Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49221 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2007–11–08, 

Amendment 39–15065 (72 FR 28594, May 22, 

2007), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of this AD. 

(q) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6509; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: rebel.nichols@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

2, 2013. 

Ross Landes, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19527 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0724; Directorate 

Identifier 99–CE–013–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise 

airworthiness directive (AD) 99–26–19 

that applies to certain The New Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Model J–2 airplanes 

equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99– 

26–19 currently requires repetitively 

inspecting the wing lift struts for dents 

and corrosion; repetitively inspecting 

the wing lift strut forks for cracks; 

replacing any dented or corroded wing 

lift strut; replacing any cracked wing lift 

strut fork; and repetitively replacing the 

wing lift strut forks at specified times 

for certain airplanes. AD 99–26–19 also 

currently requires incorporating a ‘‘NO 

STEP’’ placard on the wing lift strut. 

Since we issued AD 99–26–19, we have 

been informed that paragraph (c) is 

being misinterpreted and causing 

confusion. This proposed AD would 

clarify the intent of the language 

currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99–26– 

19 and would retain all other 

requirements of AD 99–26–19. We are 

proposing this AD to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 27, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Piper 

Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 

Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; 

telephone: (772) 567–4361; Internet: 

www.piper.com. Information about the 

Jensen Aircraft STCs may be obtained 

from F. Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services, 

LLC, 6672 Wes Way, Anchorage, Alaska 

99518–0409, Internet: 

www.fadodge.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory ‘‘Keith’’ Noles, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; 

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0724; Directorate Identifier 

99–CE–013–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On December 16, 1999, we issued AD 

99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 

FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (‘‘AD 

99–26–19’’), for certain The New Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. (currently Piper Aircraft, 

Inc.) J–2 series airplanes equipped with 

wing lift struts. We issued AD 99–26– 

19 because J–2 series airplanes were 

inadvertently omitted from the 

applicability of AD 99–01–05, 

Amendment 39–10972 (63 FR 72132, 

December 31, 1998, (‘‘99–01–05’’). 

AD 99–01–05 was issued to supersede 

AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 

FR 29965, May 25, 1993), which 

previously included J–2 series airplanes 

in the Applicability section, in order to 

include a terminating action for 

repetitively inspecting and replacing the 

wing lift struts and the wing lift strut 

forks. 

We issued both ADs to detect and 

correct corrosion and cracking on the 

front and rear wing lift struts and forks, 

which could cause the wing lift strut to 

fail. This failure could result in the wing 

separating from the airplane. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Since AD 99–26–19 Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 99–26–19, we 

have been informed that the language in 

paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted 

and causing confusion. Paragraph (c) of 

AD 99–26–19 currently states, ‘‘If holes 

are drilled in wing lift strut assemblies 

installed in accordance with (a)(4) or 

(b)(3) of this AD to attach cuffs, door 

clips, or other hardware, inspect the 

wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 

24 calendar months using the 

procedures specified in either 

paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), including all 

subparagraphs, of this AD.’’ 

Our intention was to specify that if a 

sealed wing lift strut assembly is 

installed as a replacement part, the 

repetitive inspection requirement is 

terminated only if the seal is never 

improperly broken. We also intended to 

specify that if the seal is improperly 

broken then that wing lift strut becomes 

subject to continued repetitive 

inspections. 

We did not intend to promote drilling 

holes into or otherwise unsealing a 

sealed strut. Properly unsealing and 

resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still 

considered a terminating action for the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

this proposed AD as long as all 

appropriate regulations and issues are 

considered, such as static strength, 

fatigue, material effects, immediate and 

long-term (internal and external) 

corrosion protection, resealing methods, 

etc. Current FAA regulations in 14 CFR 

43.13(b) specify that maintenance 

performed will result in the part’s 

condition to be at least equal to its 

original or properly altered condition. 

There are provisions in this proposed 

AD for approving such actions as an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC). 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 99–26–19. This 

proposed AD would also clarify our 

intent of required actions if the seal on 

a sealed wing lift strut is ever 

improperly broken. 

Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 

Since AD 99–26–19 was issued, the 

AD format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table: 

TABLE 1—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 99–26–19 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (h) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paragraph (a)(4) paragraph (j)(2) 

paragraph (b) paragraph (k) 

paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i) & (b)(1)(ii) paragraph (l) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) paragraph (l)(1) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) & (b)(1)(iv) paragraph (l)(2) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) & (b)(1)(iv) paragraph (l)(3) 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii) & (b)(2) paragraph (m)(1) 

paragraph (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) & (b)(3)(ii) paragraph (m)(2) 

Paragraph (c) Removed 

paragraph (d) paragraph (n)(1) 

paragraph (d)(1) paragraph (n)(1)(i) 

paragraph (d)(2) paragraph (n)(1)(ii) 

N/A Paragraph (n)(2) 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

However, the only difference in the 

costs presented below and the costs 

associated with AD 99–26–19, is the 

change in the labor rate from $65 per 

hour to $85 per hour: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection of the wing lift struts 

and wing lift strut forks.

8 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$680 per inspection cycle.

Not applicable ............ $680 per inspection 

cycle.

$61,880 per inspection cycle. 

Installation placard ....................... 1 work-hour × $85 = $85 ............. $30 ............................. $115 ........................... $10,465. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these replacements: 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49223 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost per wing lift strut Parts cost per 

wing lift strut 

Cost per product 

per wing lift strut 

Replacement of the wing lift strut and/or wing lift 

strut forks.

4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 ....................... $440 $780 

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 proposed 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority because it addresses an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 

FR 72524, December 28, 1999), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0724; Directorate Identifier 99–CE–013– 

AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by September 27, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD revises AD 99–26–19, 

Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, 

December 28, 1999). AD 99–01–05, 

Amendment 39–10972 (63 FR 72132, 

December 31, 1998), which superseded AD 

93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 

29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the 

subject of this AD. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

Model J–2 airplanes, serial numbers 500 

through 1975, that are: 

(1) equipped with wing lift struts; and 

(2) certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

The subject of this AD was originally 

prompted by reports of corrosion damage 

found on the wing lift struts. We are revising 

AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 

72524, December 28, 1999), because of 

reports that paragraph (c) in the existing AD 

is being misinterpreted and is causing 

confusion. This AD clarifies the intent of the 

language currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99– 

26–19, which is being removed by this AD. 

Our intention was to specify that if a sealed 

wing lift strut assembly is installed as a 

replacement part, the repetitive inspection 

requirement is terminated only if the seal 

never improperly broken. This AD retains all 

the actions currently required in AD 99–26– 

19. There are no new requirements in this AD 

and it does not add any additional burden to 

the owners/operators of the affected 

airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct corrosion and cracking on the 

front and rear wing lift struts and forks, 

which could cause the wing lift strut to fail. 

This failure could result in the wing 

separating from the airplane. 

(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 99– 

26–19 

Since AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39– 

11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), 

was issued, the AD format has been revised, 

and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. 

As a result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed 

in the following table: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f) OF THIS AD—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 99–26–19 Corresponding requirement in this AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (h) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paragraph (a)(4) paragraph (j)(2) 

paragraph (b) paragraph (k) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f) OF THIS AD—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS—Continued 

Requirement in AD 99–26–19 Corresponding requirement in this AD 

paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(1)(ii) paragraph (l) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) paragraph (l)(1) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(1)(iv) paragraph (l)(2) 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(iv) paragraph (l)(3) 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2) paragraph (m)(1) 

paragraph (b)(3) through (b)(3)(ii) paragraph (m)(2) 

Paragraph (c) Removed 

paragraph (d) paragraph (n)(1) 

paragraph (d)(1) paragraph (n)(1)(i) 

paragraph (d)(2) paragraph (n)(1)(ii) 

N/A Paragraph (n)(2) 

(g) Compliance 

Unless already done (compliance with AD 

99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 

72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following 

actions within the compliance times 

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

AD, including all subparagraphs. 

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

AD does not require any actions over that 

already required by AD 99–26–19, 

Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, 

December 28, 1999). This AD clarifies the 

FAA’s intention that if a sealed wing lift strut 

assembly is installed as a replacement part, 

the repetitive inspection requirement is 

terminated only if the seal is never 

improperly broken. If the seal is improperly 

broken, then that wing lift strut becomes 

subject to continued repetitive inspections. 

We did not intend to promote drilling holes 

into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. 

Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed 

wing lift strut is still considered a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspection requirements of this AD as long as 

all appropriate regulations and issues are 

considered, such as static strength, fatigue, 

material effects, immediate and long-term 

(internal and external) corrosion protection, 

resealing methods, etc. 

(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts 

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

of this AD that occurs later, remove the wing 

lift struts following Piper Aircraft 

Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin 

(Piper MSB) No. 528D, dated October 19, 

1990. Before further flight after the removal, 

do one of the actions in either paragraph 

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

including all subparagraphs. 

(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 

14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 

99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 

72524, December 28, 1999)); or 

(2) Within 24 calendar months after the last 

inspection done in accordance with AD 93– 

10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, 

May 25, 1993). 

(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts 

(1) Before further flight after the removal 

required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect 

each wing lift strut for corrosion and 

perceptible dents following Piper MSB No. 

528D, dated October 19, 1990. 

(i) If no corrosion is visible and no 

perceptible dents are found on any wing lift 

strut during the inspection required in 

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

flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing 

lift strut following Piper MSB No. 528D, 

dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively 

thereafter inspect each wing lift strut at 

intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months 

following the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) 

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

subparagraphs. 

(ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are 

found on any wing lift strut during the 

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

AD or during any repetitive inspection 

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

before further flight, replace the affected 

wing lift strut with one of the replacement 

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

of this AD. Do the replacement following the 

procedures specified in those paragraphs, as 

applicable. 

(2) Before further flight after the removal 

required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect 

each wing lift strut for corrosion following 

the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. 

This inspection must be done by a Level 2 

or Level 3 inspector certified using the 

guidelines established by the American 

Society for Non-destructive Testing or the 

‘‘Military Standard for Nondestructive 

Testing Personnel Qualification and 

Certification’’ (MIL–STD–410E). 

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

strut during the inspection required in 

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

requirements in the Appendix to this AD are 

met, before further flight, apply corrosion 

inhibitor to each wing lift strut following 

Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing lift 

strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar 

months following the procedures in 

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

all subparagraphs. 

(ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift 

strut during the inspection required 

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

repetitive inspection required in paragraph 

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

the Appendix of this AD is not met, before 

further flight after any inspection in which 

corrosion is found or the Appendix 

requirements are not met, replace the affected 

wing lift strut with one of the replacement 

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

of this AD. Do the replacement following the 

procedures specified in those paragraphs, as 

applicable. 

(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options 

(1) Install original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) part number wing lift struts (or FAAapproved equivalent part numbers) that have 

been inspected following the procedures in 

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

including all subparagraphs, and are found to 

be airworthy. Do the installations following 

Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly 

installed wing lift struts at intervals not to 

exceed 24 calendar months following the 

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

of this AD, including all subparagraphs. 

(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut 

assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part 

numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut 

assemblies also include the wing lift strut 

forks) following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated 

October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new 

sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates 

the repetitive inspection requirements in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the 

wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and 

replacement requirements in paragraphs (k) 

and (l) of this AD, including all 

subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut 

assembly. 

(k) Remove Wing Lift Strut Forks 

Within the next 100 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) after February 14, 2000 (the effective 

date retained from AD 99–26–19, 

Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524, 

December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS 

after the last inspection done in accordance 

with AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 

FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs 

later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless 

already replaced in accordance with 

paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal 

following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated 

October 19, 1990. Before further flight after 

the removal, do one of the actions in either 

paragraph (l) or (m) of this AD, including all 

subparagraphs. 

(l) Inspect and Replace Wing Lift Strut Forks 

Before further flight after the removal 

required in paragraph (k) of this AD, inspect 

the wing lift strut forks for cracks using 

magnetic particle procedures, such as those 

contained in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 

43.13–1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in 

the Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ 

99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49225 

$FILE/Chapter%2005.pdf. Repetitively 

thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 

500 hours TIS until the replacement time 

requirement specified in paragraph (l)(2) or 

(l)(3) of this AD is reached provided no 

cracks are found. 

(1) If cracks are found during any 

inspection required in paragraph (l) of this 

AD or during any repetitive inspection 

required in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the affected 

wing lift strut fork with one of the 

replacement options specified in paragraph 

(m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. Do the 

replacement following the procedures 

specified in those paragraphs, as applicable. 

(2) If no cracks are found during the initial 

inspection required in paragraph (l) of this 

AD and the airplane is currently equipped 

with floats or has been equipped with floats 

at any time during the previous 2,000 hours 

TIS since the wing lift strut forks were 

installed, at or before accumulating 1,000 

hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, replace 

the wing lift strut forks with one of the 

replacement options specified in paragraph 

(m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. Do the 

replacement following the procedures 

specified in those paragraphs, as applicable. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly 

installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not 

to exceed 500 hours TIS following the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 

AD, including all subparagraphs. 

(3) If no cracks are found during the initial 

inspection required in paragraph (l) of this 

AD and the airplane has never been 

equipped with floats during the previous 

2,000 hours TIS since the wing lift strut forks 

were installed, at or before accumulating 

2,000 hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, 

replace the wing lift strut forks with one of 

the replacement options specified in 

paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2). Do the 

replacement following the procedures 

specified in those paragraphs, as applicable. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly 

installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not 

to exceed 500 hours TIS following the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 

AD, including all subparagraphs. 

(m) Wing Lift Strut Fork Replacement 

Options 

(1) Install new OEM part number wing lift 

strut forks of the same part numbers of the 

existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent 

part numbers) that were manufactured with 

rolled threads. Wing lift strut forks 

manufactured with machine (cut) threads are 

not to be used. Do the installations following 

Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace 

the newly installed wing lift strut forks at 

intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS 

following the procedures specified in 

paragraph (l) of this AD, including all 

subparagraphs. 

(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut 

assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part 

numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut 

assemblies also include the wing lift strut 

forks) following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated 

October 19, 1990. This installation may have 

already been done through the option 

specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. 

Installing one of these new sealed wing lift 

strut assemblies terminates the repetitive 

inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) 

and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut 

fork removal, inspection, and replacement 

requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this 

AD, including all subparagraphs, for that 

wing lift strut assembly. 

(n) Install Placard 

(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 

14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 

99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 

72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24 

calendar months after the last inspection 

required by AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39– 

8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), and before 

further flight after any replacement of a wing 

lift strut assembly required by this AD, do 

one of the following: 

(i) Install ‘‘NO STEP’’ decal, Piper (P/N) 

80944–02, on each wing lift strut 

approximately 6 inches from the bottom of 

the wing lift strut in a way that the letters can 

be read when entering and exiting the 

airplane; or 

(ii) Paint the words ‘‘NO STEP’’ 

approximately 6 inches from the bottom of 

the wing lift struts in a way that the letters 

can be read when entering and exiting the 

airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch letters 

using a color that contrasts with the color of 

the airplane. 

(2) The ‘‘NO STEP’’ markings required by 

paragraph (n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD 

must remain in place for the life of the 

airplane. 

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 93–10–06, 

Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 

1993) and AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39– 

11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999) are 

approved as AMOCs for this AD. 

(p) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 

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

gregory.noles@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 

Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero 

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

4361; Internet: www.piper.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(816) 329–4148. 

Appendix to Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0724 

Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic 

Inspection of Piper Wing Lift Struts 

Equipment Requirements 

1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or 

flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital 

thickness readout capable of reading to 

0.001-inch and an A-trace waveform display 

will be needed to do this inspection. 

2. An ultrasonic probe with the following 

specifications will be needed to do this 

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

(or smaller) diameter dual element or delay 

line transducer designed for thickness 

gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic 

system shall be capable of accurately 

measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel 

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

0.002-inch throughout a 0.020-inch to 0.050- 

inch thickness range while calibrating shall 

be the criteria for acceptance. 

3. Either a precision machined step wedge 

made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with 

equivalent sound velocity) or at least three 

shim samples of same material will be 

needed to do this inspection. One thickness 

of the step wedge or shim shall be less than 

or equal to 0.020-inch, one shall be greater 

than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at least one 

other step or shim shall be between these two 

values. 

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

based ultrasonic couplants are recommended 

in the setup and inspection procedures. 

Water-based couplants, containing 

appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be 

utilized, provided they are removed from 

both the reference standards and the test item 

after the inspection procedure is completed 

and adequate corrosion prevention steps are 

then taken to protect these items. 

• Note: Couplant is defined as ‘‘a 

substance used between the face of the 

transducer and test surface to improve 

transmission of ultrasonic energy across the 

transducer/strut interface.’’ 

• Note: If surface roughness due to paint 

loss or corrosion is present, the surface 

should be sanded or polished smooth before 

testing to assure a consistent and smooth 

surface for making contact with the 

transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a 

minimal amount of structural material. Paint 

repairs may be necessary after the inspection 

to prevent further corrosion damage from 

occurring. Removal of surface irregularities 

will enhance the accuracy of the inspection 

technique. 

Instrument Setup 

1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for 

thickness measurements as specified in the 

instrument’s user’s manual. Because of the 

variety of equipment available to perform 

ultrasonic thickness measurements, some 

modification to this general setup procedure 

may be necessary. However, the tolerance 

requirement of step 13 and the record 

keeping requirement of step 14, must be 

satisfied. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
49226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2. If battery power will be employed, check 

to see that the battery has been properly 

charged. The testing will take approximately 

two hours. Screen brightness and contrast 

should be set to match environmental 

conditions. 

3. Verify that the instrument is set for the 

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

dual element, and that the frequency setting 

is compatible with the transducer. 

4. If a removable delay line is used, remove 

it and place a drop of couplant between the 

transducer face and the delay line to assure 

good transmission of ultrasonic energy. 

Reassemble the delay line transducer and 

continue. 

5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/ 

microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless 

an alternative instrument calibration 

procedure is used to set the sound velocity. 

6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per 

item 3 of the Equipment Requirements. Place 

the probe on the thickest sample using 

couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back 

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

sample. Adjust the delay and range settings 

to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the 

first backwall echo from the steel near the left 

side of the screen and the second backwall 

echo near the right of the screen. Note that 

when a single element transducer is used, the 

initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface 

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

gain to place the amplitude of the first 

backwall signal at approximately 80% screen 

height on the A-trace. 

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

step or shim using couplant. Select positive 

half-wave rectified, negative half-wave 

rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain 

the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage, 

pulse width, and damping to obtain the best 

signal resolution. These settings can vary 

from one transducer to another and are also 

user dependent. 

8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the 

gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo 

and ends at the second backwall echo. 

(Measuring between the first and second 

backwall echoes will produce a measurement 

of the steel thickness that is not affected by 

the paint layer on the strut). If instability of 

the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate 

level, and/or damping to stabilize the 

thickness reading. 

9. Check the digital display reading and if 

it does not agree with the known thickness 

of the thinnest thickness, follow your 

instrument’s calibration recommendations to 

produce the correct thickness reading. When 

a single element transducer is used this will 

usually involve adjusting the fine delay 

setting. 

10. Place the transducer on the thickest 

step of shim using couplant. Adjust the 

thickness gate width so that the gate is 

triggered by the second backwall reflection of 

the thick section. If the digital display does 

not agree with the thickest thickness, follow 

your instruments calibration 

recommendations to produce the correct 

thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the 

velocity may be necessary to get both the 

thinnest and the thickest reading correct. 

Document the changed velocity value. 

11. Place couplant on an area of the lift 

strut which is thought to be free of corrosion 

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

adjustments to the signal and gate settings 

may be required to account for coupling 

improvements resulting from the paint layer. 

The thickness gate level should be set just 

high enough so as not to be triggered by 

irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper 

surface of the lift strut above the inspection 

area would be a good location to complete 

this step and should produce a thickness 

reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch. 

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

thick and thin shim measurements are within 

tolerance and the lift strut measurement is 

reasonable and steady. 

13. Verify that the thickness value shown 

in the digital display is within +/- 0.002-inch 

of the correct value for each of the three or 

more steps of the setup wedge or shims. 

Make no further adjustments to the 

instrument settings. 

14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual 

thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims 

available as a record of setup. 

Inspection Procedure 

1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing 

lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all 

dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely 

affect the accuracy of the inspection 

technique. Light sanding or polishing may 

also be required to reduce surface roughness 

as noted in the Equipment Requirements 

section. 

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

grid on the surface of the first 11 inches from 

the lower end of the strut as shown in Piper 

Service Bulletin No. 528D. This can be done 

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

on both faces of the strut. As an alternative 

to drawing a complete grid, make two rows 

of marks spaced every 1/4-inch across the 

width of the strut. One row of marks should 

be about 11 inches from the lower end of the 

strut, and the second row should be several 

inches away where the strut starts to narrow. 

Lay the flexible ruler between respective tick 

marks of the two rows and use tape or a 

rubber band to keep the ruler in place. See 

Figure 1. 

3. Apply a generous amount of couplant 

inside each of the square areas or along the 

edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant 

may be necessary. 

4. Place the transducer inside the first 

square area of the drawn grid or at the first 

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

transducer to the strut. When using a dual 

element transducer, be very careful to record 

the thickness value with the axis of the 

transducer elements perpendicular to any 

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

of signal or inaccurate readings can result. 

5. Take readings inside each square on the 

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

and record the results. When taking a 

thickness reading, rotate the transducer 

slightly back and forth and experiment with 

the angle of contact to produce the lowest 

thickness reading possible. Pay close 

attention to the A-scan display to assure that 

the thickness gate is triggering off of 

maximized backwall echoes. 

• Note: A reading shall not exceed .041 

inch. If a reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat 

steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup 

section before proceeding further. 

6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the 

thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the 

signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain 

reasonable and steady readings. If any 

instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13 

and 14 of the Instrument Setup section before 

proceeding further. 

7. In areas where obstructions are present, 

take a data point as close to the correct area 

as possible. 

• Note: The strut wall contains a 

fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the 

strut chord. The bead may interfere with 

accurate measurements in that specific 

location. 

8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less 

shall require replacement of the strut prior to 

further flight. 

9. If at any time during testing an area is 

encountered where a valid thickness 

measurement cannot be obtained due to a 

loss of signal strength or quality, the area 

shall be considered suspect. These areas may 

have a remaining wall thickness of less than 

0.020-inch, which is below the range of this 

setup, or they may have small areas of 

localized corrosion or pitting present. The 

latter case will result in a reduction in signal 

strength due to the sound being scattered 

from the rough surface and may result in a 

signal that includes echoes from the pits as 

well as the backwall. The suspect area(s) 

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

as specified in Piper Service Bulletin No. 

528D. 

10. Record the lift strut inspection in the 

aircraft log book. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49227 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

6, 2013. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19530 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0687; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–118–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 

(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of burr marks on 

the primary wheels, and cracked rings 

on the primary wheel shaft, on certain 

horizontal stabilizer trim actuators 

(HSTAs). This proposed AD would 

require replacing certain HSTAs. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent burr marks 

on the primary wheels, and cracked 

rings on the primary wheel shaft, on 

certain HSTAs, which may lead to a 

disconnect of the pitch trim surface and 

subsequent loss of pitch control, 

resulting in loss of control of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 27, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

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

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 

7318; fax (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0687; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–118–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP13AU13.010</GPH>