35110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on June 3, 

2013. 

Kimberly K. Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13800 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0983; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–001–AD; Amendment 

39–17457; AD 2013–10–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

all Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–31, 

PA–31–325, and PA–31–350 airplanes. 

That AD currently requires a detailed 

repetitive inspection of the exhaust 

system downstream of the turbochargers 

and repair or replacement of parts as 

necessary. This new AD requires visual 

repetitive inspections, expanding the 

inspection scope to include the entirety 

of each airplane exhaust system. This 

AD was prompted by reports of exhaust 

system failures upstream of aircraft 

turbochargers and between recurring 

detailed inspections. We are issuing this 

AD to correct the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective July 17, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of July 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Piper 

Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero 

Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 

567–4361; fax: (772) 978–6573; Internet: 

www.piper.com/home/pages/ 

Publications.cfm. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, 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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, 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: Gary 

Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; telephone: (404) 474–5575; fax: 

(404) 474–5606; email: 

gary.wechsler@faa. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 82–16–05 R1, 

amendment 39–5278 (51 FR 11707, 

April 7, 1986). That AD applies to the 

specified products. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57534). The 

NPRM included a detailed inspection 

that involved disassembling the v-band 

couplings. We removed that detailed 

inspection, and we added a table listing 

specific parts and inspection criteria to 

clarify the visual inspection. We also 

identified that airplanes with the STC 

SA240CH heat exchanger installed may 

not have all of the parts requiring the 

visual inspection. (Information on STC 

SA240CH may be found at http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE

421D86257297005B6822?Open

Document&Highlight=sa240ch.) We 

determined that these changes will not 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator or increase the scope of the AD 

over what was originally proposed in 

the NPRM. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Revise Cost of Compliance 

Douglas Deering and Terry Mangione 

stated the compliance costs are too high 

and could lead to cost saving attempts 

in other places. Douglas Deering added 

the cost does not include clamps and 

gaskets. 

We partially agree. We agree that the 

cost of compliance per airplane may 

vary depending on the location in 

which compliance is made because the 

cost of labor and parts varies throughout 

the United States of America. We 

disagree with the claim that the cost of 

compliance is too great because of the 

safety risk the current design poses. 

Additionally, the cost of replacing 

clamps and gaskets is part of the oncondition costs, which cannot be 

predicted because of the multitude and 

manner of environments in which these 

airplanes operate result in widely 

varying exhaust system conditions over 

time. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Eliminate or Change Visual Inspection 

Compliance Requirement 

Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, and 

Lycoming Engines suggested 

eliminating the visual inspection 

compliance requirement and instead 

visually inspecting the entire exhaust 

system at 100 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) or every other engine inspection 

event if maintained by an FAAapproved aircraft inspection program 

(AAIP). Visual inspections are already 

required under AAIP, 100-hour, and 

annual inspections; and Lycoming 

engine operations manuals currently 

recommend 50-hour visual inspections 

of the entire exhaust manifold for leaks. 

We agree that manufacturer’s 

maintenance instructions include visual 

inspection requirements for exhaust and 

turbocharger systems. However, these 

manufacturer’s maintenance 

instructions are only recommendations 

from which operators may base 

individual, FAA approved, maintenance 

programs on. Thus, AAIP, 100-hour, and 

annual inspection programs may or may 

not include the inspections proposed by 

this AD. The only way to ensure that a 

level of maintenance is performed to 

mitigate the safety risk the current 

design poses is through mandating these 

inspections, hence the need for the AD. 

We disagree with the request to 

eliminate the recurring 50-hour visual 

inspection compliance requirement 

because a visual inspection to look for 

specific signs of imminent failure at 

intervals less than 100 hours was 

determined necessary to mitigate the 

safety risk the current design poses. The 

inspections required by AAIP, 100-hour 

and annual inspections, and Lycoming 

engine manual requirements do not 

mitigate the unsafe condition identified 

in this AD. 

We changed this final rule AD action 

to clarify the visual inspection process. 

We added a table of part numbers 

requiring inspection and the signs of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 35111 

imminent failure to inspect for on these 

parts (and referenced a source of 

pertinent methods). Also, we expanded 

the visual inspection interval from 50 

hours to 60 hours TIS in an attempt to 

encompass operators with FAAapproved inspection plans without an 

adverse effect to inspection 

effectiveness. 

Eliminate Calendar Time Limited 

Inspection Intervals 

Douglas Deering, Allen M. Bower, and 

AMBO Ltd. stated we should eliminate 

the calendar time inspection interval 

limits for the compliance requirements 

because they do not believe calendar 

time outside of usage could adversely 

affect exhaust system integrity. Allen M. 

Bower, and AMBO Ltd. cited Special 

Airworthiness Information Bulletin 

(SAIB) CE–00–16, dated February 4, 

2000, dealing with the twin Cessna 

exhaust system, as an example of a 

safety action that does not require 

calendar time inspection limits, ‘‘You 

do not have to accomplish any action 

toward the AD until 2,500 hours TIS 

have accumulated on the exhaust 

system or exhaust system components.’’ 

We do not agree because the 6-month 

inspection requirement is necessary to 

check for the effects of corrosion that 

can occur while an aircraft is not in 

service. The level of exhaust system 

corrosion that can occur over a 6-month 

period is largely dependent on 

environmental conditions (higher 

moisture, temperature, and salinity lead 

to higher corrosion rates), exhaust 

material surface condition (higher levels 

of oxidation and scratches lead to higher 

corrosion rates,) and material geometry 

and assembly (crevices created by 

mating part surfaces and tight cracks 

corrode faster than open surfaces.) 

The AD, 2000–01–16 (65 FR 2844, 

January 19, 2000), cited by the SAIB 

referenced above, clearly requires 

actions before 2,500 hours TIS via the 

statements listed within that AD’s figure 

1, Compliance Table, of which several 

are paraphrased here: Visually inspect 

exhaust systems within 50 hours TIS 

after the effective date of the AD or 

within the next 30 calendar days, 

whichever occurs later; remove tailpipes 

and visually inspect for any crack, 

corrosion, holes, or distortion upon the 

accumulation of 5 years since installing 

a new or overhauled exhaust system or 

within the next 100 hours TIS after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later; and, inspect and pressure 

test exhaust systems upon the 

accumulation of 5 years since installing 

a new or overhauled exhaust system or 

within the next 100 hours TIS after the 

effective date of the AD, whichever 

occurs later. In summary, AD 2000–01– 

06 (65 FR 2844, January 19, 2000) 

requires exhaust inspections with a 

calendar time limit for their intervals, 

before 2,500 hours TIS. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Limit Compliance to One Manufacturer 

Douglas Deering stated that we should 

limit compliance requirements to a 

single exhaust system manufacturer 

because recent exhaust pipe flange 

failures were due to a single 

manufacturer. 

We do not agree because the FAA has 

not concluded the root cause of recent 

exhaust pipe flange failures is due to a 

single exhaust pipe manufacturer. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Discuss Exhaust System Misalignment, 

Its Effect on Exhaust System Failures, 

and Pertinent Company Service 

Information 

Douglas Deering and Acorn Welding 

stated that we should mention exhaust 

parts fail at flanges due to exhaust 

assembly misalignment created by 

improper assembly, mis-manufactured 

parts, and/or slip joint seizing. They 

state exhaust system installation should 

be in accordance with Lycoming Service 

Instruction 1320, dated March 7, 1975, 

and Lycoming Service Instruction 1391, 

dated October 5, 1979; v-band coupling 

installation should be in accordance 

with Lycoming Service Instruction 

1238B, dated January 6, 2010, and 

exhaust system improvements should be 

required per Lycoming Service 

Instruction 1410, dated June 19, 1981. 

They recommended Lycoming service 

instructions that address practices and 

assemblies meant to address the 

aforementioned problems. 

We agree that exhaust assembly 

misalignment due to improper exhaust 

system assembly, mis-manufacturing, 

and/or slip joint seizures can contribute 

to and/or cause the cracking of exhaust 

pipe flanges because of excessive 

eccentric loading. We disagree with 

requiring exhaust system improvements 

per Lycoming Service Instruction 1410, 

dated June 19, 1981, because the events 

that prompted this AD were not 

documented as due to the absence of the 

slip joint introduced by this service 

instruction. Also, Lycoming Service 

Instruction 1238B, dated January 6, 

2010, is referenced elsewhere in the 

proposed AD with regards to v-band 

coupling installation. 

We changed this final rule AD action 

to clarify the repair/replacement 

process. We changed paragraph (i)(1)(ii) 

(which is now (h)(1)(ii)) to read: ‘‘Repair 

or replace exhaust system parts 

exhibiting bulges, cracks and/or exhaust 

leak stains with airworthy parts in 

accordance with Lycoming Service 

Information 1320, dated March 7, 1975, 

and Lycoming Service Information 

1391, dated October 5, 1979, as 

applicable.’’ 

Reduce/Eliminate Recurring V-Band 

Clamp Disassembly for Inspections 

Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, Terry 

Mangione, Lycoming Engines, Allen M. 

Bower, and AMBO Ltd. stated we 

should reduce/eliminate the frequency 

of inspections requiring v-band clamp 

disassembly because the v-band clamp 

disassembly subjects the v-band clamp 

to a high degree of stress. 

We agree because v-band clamp 

disassembly can cause damage. 

Therefore, a decrease in recurrent 

inspection intervals requiring v-band 

clamp disassembly may increase the 

rate at which v-band clamps and/or 

locking nuts accumulate damage. 

We changed paragraph (h) of this AD 

to eliminate the recurring 100-hour 

disassembly of v-band clamps. 

Remove the Corrective Actions of 

Paragraph (i) 

Douglas Deering stated we should 

remove the corrective actions contained 

in paragraph (i) of this AD (which has 

now been merged into paragraph (h)). 

The paragraph (i) (which is now merged 

into paragraph (h)) corrective actions 

only reinforce what any technician 

would be required to do upon finding 

defects during an exhaust system 

inspection. 

We do not agree because we 

determined the corrective actions of 

paragraph (i) (which is now merged into 

paragraph (h)) were necessary to 

mitigate the safety risk the current 

design poses. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Eliminate V-Band Clamp Replacement 

at 1,000 TIS 

Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, Acorn 

Welding, Allen H. Bower, and AMBO 

Ltd. stated we should specify which vband clamp numbers need to be 

replaced at 1,000 hours TIS and delete 

the requirement to replace v-band clamp 

part numbers (P/N) 557–584 and 557– 

369 at 1,000 hours TIS. The installation 

of v-band clamps P/N 557–584 and 

P/N 557–369 exempts one from the 

detailed inspections of Part II of Piper 

Service Bulletin 644E, dated May 9, 

2012. They state Piper Service Bulletin 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

644E, dated May 9, 2012, should be a 

template for the proposed AD. Piper 

Service Bulletin 644E does not require 

a life limit for v-band coupling P/N 557– 

584 and P/N 557–369 (only replacement 

on condition) and requires 100-hour TIS 

recurring inspections and 1,000-hour 

TIS replacement for v-band coupling P/ 

N 555–511 and 

P/N 555–366. Anecdotal experience 

substantiates longevity of v-band 

coupling P/N 557–584 and P/N 557– 

369. 

We agree because initial data 

indicated that the Piper v-band clamps 

(P/N 557–584 and P/N 557–369) 

connecting the turbocharger exhaust 

outlet flange with the tailpipe were 

failing with fewer hours TIS than engine 

time between overhaul (TBO). Further 

data and feedback indicates that the 

cases where the clamps may have failed 

in service, the clamps were not 

recovered (they were lost during the 

event). The clamps found cracked were 

found cracked during inspections. 

We changed this AD to not require 

mandatory replacement of Piper clamps 

P/N 557–584 and P/N 557–369 at 1,000 

hours TIS. 

Remove Exhaust System Installation 

Steps Already Contained in Company 

Service Information 

Douglas Deering stated that we should 

delete paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) of 

this AD and make paragraph (k)(4) a 

note to paragraph (k). The v-band 

coupling installation steps defined by 

paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) are already 

stated in Piper Service Bulletin 644E, 

dated May 9, 2012, and Lycoming 

Service Instruction 1238B, dated 

January 6, 2010, and the text of 

paragraph (k)(4) is not required by the 

AD, but might help the operator to 

comply with the AD. 

We agree because the v-band coupling 

installation steps defined by paragraphs 

(k)(2) and (k)(3) (now (h)(2) and (h)(3)) 

are already stated in Piper Service 

Bulletin 644E, dated May 9, 2012, and 

Lycoming Service Instruction 1238B, 

dated January 6, 2010. The text of 

paragraph (k)(4) (now (h)(4)) is not 

required by the AD itself but might help 

the operator to comply with the AD. 

We will change this AD to eliminate 

paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) and make 

the text of paragraph (k)(4) part of a 

Note to paragraph (k) (now referred to 

as paragraph (h). 

Change Inspection Process for 

Airplanes With Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) SA240CH Installations 

Douglas Deering stated heat exchanger 

installations in accordance with STC 

SA240CH are not uncommon and would 

require an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to the NPRM’s 

inspection procedure. (Information on 

STC SA240CH may be found at http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE421D

86257297005B6822?OpenDocument&

Highlight=sa240ch.) The commenter 

requests the NPRM inspection 

procedure be revised in a manner that 

airplanes modified per STC SA240CH 

will not require an AMOC. 

We agree with this comment. A high 

percentage of airplanes have STC 

SA240CH installed, approximately 310 

out of 508 airplanes (61 percent), and 

would require an AMOC to comply with 

the AD as written because those 

airplanes will not have all of the 

exhaust parts requiring inspection. 

We added a subparagraph to 

paragraph (g) of this AD that eliminates 

the inspection for the exhaust system 

parts referenced above regarding the 

STC SA240CH heat exchanger. This 

allows airplanes with STC SA240CH 

heat exchanger installed to comply with 

the AD without applying for an AMOC. 

Limit Exhaust System Life to TimeBetween-Overhauls 

Douglas Deering, Terry Mangione, and 

Acorn Welding stated that we should 

limit exhaust system life to engine TBO. 

Exhaust system failure rates increase 

quickly once exhaust life surpasses 

engine TBO. 

We do not agree because the intent of 

the proposed AD is not to designate a 

life limit for exhaust systems. Instead, 

the intent of the proposed AD is to 

implement a 60-hour TIS recurring 

visual inspection to identify and correct 

v-band coupling and exhaust flange 

issues before they lead to a safety event. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Change Product Applicability 

Douglas Deering and Acorn Welding 

stated we should change the AD 

applicability from Piper aircraft to 

include Lycoming engines TI0–540– 

A2C, LFFI0–540–F2BD, –J2B, –J2BD, 

–N2BD, and –R2BD. 

We do not agree because the previous 

AD and this superseding AD are based 

on the configuration and installation of 

the engine on the aircraft and not the 

type design of the engine. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Issue an SAIB in Lieu of This AD 

Lycoming Engines stated an SAIB 

alerting operators to the importance of 

the manufacturer’s recommendations 

would be more appropriate than an AD. 

One clamp in data analyzed was misinstalled and should not have been 

included and two service difficulty 

reports (SDRs), by themselves, used in 

the FAA’s analysis do not represent an 

increasing trend of failures 

substantiating the AD. 

We do not agree because over the last 

11 years there have been 6 exhaust 

system related incidents that occurred 

either during cruise, approach, takeoff, 

or climb. One incident resulted in 

substantial airplane damage. Risk 

analysis concluded the risk of an 

exhaust system related incident 

resulting in a hazard greater than 

substantial airplane damage for the 

future warranted the publication of an 

AD. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 

57534, September 18, 2012) for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 57534, 

September 18, 2012). 

We determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 1,016 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 35113 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Visual inspection ............... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ........................ Not applicable .................. $170 $172,720 

We have no way of determining how 

much damage may be found on each 

airplane during the required inspection. 

The scope of damage on the exhaust 

system could vary from airplane to 

airplane due to the manner and 

environments airplane may operate. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 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 

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. 

Adoption of 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 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

AD 82–16–05 R1, Amendment 39–5278 

(51 FR 11707, April 7, 1986) and adding 

the following new AD: 

2013–10–04 Piper Aircraft, Ltd.: 

Amendment 39–17457; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0983; Directorate Identifier 

2012–CE–001–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective July 17, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 82–16–05 R1, 

Amendment 39–5278 (51 FR 11707, April 7, 

1986). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to turbocharged Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–31, PA–31–325, and 

PA–31–350 airplanes, all serial numbers, 

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 78, Engine Exhaust. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by the forced 

landings of aircraft due to exhaust system 

failures between recurring detailed 

inspections. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent the possibility of an in-flight 

powerplant fire due to an exhaust system 

failure. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Visual Inspection 

(1) Within the next 60 hours time-inservice (TIS) after July 17, 2013 (the effective 

date of this AD) or within the next 6 months 

after July 17, 2013 (the effective date of this 

AD), whichever occurs first, and repetitively 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 hours 

TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, 

perform the inspections listed in table 1 of 

paragraph (g) of this AD upon the parts listed 

in the same table. 

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

Inspection procedure references can be found 

in Section 2, Visual Inspection, Chapter 5, 

Nondestructive Inspection (NDI), FAA 

Advisory Circular 43.13–1 B, Change 1, dated 

September 27, 2001, Acceptable Methods, 

Techniques, And Practices—Aircraft 

Inspection and Repair (http://

www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?

OpenDocument&Highlight=ac43.13-1b). 

(2) Aircraft equipped with Supplemental 

Type Certificate (STC) SA240CH heat 

exchanger will not have all of the parts 

referenced in table 1 of paragraph (g). 

(Information on STC SA240CH may be found 

at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C51

2E870BE421D86257297005B6822?Open

Document&Highlight=sa240ch.) The heat 

exchanger replaces some of those parts; 

therefore, this AD requires the visual 

inspection on only the remaining parts listed 

in table 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD after 

installation of STC SA240CH. Airplanes 

modified in accordance with STC SA240CH 

will not require an Alternative Method of 

Compliance if the corrective actions in this 

AD are complied with. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 OF PARAGRAPH (g)—RECURRING 60-HOUR INSPECTIONS FOR LYCOMING AND PIPER EXHAUST SYSTEM PARTS

Product/part 

nomenclature 

Make Model/part number Inspect with light and 

mirror or other 

method capable of 

achieving an 

equivalent visual 

resolution: 

Airplane ...................... Piper .......................... PA–31 ....................... PA–31–325 ............... PA–31–350 ...............

Engine ........................ Lycoming ................... TIO–540–A1A, –A1B, 

–A2A, –A2B and 

–A2C (standard 

cylinder flange; 

aka, narrow deck).

TIO–540–A2C (wide 

cylinder flange; 

aka, wide deck) 

and –F2BD, and 

LTIO–540–F2BD.

TIO–540–J2B and 

–J2BD and LTIO– 

540–J2B and 

–J2BD.

Pipe, exhaust, right intermediate.Lycoming ................... LW–15850 ................. LW–15850 ................. LW–15849 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Pipe, exhaust, right 

rear, intermediate.

Lycoming ................... LW–16792 ................. LW–16792 ................. LW–16621 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Pipe, exhaust, right 

rear.

Lycoming ................... LW–16793 ................. LW–16793 ................. LW–16620 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Pipe, exhaust, left, intermediate.Lycoming ................... LW–15849 ................. LW–15849 ................. LW–15849 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Pipe, exhaust, left 

rear, intermediate.

Lycoming ................... LW–16789 ................. LW–16789 ................. LW–16696 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Pipe, exhaust, left rear Lycoming ................... LW–16790 ................. LW–16790 ................. LW–16697 ................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

Tail pipe assembly, 

bottom.

Piper .......................... 40310–09 .................. 40310–09 .................. 40310–09 .................. bulges, cracks and

exhaust leak stains. 

Tail pipe assembly, 

top.

Piper .......................... 40310–08 or 40310– 

10.

40310–08 or 40310– 

10.

40319–10 .................. bulges, cracks and 

exhaust leak stains. 

v-band coupling .......... Lycoming ................... LW–12093–5 ............. LW–12093–5 ............. LW12093–5 ............... cracks and exhaust 

leak stains. 

v-band coupling .......... Piper .......................... 555–511 or 557–584 555–511 or 557–584 555–366 or 557–369 cracks and exhaust 

leak stains. 

(h) Corrective Actions 

(1) If any damage is found as a result of the 

inspections required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, before further flight, do the following 

corrective actions: 

(i) Replace v-band couplings exhibiting 

cracks and/or exhaust leak stains with 

airworthy and replacement v-band couplings 

following the applicable instructions 

contained in Piper Aircraft Corporation 

Service Bulletin No. 644E, dated May 9, 

2012, and/or Lycoming Service Instruction 

No. 1238B, dated January 6, 2010. 

(ii) Replace exhaust system parts exhibiting 

bulges, cracks and/or exhaust leak stains 

with airworthy parts in accordance with 

Lycoming Service Information 1320, dated 

March 7, 1975, and Lycoming Service 

Information 1391, dated October 5, 1979, as 

applicable. 

Note 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD: During 

installation, we recommend not opening the 

v-band coupling more than the MINIMUM 

diameter necessary to clear coupled flanges. 

It is recommended to replace any locknuts 

and/or mating couplings with airworthy parts 

when locknuts do not exhibit a prevailing 

torque when installed. 

(i) 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. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, 

Atlanta ACO, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 

474–5575; fax: (404) 474–5606; email: 

gary.wechsler@faa.gov. 

(2) Section 2, Visual Inspection, Chapter 5, 

Nondestructive Inspection (NDI), FAA 

Advisory Circular 43.13–1 B, Change 1, dated 

September 27, 2001, Acceptable Methods, 

Techniques, And Practices—Aircraft 

Inspection and Repair may be found at http:// 

www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B45005

96C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac43.13- 

1b. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) 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 Aircraft Corporation Service 

Bulletin No. 644E, dated May 9, 2012; 

(ii) Lycoming Service Instruction No. 

1238B, dated January 6, 2010; 

(iii) Lycoming Service Instruction 1320, 

dated March 7, 1975; and 

(iv) Lycoming Service Instruction 1391, 

dated October 5, 1979. 

(3) For obtaining service information 

identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, 

Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 

32960; telephone: (772) 567–4361; fax: (772) 

978–6573; Internet: www.piper.com/home/ 

pages/Publications.cfm. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at 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. 

(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, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 

16, 2013. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13666 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES