Comments 

The FAA also received and reviewed 

a few comments that stated the 

commenter’s viewpoint without a 

suggestion specific to the AD or 

otherwise did not make a request the 

FAA can act on. These comments are 

outside the scope of this AD. 

Other Changes to the Final AD 

The FAA removed two serialnumbered airplanes from the 

applicability that were included in the 

SNPRM because those airplanes were 

previously inspected using the current 

procedures and witnessed by the FAA. 

The FAA determined those airplanes are 

not subject to the unsafe condition 

addressed by this AD. The FAA also 

added language to clarify the procedures 

for when a wing is not installed on the 

airplane and clarified some of the 

language in the examples and figures. 

Conclusion 

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, 

considered any comments received, and 

determined that air safety requires 

adopting this AD as proposed. 

Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. Except for minor editorial 

changes and the changes described 

previously, this AD is adopted as 

proposed in the SNPRM. None of the 

changes will increase the economic 

burden on any operator. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

The FAA reviewed Piper Service 

Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020 

(Piper SB No. 1345). This service 

bulletin specifies procedures for doing 

an eddy current inspection and 

instructions to report the results of the 

inspection to Piper and to replace the 

wing, wing spar, or spar section as 

necessary. This service information is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Other Related Service Information 

The FAA reviewed Piper Service 

Bulletin No. 886, dated June 8, 1988; 

and Piper Service Bulletin SB 978A, 

dated August 6, 1999. These service 

bulletins contain procedures for 

determining initial and repetitive 

inspection times based on the aircraft’s 

usage and visually inspecting the wing 

lower spar caps and the upper wing skin 

adjacent to the fuselage and forward of 

each main spar for cracks. The FAA also 

reviewed Piper Service Letter No. 997, 

dated May 14, 1987, which contains 

procedures for replacing airplane wings. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

Service Information 

Piper SB No. 1345 specifies doing the 

eddy current inspection upon reaching 

5,000 hours TIS; however, this AD 

requires using the factored service hours 

to identify the airplanes at the highest 

risk of developing fatigue cracks. Piper 

SB No. 1345 also specifies using its 

feedback form to report the eddy current 

inspection results, but this AD requires 

the use of a different form attached as 

appendix 1. 

Interim Action 

The FAA considers this AD to be an 

interim action. The inspection reports 

will provide the FAA additional data for 

determining the number of cracks 

present in the fleet. After analyzing the 

data, the FAA may take further 

rulemaking action. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this AD 

affects 5,440 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

There are 10,881 airplanes of U.S. 

registry with a model and serial number 

shown in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this 

AD. Based on a sample survey, the FAA 

estimates that 50 percent of those U.S.- 

registered airplanes will have reached 

the qualifying 5,000 hours TIS necessary 

to do the required logbook review. 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Review airplane maintenance records and 

calculate factored service hours.

3 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $255.

Not applicable ........................ $255 $1,387,200 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to do the eddy current inspection. 

Because some airplanes are only used 

non-commercially and will not 

accumulate the specified factored 

service hours in the life of the airplane, 

the FAA has no way of determining the 

number of airplanes that might need 

this inspection: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Gain access to the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) 

inspection areas.

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ........................... $20 190 

Do eddy current inspections of the LH and RH lower 

main wing spar.

1 work-hour contracted service × $600 = $600 ........... N/A 600 

Restore aircraft ............................................................. 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ........................... N/A 170 

3774 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

ON-CONDITION COSTS—Continued 

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Report inspection results to the FAA and Piper Aircraft, Inc.1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ............................... N/A 85 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to do any necessary replacements 

that would be required based on the 

results of the inspection. The agency has 

no way of determining the number of 

aircraft that might need this 

replacement: 

ON-CONDITION REPLACEMENT COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replace main wing spar ...................................... 80 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,800 per 

wing spar.

$5,540 $12,340 per wing spar. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to a penalty for failure to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to take 

approximately 1 hour per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

All responses to this collection of 

information are mandatory. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden to: 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 

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. 

The FAA is 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 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will 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 this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(3) 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 Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

2020–26–16 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: 

Amendment 39–21371; Docket No. 

FAA–2018–1046; Product Identifier 

2018–CE–049–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective February 16, 2021. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

(Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category, 

with a model and serial number shown in 

table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, and that 

meet at least one of the criteria in paragraphs 

(c)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD. 

Note 1 to the introductory text of 

paragraph (c): An owner/operator with at 

least a private pilot certificate may do the 

aircraft maintenance records review to 

determine the applicability as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this AD. 

(1) Has accumulated 5,000 or more hours 

time-in-service (TIS); or 

(2) Has had either main wing spar replaced 

with a serviceable (more than zero hours TIS) 

main wing spar; or 

(3) Has missing and/or incomplete 

maintenance records. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3775 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 5711, Wing Spar. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in 

a visually inaccessible area of the main wing 

lower spar cap. The FAA is issuing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the 

lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The 

unsafe condition, if not addressed, could 

result in the wing separating from the 

fuselage in flight. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Definitions 

(1) ‘‘TIS’’ has the same meaning as the 

definition of ‘‘time in service’’ in 14 CFR 

1.1. 

(2) For purposes of this AD, ‘‘factored 

service hours’’ refers to the calculated 

quantity of hours using the formula in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, which accounts 

for the usage history of the airplane. 

(h) Review Airplane Maintenance Records 

and Calculate Factored Service Hours for 

Each Main Wing Spar 

(1) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD, review the airplane maintenance 

records and determine the number of 100- 

hour inspections completed on the airplane 

since new and any record of wing spar 

replacement(s). 

(i) For purposes of this review, count any 

inspection conducted to comply with the 

100-hour requirement of 14 CFR 91.409(b) 

pertaining to carrying persons for hire, such 

as in-flight training environments, even if the 

inspection was entered in the maintenance 

records as an ‘‘annual’’ inspection or as an 

‘‘annual/100-hour’’ inspection. If the purpose 

of an inspection was to comply with 

§ 91.409(b), then it must be counted. To 

determine the purpose of an inspection, note 

the repeating intervals between inspections, 

i.e., less than 10 months between, and 

typically 90–110 flight hours. An inspection 

entered as a ‘‘100-hour’’ inspection but done 

solely for the purpose of meeting the 

requirement to complete an annual 

inspection, or those otherwise not required 

by § 91.409(b), need not be counted. For 

operators utilizing a progressive inspection 

program, count the completion of each 

§ 91.409(b) 100-hour interval as one 

inspection. 

(ii) If a main wing spar has been replaced 

with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar, 

count the number of 100-hour inspections 

from the time of installation of the new main 

wing spar. 


ER15JA21.014</GPH>
3776 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) If a main wing spar has been replaced 

with a serviceable main wing spar (more than 

zero hours TIS) or the airplane maintenance 

records are missing or incomplete, the wing 

history cannot be determined. Perform the 

eddy current inspection as specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(iv) The actions required by paragraph 

(h)(1) of this AD may be performed by the 

owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a 

private pilot certificate and must be entered 

into the aircraft records showing compliance 

with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 

43.9(a)(1) through (4), and 14 CFR 

91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be 

maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 

121.380, or 135.439. 

(2) Before further flight after completing 

the action in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, 

calculate the factored service hours for each 

main wing spar using the formula in figure 

1 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, 

after each annual inspection and 100-hour 

inspection, recalculate/update the factored 

service hours for each main wing spar until 

the main wing spar has accumulated 5,000 or 

more factored service hours. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

(3) An example of determining factored 

service hours for an airplane with no 100- 

hour inspections is as follows: The airplane 

maintenance records show that the airplane 

has a total of 12,100 hours TIS, and only 

annual inspections have been done. None of 

the annual inspections were done for 

purposes of compliance with § 91.409(b). 

Both main wing spars are original factory 

installed. In this case, N = 0 and T = 12,100. 

Use those values in the formula as shown in 

figure 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. In the 

example in figure 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this 

AD), the eddy current inspection would not 

be required because the factored service 

hours are less than 5,000 hours. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

(4) An example of determining factored 

service hours for an airplane with both 100- 

hour and annual inspections is as follows: 

The airplane was originally flown for 

personal use, then for training for a period of 

time, then returned to personal use. The 

airplane maintenance records show that the 

airplane has a total of 10,600 hours TIS, and 

fifty-five 100-hour inspections for purposes 

of compliance with § 91.409(b) have been 

done. Both main wing spars are original 

factory installed. In this case, N = 55 and T 

= 10,600. Use those values in the formula 

shown in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(4) of this 

AD. First, calculate commercial use time by 

multiplying (N × 100). Next, subtract that 

time from the total time, and divide that 

quantity by 17. Add the two quantities to 

determine total factored service hours. In the 

example in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(4) of this 

AD), the eddy current inspection would be 

required because the factored service hours 

are more than 5,000 hours. 


ER15JA21.015</GPH> ER15JA21.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3777 

(i) Eddy Current Inspect 

Within the compliance time specified in 

either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this AD, as 

applicable, eddy current inspect the inner 

surface of the two lower outboard bolt holes 

on the lower main wing spar cap for cracks. 

If the wing is installed, use steps 1 through 

3 or, if the wing is not installed, use step 3 

in the Instructions of Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 

2020 (Piper SB No. 1345). Although Piper SB 

No. 1345 specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level 

III certification to perform the inspection, 

this AD allows Level II or Level III 

qualification standards for inspection 

personnel using any inspector criteria 

approved by the FAA. 

Note 2 to the introductory text of 

paragraph (i): Advisory Circular 65–31B 

contains FAA-approved Level II and Level III 

qualification standards criteria for inspection 

personnel doing nondestructive test (NDT) 

inspections. 

(1) Within 100 hours TIS after complying 

with paragraph (h) of this AD or within 100 

hours TIS after a main wing spar accumulates 

5,000 factored service hours, whichever 

occurs later; or 

(2) For airplanes with an unknown number 

of factored service hours on a main wing 

spar, within the next 100 hours TIS after the 

effective date of this AD or within 60 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(j) Replace the Main Wing Spar 

If a crack is found during an inspection 

required by paragraph (i) of this AD, before 

further flight, replace the main wing spar 

with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar 

or with a serviceable (more than zero hours 

TIS) main wing spar that has passed the eddy 

current inspection required by paragraph (i) 

of this AD. 

(k) Install New Bolts 

Before further flight after completing the 

actions required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this 

AD, install new bolts by following step 6 of 

Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1345, 

dated March 27, 2020. 

(l) Report Inspection Results 

Within 30 days after completing an 

inspection required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD, using Appendix 1, ‘‘Inspection Results 

Form,’’ of this AD, report the inspection 

results to the FAA at the Atlanta ACO Branch 

and to Piper Aircraft. Submit the report to the 

FAA and Piper using the contact information 

found on the form in appendix 1 of this AD. 

(m) Special Flight Permit 

A special flight permit may only be issued 

to operate the airplane to a location where 

the inspection requirement of paragraph (i) of 

this AD can be performed. This AD prohibits 

a special flight permit if the inspection 

reveals a crack in a main wing spar. 

(n) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden 

Statement 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number for this 

information collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of information is 

estimated to be approximately 1 hour per 

response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or 

any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for 

reducing this burden to: Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, 

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 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (p) 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. 

(p) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Dan McCully, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax: (404) 

474–5605; email: william.mccully@faa.gov. 

(q) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated 

March 27, 2020. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero 


ER15JA21.017</GPH>
3778 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Beach, Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567– 

4361; website: https://www.piper.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to: 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3779 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 


ER15JA21.018</GPH>
3780 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued on December 30, 2020. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00044 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2020–0887; Airspace 

Docket No. 20–ACE–22] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment Class E Airspace; Elkhart, 

KS 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class 

E airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Elkhart-Morton 

County Airport, Elkhart, KS. This action 

is the result of an airspace review 

caused by the decommissioning of the 

Elkhart non-directional beacon (NDB). 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 22, 

2021. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under Title 1 Code of 

Federal Regulations part 51, subject to 

the annual revision of FAA Order 

7400.11 and publication of conforming 

amendments. 

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, and subsequent amendments can 

be viewed online at https://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. 

For further information, you can contact 

the Airspace Policy Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

The Order is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of FAA 

Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: 

fedreg.legal@nara.gov or go to https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Central Service Center, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

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. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it amends the 

Class E airspace extending upward from 

700 feet above the surface at ElkhartMorton County Airport, Elkhart, KS, to 

support instrument flight rule 

operations at this airport. 

History 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register (85 FR 67325; October 22, 

2020) for Docket No. FAA–2020–0887 to 

amend the Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Elkhart-Morton County Airport, 

Elkhart, KS. Interested parties were 

invited to participate in this rulemaking 

effort by submitting written comments 

on the proposal to the FAA. No 

comments were received. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, 

and effective September 15, 2020, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document amends FAA Order 

7400.11E, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, 

and effective September 15, 2020. FAA 

Order 7400.11E is publicly available as 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Rule 

This amendment to Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 

amends the Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Elkhart-Morton County Airport, 

Elkhart, KS, by removing the Elkhart 

NDB an associated extensions from the 

airspace legal description. 

This action is due to an airspace 

review caused by the decommissioning 

of the Elkhart NDB which provided 

navigational information to the 

instrument procedures at this airport. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action 

is not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.