Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10909 

underage almond and walnut trees at all 

coverage levels by ‘‘we agree in writing’’

under the current Crop Provisions. 

The commenters state that approved 

insurance providers would be faced 

with a difficult and costly task to abide 

by all documentation requirements for 

written agreement submissions within 

the standard 15 business days after the 

sales closing date and thus result in the 

insured potentially not getting 

insurance coverage timely. As a result, 

the use of the written agreements as a 

means to provide coverage for 

production from underage almond and 

walnut trees would be burdensome to 

the producer. 

The commenters also state that 

producers now have the ability to insure 

production from underage almond and 

walnut trees at the catastrophic risk 

protection (CAT) level. They claim the 

current proposal would make CAT 

policies ineligible for this insurance 

coverage under the written agreement 

criteria, since written agreements are 

not available under CAT coverage. 

The commenters state that the use of 

‘‘we agree in writing’’ language allows 

the approved insurance providers and 

RO’s to efficiently process the request to 

insure production from underage 

almond and walnut trees. Any deviation 

from this process would be resisted by 

the AIPs, Regional Office, agents and 

insureds. 

Response: FCIC realized that the 

proposed language would have 

needlessly imposed a heavy burden on 

producers, agents, AIPs and ROs. 

However, the preamble of the policy 

only allows deviation from the policy 

terms if allowed by written agreement. 

Therefore, use of the term ‘‘agree in 

writing’’ is not a viable solution. 

Instead, FCIC has amended the language 

to state coverage on production from 

under-aged trees is allowed if provided 

for in the Special Provisions. This 

change will provide insurance coverage 

for production from under-aged trees 

without the need to have a written 

agreement. This will also allow coverage 

to be available at all buy-up coverage 

levels and at the CAT level of coverage. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 

Crop insurance, Walnut and Almond, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, as set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457, 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations, 

for the 2008 and succeeding crop years 

as follows: 

PART 457—COMMON CROP 

INSURANCE REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 457 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 

■ 2. Amend § 457.122 as follows: 

■ A. Revise the first sentence of the 

introductory text. 

■ B. Revise paragraph 6(d). 

The revisions to § 457.122 read as 

follows: 

§ 457.122 Walnut crop insurance 

provisions. 

The Walnut Crop Insurance 

Provisions for the 2008 and succeeding 

crop years are as follows: 

* * * * * 

6. Insured Crop 

* * * * * 

(d) On acreage where at least 90 

percent of the trees have reached at least 

the seventh growing season after being 

set out, unless otherwise provided in 

the Special Provisions. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 457.123 as follows: 

■ A. Revise the first sentence of the 

introductory text. 

■ B. Revise paragraph 6(e). 

The revisions to § 457.123 read as 

follows: 

§ 457.123 Almond crop insurance 

provisions. 

The Almond Crop Insurance 

Provisions for the 2008 and succeeding 

crop years are as follows: 

* * * * * 

6. Insured Crop 

* * * * * 

(e) On acreage where at least 90 

percent of the trees have reached at least 

the sixth growing season after being set 

out, unless otherwise provided in the 

Special Provisions. 

* * * * * 

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 6, 

2007. 

Eldon Gould, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E7–4333 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD; Amendment 39–

14982; AD 2007–06–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 

(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 

(T–34B) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) that 

supersedes AD 62–24–01, which applies 

to all Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) 

Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, 

B45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. AD 

62–24–01 currently requires you to 

repetitively inspect, using the dye 

penetrant method, the front and rear 

horizontal stabilizer spars for cracks and 

replace any cracked stabilizer. Since we 

issued AD 62–24–01, we determined 

that using the dye penetrant inspection 

method may not detect cracks before the 

crack grows to a critical length and 

causes failure of the horizontal stabilizer 

spars. Therefore, we are requiring the 

surface eddy current inspection method 

to detect cracks in the horizontal 

stabilizer spars. Consequently, this AD 

retains the actions required in AD 62–

24–01 and changes the required 

inspection method from dye penetrant 

to surface eddy current. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent failure of the front 

and/or rear horizontal stabilizer spars 

caused by fatigue cracks. This failure 

could result in stabilizer separation and 

loss of control of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

April 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: To view the AD docket, go 

to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001 or on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. The docket number is 

FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 

2006–CE–33–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. 

Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent 

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; 

telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 

946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Discussion 

On July 24, 2006, we issued a 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

include an AD that would apply to all 

RAC Beech Models 45 (YT–34), A45 (T–

34A, B45), and D45 (T–34B) airplanes. 

That proposal was published in the 

Federal Register as a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on July 31, 2006 (71 

FR 43075). The NPRM proposed to 

supersede AD 62–24–01 with a new AD 

that would retain the actions required in 

AD 62–24–01 and only change the 

inspection procedure from the dye 

penetrant method to the surface eddy 

current method. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in developing 

this AD. The following presents the 

comments received on the proposal and 

FAA’s response to each comment: 

Comment Issue No. 1: Change the 

Compliance Time for the Initial 

Inspection 

Larry Bierma, Joe Enzminger, John 

Aldous, Michael Vadeboncoeur, John 

Rippinger, William E. Mayher, Dan 

Thomas, and Victor Barrett state that the 

inspection compliance in the proposed 

AD is a duplication of the inspection for 

those who have done the eddy current 

inspection recently as part of 

compliance with an alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2004–25–

51. 

The commenters state that requiring 

another eddy current inspection within 

6 months after the effective date of this 

AD would be unnecessary and 

economically burdensome for those who 

have already done it. The commenters 

request credit for the last inspection 

done in compliance with an AMOC to 

AD 2004–25–51 as compliance for the 

initial inspection required in the 

proposed AD. 

We have rewritten the compliance 

time to give full credit for previously 

accomplished eddy current inspections 

done in the area affected by this AD. 

Comment Issue No. 2: AD Is Not 

Necessary 

Michael Vadeboncoeur, John Aldous, 

Mike Talbot, Eric Evans, Earle Parks, 

Floyd Stilwell, Dan Thomas, Stephen 

Baksa, William Beitler, and Terrance 

Brennan state that, since the time AD 

62–24–01 was issued, there have not 

been any accidents as a result of cracks 

in the horizontal stabilizer. The 

commenters request the proposed AD be 

withdrawn. 

The commenters also request that 

stabilizer spars modified by Parks 

Industries supplemental type certificate 

(STC) either be exempt from the 

inspections or the inspection interval be 

increased to 1,000 hours TIS. 

We do not agree with the commenters. 

In 2005, 148 of the affected airplanes 

were eddy current inspected. Cracks in 

the stabilizer spars and/or spar webs 

were found on 6 of these airplanes, 

which required the spars to be replaced. 

If no eddy current inspections had been 

done, those cracks may have grown and 

reached critical crack lengths, which 

could have compromised the integrity of 

the spar structure. 

In order to increase the inspection 

interval or eliminate the spar 

inspections, we need supporting 

engineering analysis data regarding 

fatigue life, crack growth rate, etc. We 

have not received such data for the 

spars modified by the Parks Industries 

STC. 

If we receive engineering analysis 

data that supports increasing the 

inspection intervals or eliminating the 

inspections, we may take additional 

rulemaking action at that time. 

We are not changing the final rule AD 

action based on these comments. 

Comment Issue No. 3: Retain the Dye 

Penetrant Inspection From AD 62–24– 

01 

Floyd Stilwell, Earle Parks, and 

Terrance Brennan state that the surface 

eddy current inspection is expensive 

and inconvenient. Qualified technicians 

to do the surface eddy current 

inspections have to be brought to the 

repair station from other parts of the 

country, which contributes to the 

expense of doing the eddy current 

inspection. The commenters request 

retaining the dye penetrant inspection. 

We do not agree with the commenters. 

AD 2001–13–18 R1 currently requires 

owners/operators of all Beech Models 

45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and 

D45 (T–34B) airplanes to do repetitive 

80-hour TIS eddy current inspections of 

the wing spar assemblies and other 

components following Raytheon 

Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 

SB 57–3329, Part II, Page 3/65, Issued: 

February, 2000. If the wing spar and 

stabilizer spar inspections are properly 

planned, these two inspections could be 

done at the same time. This planning 

would eliminate any extra expenses. 

We have reason to believe that 

damage tolerance analysis of the 

stabilizer spar is being conducted by 

some owners. This may result in 

additional rulemaking action that could 

eliminate the inspection or increase the 

inspection interval. Until that time, 

AMOCs for this AD may be approved, 

if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

We are not changing the final rule AD 

action based on these comments. 

Comment Issue No. 4: Surface Eddy 

Current Inspection Method 

Unwarranted 

Dan Thomas, William Beitler, Floyd 

Stilwell, William Mayher, and Mike 

Talbot state that the eddy current 

inspection method is no better than the 

dye penetrant method for detecting 

cracks. The level of safety will not be 

enhanced by changing the inspection 

methods. Further, the eddy current 

method could produce false positives 

and the frequent inspections could also 

incur damage to the stabilizer spar. The 

commenters request the method of 

inspection be at the owner’s/operator’s 

option. 

We do not agree with the commenters. 

The eddy current inspection method is 

a more sensitive inspection process. The 

dye penetrant inspection method at 

times could completely miss detecting 

the cracks. 

All inspection methods have some 

inherent drawbacks. Eddy current 

inspection methods detect small surface 

cracks better than dye penetrant 

methods, and eddy current inspection 

methods are also capable of detecting 

subsurface cracks. Detection of cracks 

early is a definite advantage. Eddy 

current inspection methods could 

occasionally produce false positives; 

however, this could be avoided if cracks 

are confirmed by repeatable flaw 

indications. 

If the inspections required by this AD 

are carefully done by qualified 

technicians, any damage to the spars 

could be prevented. 

The 500-hour TIS repetitive 

inspection interval is a long interval 

between inspections for this type of 

airplane, which normally will take place 

once in 5 years or longer in most cases; 

therefore, we do not consider this 

inspection requirement as frequent. 

We are not changing the final rule AD 

action based on this comment. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data and determined that air 

safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD as proposed except for 

minor editorial corrections. We have 

determined that these minor 

corrections: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10911 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 475 

airplanes in the U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

accomplish each inspection: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 ........................................................ Not applicable .................................. $640 $304,000 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary horizontal stabilizer 

replacements that will be required based 

on the results of the inspection. We 

have no way of determining the number 

of airplanes that may need this 

replacement: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 ............................................................................................ $3,500 $3,820 

Cost Difference Between This AD and 

AD 62–24–01 

The only difference between this AD 

and AD 62–24–01 is the change of 

inspection method. There may be some 

minimal additional cost involved in 

doing the eddy current inspection 

because of possible equipment rentals 

necessary. No additional actions are 

being required. We have determined 

that this AD action does not increase the 

cost impact over that already required 

by AD 62–24–01. 

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 AD. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that 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. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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. 

We prepared a summary of the costs 

to comply with this AD (and other 

information as included in the 

Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in 

the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 

this summary by sending a request to us 

at the address listed under ADDRESSES. 

Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD’’

in your request. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

62–24–01, Amendment 39–508, and 

adding the following new AD: 

2007–06–01 Raytheon Aircraft Company: 

Amendment 39–14982; Docket No. FAA–

2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–

33–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective on 

April 16, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 62–24–01, 

Amendment 39–508. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD affects the following 

airplane models and serial numbers that 

are certificated in any category: 

Model Serial 

numbers 

Beech 45 (YT–34) ................ All 

Beech A45 (T34A, B–45) ..... All 

Beech D45 (T–34B) .............. All 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from our 

determination that the surface eddy 

current inspection method should be 

used in place of the dye penetrant 

inspection method currently required in 

AD 62–24–01. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent failure of the front and/or rear 

horizontal stabilizer spars caused by 

fatigue cracks. This failure could result 

in stabilizer separation and loss of 

control of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) Using the surface eddy current 

inspection procedures outlined in the 

appendix of this AD, inspect the front 

and rear horizontal stabilizer spars 

between the butt rib and the inboard 

end for cracks, unless already done, as 

follows: 

(1) If the last inspection of the front 

and rear horizontal stabilizer spars was 

done using the surface eddy current 

method (or FAA-approved equivalent 

method) to show compliance with 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

AD 62–24–01 and/or to show 

compliance with the alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2004–25–

51: Repetitively inspect thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 500 hours timein-service (TIS). 

(2) If the last inspection of the front 

and rear horizontal stabilizer spars 

required by AD 62–24–01 was done 

using the dye penetrant method: Inspect 

initially as presented in the table below 

and repetitively thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 500 hours TIS: 

If Then 

(i) Less than 200 

hours TIS have 

passed since the 

last inspection required by AD 62–

24–01: 

Inspect at whichever 

of the following occurs later: 

(A) Upon accumulating 200 hours 

TIS since the last 

inspection required 

by AD 62–24–01; 

or 

(B) Within the next 6 

months after April 

16, 2007. (the effective date of this 

AD). 

(ii) If 200 hours TIS or 

more have passed 

since the last inspection required 

by AD–24–01: 

Inspect at whichever 

of the following occurs first, unless 

paragraph (e)(2)(iii) 

of this AD applies, 

as specified below: 

(A) At the next repetitive inspection required by AD 62–

24–01; or 

(B) Within the next 6 

months after April 

16, 2007 (the effective date of this 

AD). 

If Then 

(iii) If paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) results in 

the initial surface 

eddy current inspection becoming 

mandatory within 

30 days after the 

effective date of 

this AD: 

Inspect within the 

next 30 days after 

April 16, 2007. (the 

effective date of 

this AD). 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: T.N. 

Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 

Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 

946–4155; fax: (316) 946–4107, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(g) AMOCs approved for AD 62–24–

01 are approved for this AD. 

Appendix to AD 2007–06–01 

Surface Eddy Current Inspection Procedure 

Note: This surface eddy current inspection 

procedure is based on T–34 Spar Corporation 

TSC 3506, Rev C, dated May 10, 2005. The 

T–34 Spar Corporation is allowing the use of 

this procedure to be included in this 

Airworthiness Directive. Alternative methods 

of compliance procedures will be allowed, if 

approved by the Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office and requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Purpose: This procedure is to be used to 

detect cracks in the inner and outer spars of 

the front and rear spar assemblies of 

Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 

(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 (T–

34B) airplane stabilizers outside of the steel 

bushings in the attach holes. 

Area To Be Inspected: To access the area 

of inspection, remove the stabilizer from the 

airplane. The areas to be inspected include 

the forward and aft surfaces of the inner and 

outer front and rear spars of the horizontal 

stabilizers in the areas surrounding each of 

the attach holes. 

Preparing the Area for Inspection: 

Thoroughly clean area to be inspected with 

solvent (acetone or equivalent) as required 

until no signs of dirt, grime, or oil remain on 

the front and rear spars from the closeout 

former inboard on the forward and aft 

surfaces of the spars. 

Surfaces to be inspected should be smooth 

and corrosion-free. Any loss of thickness due 

to corrosion below material thickness 

tolerance is cause for rejection of the 

structure. An ultrasonic tester may be used 

to determine if material thickness has been 

compromised. 

Equipment Requirements: Nortec Stavely 

2000D Eddy Current Tester or equivalent. 

Probe: 50–500 KHz, shielded, absolute, 

0.071’’ diameter (0.090 max. diameter), right 

angle, pencil style, surface probe, 5 long, 1⁄2′′ 

drop or equivalent. Use 0.025′′ notch (beyond 

head) for calibration 

Personal Requirements: Technicians with 

Eddy Current, Level II or Level III per one of 

the following specifications: ATA 

specification 105, SNT–TC–1A, or NAS–410 

(MIL–std 410E). 

Methods: Typical Set-up Parameters: 

Frequency–350 KHz, Gain Vertical–75 dB, 

Horizontal–69 dB, Drive-Mid, Filters– Lo 

Pass–30, Hi Pass–0, Lift off-Horizontal to the 

left, adjust as required. The most reliable 

indication (minimum of 11⁄2 to 2 graticules) 

of the smallest observable flaw in the coupon 

(see the attached Figures) occurs from the 

notch extending 0.025′′ past the edge of the 

nominal fastener head (total notch length of 

0.100′′ from the edge of the nominal hole). 

Install appropriate aluminum guide pin into 

bushing such that the edge of the guide pin 

is flush with the edge of the bushing. Using 

the pin (see the attached Figures) as a guide, 

circle the area surrounding the steel bushing 

with the probe and adjacent area 

(approximately 1⁄4’’) to inspect for cracks. 

Inspect forward and aft surfaces surrounding 

bushings of each spar. 

Note: T–34 Spar Corporation, 2800 Airport 

Road, Hanger A, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820 is a 

source for these coupons and pin. 

Accept/Reject Criteria: Any repeatable flaw 

indication is cause for rejection in 

accordance with the procedure. In the event 

that any crack is detected, describe the flaw 

in detail providing sketch as needed and 

send the information to the Wichita ACO. 

Documentation Requirements: Record 

inspection findings in the aircraft logbook. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10913 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER12mr07.003</GPH>
10914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER12mr07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10915 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER12mr07.005</GPH>
10916 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER12mr07.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10917 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER12mr07.007</GPH>
10918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

5, 2007. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1106 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20850; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NE–05–AD; Amendment 39–

14976; AD 2007–05–15] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne 

Continental Motors GTSIO–520 Series 

Reciprocating Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) 

GTSIO–520 series reciprocating engines. 

That AD currently requires initial and 

repetitive visual inspections of the 

starter adapter assembly and crankshaft 

gear and unscheduled visual 

inspections of the starter adapter 

assembly and crankshaft gear due to a 

rough-running engine. That AD also 

requires replacement of the starter 

adapter shaft gear needle bearing with a 

certain bushing and installation of a 

certain TCM service kit at the next 

engine overhaul, or at the next starter 

adapter replacement, whichever occurs 

first. This AD requires performing the 

inspection ordered in paragraph (h) of 

this AD every 100 hours time-in-service 

(TIS), or annually. This proposed AD 

results from an error discovered in AD 

2005–20–04. We are issuing this AD to 

failure of the starter adapter assembly 

and or crankshaft gear, resulting in 

failure of the engine and possible forced 

landing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

16, 2007. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the regulations as of April 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You can get the service 

information identified in this AD from 

Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., PO 

Box 90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone 

(251) 438–3411. 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Robinette, Senior Engineer, Propulsion, 

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, One 

Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Blvd., 

Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30349; 

telephone: (770) 703–6096, 

fax: (770) 703–6097. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

a proposed AD. The proposed AD 

applies to TCM GTSIO–520 series 

reciprocating engines. We published the 

proposed AD in the Federal Register on 

October 26, 2006, (71 FR 62570). That 

action proposed to require performing 

the inspection ordered in paragraph (h) 

of AD 2005–20–04 every 100 hours 

time-in-service (TIS), or annually to 

correct an error that required the 

inspection at every 100-hour inspection. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains the AD, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is 

located on the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation Nassif 

Building at the street address stated in 

ADDRESSES. Comments will be available 

in the AD docket shortly after the DMS 

receives them. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comment[s] received. 

Remove the Requirement for a Placard 

Two commenters propose dropping 

the placard from the requirements of the 

proposed AD. The commenters do not 

believe the placard is necessary. We 

agree. It appears the commenters are 

basing their comment on the original 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that we issued on April 6, 2005, not the 

current NPRM. We received comments 

to the original NPRM similar to these 

comments and removed the requirement 

to add a placard before we issued AD 

2005–20–05. We didn’t change this AD. 

Request to Change the Required 

Inspection 

The same two commenters request we 

mandate a more detailed inspection for 

the components. The commenters state 

that a visual inspection might not be 

sufficient. We don’t agree. The 

commenters didn’t specify any 

additional inspections. We consider a 

visual inspection the best method to 

detect abnormal surface wear. We don’t 

have any requirement for 

nondestructive testing because we have 

no indication of subsurface 

deterioration. We didn’t change the AD. 

Request To Perform Additional 

Economic Assessment 

One commenter asks us to perform 

additional economic assessment. The 

commenter states we didn’t consider the 

economic effects on other small entities. 

We don’t agree. We used our current 

procedures to consider the economic 

effects of this action. We didn’t change 

the AD. 

Editorial Changes To Improve Clarity 

and Correct an Omission 

We changed paragraph (f) of this AD 

from ‘‘If, during an inspection * * * 

crankcase, replace it with a serviceable 

bushing before reassembling 

components’’ to ‘‘(f) If, during an 

inspection required by paragraph (g), 

(h), (i), or (j) of this AD, you find needle 

bearing, part number (P/N) 537721, 

installed in the crankcase, replace it 

with a serviceable bushing, P/N 654472 

or equivalent FAA approved bearing, 

before reassembling components’’ to 

clarify the intent of that requirement. 

We also added paragraph (h)(3) to 

make the compliance times in that 

requirement consistent with paragraph 

(i)(3). 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. We have determined that 

these changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

4,240 engines installed on airplanes of 

U.S. registry. We also estimate that it 

will take about one work-hour per 

engine to perform the inspection, about 

one work-hour per engine to perform 

the proposed bushing installation and 

about six work-hours per engine to 

install the TCM service kit. The average 

labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We 

estimate that about 25 percent of the 

engines will require an unscheduled 

(rough-running engine) inspection and 

about half of the engines will require the 

bushing and TCM service kit. Required 

bushings would cost about $16 per 

engine and service kits about $800 per 

engine. Based on these figures, we 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES