Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 78905

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) For airplanes with any MLG inboard door

hinge assembly that is Piper part number

47529–32 (or FAA-approved equivalent part

number), accomplish the following:

(i) Inspect all hinges and hinge attachment

angles in the MLG inboard door hinge

assembly; and

Inspect upon accumulating 2,000 hours timein-service (TIS) on the MLG inboard door

hinge assembly or within the next 100

hours TIS after January 19, 2001 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs

later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 hours TIS. Accomplish the replacement, if necessary, prior to further

flight after the inspection

Accomplish in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Service Bulletin No.

682, dated July 24, 1980

(ii) Replace any cracked MLG inboard door

hinge assembly with a Piper part number

47529–32 assembly (or FAA-approved

equivalent part number)

(2) For airplanes with any aluminum MLG inboard door hinge assembly that is not Piper

part number 47529–32 (or FAA-approved

equivalent part number) or any assembly that

is not made of steel, accomplish the following:

(i) Inspect all hinges and hinge attachment

angles in the MLG inboard door hinge

assembly; and.

Inspect at the next inspection required by AD

80–26–05 or within the next 100 hours

time-in-service (TIS) after January 19, 2001

(the effective date of this AD), whichever

occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 100 hours TIS. Accomplish the

replacement, if necessary, prior to further

flight after the inspection where the cracked

assembly was found

Accomplish in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Service Bulletin No.

682, dated July 24, 1980.

(ii) Replace any cracked MLG inboard door

hinge assembly with a Piper part number

47529–32 assembly (or FAA-approved

equivalent part number)

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way?

(1) You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 80–26–05

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact William O. Herderich,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895

Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta,

Georgia 30349; telephone: (770) 703–6082;

facsimile: (770) 703–6097; e-mail:

william.o.herderich@faa.gov.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

Piper Service Bulletin No. 682, dated July 24,

1980. The Director of the Federal Register

approved this incorporation by reference

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You

can get copies from The New Piper Aircraft,

Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive,

Vero Beach, Florida 32960. You can look at

copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

(i) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

80–26–05, Amendment 39–3994.

(j) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on January 19, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 30, 2000.

William J. Timberlake,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31451 Filed 12–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–121–AD; Amendment

39–12036; AD 2000–25–02]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; American

Champion Aircraft Corporation 7, 8,

and 11 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–05–04,

which currently requires you to

repetitively inspect the front and rear

wood spars for damage (including

installing any as-needed inspection

holes) and repair or replace any

damaged wood spar on certain

American Champion Aircraft

Corporation (ACAC) Model 8GCBC

airplanes. Damage is defined as cracks,

compression cracks, longitudinal cracks

through the bolt holes or nail holes, or

loose or missing nails. This AD retains

the actions of AD 98–05–04 for the

ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes; extends

the actions to all ACAC 7, 8, and 11

series airplanes (except the inspections

are not repetitive for certain 7 and 11

series airplanes); incorporates

78906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

alternative methods of accomplishing

the actions; and requires reporting any

damage found. This AD is the result of

a review of the service history of the

affected airplanes that incorporate wood

wing spars where damage was found in

this area and consideration of all public

comments received. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

detect and repair or replace damaged

wood wing spars. Continued operation

with such damage could progress to inflight structural failure of the wing with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: This amendment becomes

effective on January 19, 2001.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulation as of January 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may get service

information referenced in this AD from

the American Champion Aircraft

Corporation, P.O. Box 37, 32032

Washington Avenue, Highway D,

Rochester, Wisconsin 53167; internet

address:

www.amerchampionaircraft.com. You

may examine this information at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–CE–121–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

William Rohder, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification

Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des

Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847)

294–7697; facsimile: (847) 294–7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What prior AD action did FAA take

on this subject? A review of the service

history of ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series

airplanes that incorporate wood wing

spars caused FAA to initiate AD

rulemaking action. In-flight wing

structural failures on ACAC Model

8GCBC airplanes and several incidents

and accidents on other affected airplane

models where damage was found on the

front and rear wood spars prompted this

review. Those rulemaking actions are:

—AD 98–05–04, Amendment 39–10365

(63 FR 10297, March 3, 1998), which

applies to ACAC Model 8GCBC

airplanes, and requires you to

accomplish the following: (1) inspect

(repetitively) the front and rear wood

spars for damage (including installing

any necessary inspection holes); and

(2) repair or replace any damaged

wood spar; and

—a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) (Docket No. 97–CE–79–AD)

that, if followed by a final rule, would

have required the same actions as AD

98–05–04 on all ACAC 7, 8, and 11

series airplanes (excluding the Model

8GCBC airplanes). This NPRM was

published in the Federal Register on

November 3, 1997 (62 FR 59310).

What is the potential impact if FAA

took no action? Continued operation

with such cracks and damage could

progress to in-flight structural failure of

the wing with consequent loss of the

airplane.

Did we receive comments on the

NPRM (Docket No. 97–CE–79–AD)? The

FAA encouraged interested persons to

participate in the rulemaking aspects of

this subject. We received numerous

comments on the NPRM (Docket No.

97–CE–79–AD). Many of these

comments proposed that we combine

the actions of the NPRM and AD 98–05–

04 into one AD that would affect all

ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes and

incorporate recommended alternative

methods for complying with the actions.

Based on these comments, FAA:

—Withdrew the NPRM Docket No. 97–

CE–79–AD (64 FR 29969, June 4,

1999); and

—Issued an NPRM that proposed to

supersede AD 98–05–04 with a new

AD that would combine the actions of

AD 98–05–04 and Docket No. 97–CE–

79–AD; and incorporate

recommended alternative methods for

complying with those actions. This

NPRM was published in the Federal

Register on June 4, 1999 (64 FR

29972).

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspection as specified in the NPRM

would be required in accordance with

ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A,

dated May 6, 1998.

Was the public invited to comment on

the NPRM? The FAA encouraged

interested persons to participate in the

making of this amendment. At the

request of several commenters, FAA

reopened the comment period for the

NPRM on July 29, 1999. This action was

published in the Federal Register on

August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42297). A

summary of the comments on both the

original NPRM and the reopening of the

comment period follow, along with

FAA’s responses.

Comment Issue No. 1: Extend the

Comment Period to 60 Days

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters request an

extension to the comment period in

order to have more time to provide

information on the proposed rule.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? As discussed previously, FAA

reopened the comment period to give

the public an additional 30 days to

respond.

We are not changing the final rule as

a result of these comments.

Comment Issue No. 2: Only Require a

One-Time Inspection for Certain 7 and

11 Series Airplanes

What is the commenters’ concern?

Numerous commenters agree with the

AD pertaining to ACAC airplane

models. However, the commenters state

that certain lightweight 7 and 11 series

airplanes with low horsepower engines

should only be subject to a one-time

spar inspection because they are not

certificated for aerobatic flight and are

not subjected to the same operations as

the heavier high horsepower airplanes.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The FAA has determined that

wing damage incidents are the major

cause of compression cracks and other

spar damage in low horsepower and

lightweight airplanes. Therefore, a onetime inspection is acceptable for ACAC

Models 7AC, 7ACA, S7AC, 7BCM (L–

16A), 7CCM (L–16BA), S7CCM, 7DC,

S7DC, 7EC, S7EC, 7FC, 7JC, 11AC,

S11AC, 11BC, S11BC, 11CC, and S11CC

airplanes. These airplanes have engines

that are 90 horsepower and lower

(includes 60- to 90-horsepower engines).

You must repetitively inspect airplanes

that are modified with engines greater

than 90 horsepower.

You must also accomplish the

inspection any time one of the affected

airplanes is involved in any accident or

incident where the wing is involved.

We are changing the final rule AD to

only require an initial inspection on

certain ACAC 7 and 11 series airplanes,

with any subsequent inspections

required for any affected airplane

involved in an incident/accident (that

happens after the effective date of this

AD) where wing damage occurs (e.g.,

surface deformations such as abrasions,

gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.).

Comment Issue No. 3: Exclude Certain

Airplanes From the Proposed AD

What is the commenters’ concern?

Numerous commenters request that

FAA remove lightweight and low

horsepower airplanes from the

Applicability of the AD. The

commenters state that these airplanes

are not certificated for aerobatic

operation and, therefore, do not receive

the stress levels in the spar that caused

the need for this AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 78907

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur that these

lightweight and low horsepower

airplanes should be removed from the

AD. We have received compression

crack and spar damage reports on

lightweight and low horsepower

airplane models (i.e., Model 7AC). The

following is a synopsis from a service

difficulty report (SDR) for a Model 7AC

airplane:

During annual inspection, found rear spar

right wing cracked across width of spar

outboard rear strut attach point next to

doubler. Defect was found using an

inspection mirror and strong light through an

inspection hole. The removal of fabric

material on the bottom of the wing in the area

of suspicion verified the defect. Submitter

suggests immediate inspection of all Aeronca

Champ 7AC aircraft both on the top and

bottom of the aft wing strut spar attach points

outboard.

This information caused us to propose

(in the NPRM) a requirement for

submitting all findings of airplane wing

damage. You can accomplish this by

describing the damage in a Malfunction

or Defect Report (M or D), FAA Form

8010–4, and sending a copy of the

report to the Chicago Aircraft

Certification Office. (You may submit M

or D reports electronically through the

FAA AFS–600 web page at http://

www.mmac.jccbi.gov/afs/afs600.

Because you will lose access to the

report once you electronically submit it,

we recommend that you print two

copies prior to submitting the report and

forward one to the Chicago ACO and

keep the other for your records). We will

evaluate the data as it is received and

initiate further rulemaking action, if

necessary.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments. However, as discussed

in the previous comment, the AD will

only require an initial inspection on the

airplanes equipped with low

horsepower engines. Subsequent

inspections are required for any affected

airplane involved in an incident/

accident (that happens after the effective

date of this AD) where wing damage

occurs (e.g., surface deformations such

as abrasions, gouges, scratches, or dents,

etc.).

Comment Issue No. 4: The AD Should

Only Apply to Aerobatic Aircraft

What is the commenters’ concern?

Two commenters state that spar damage

is a direct result of aerobatic flight. The

commenters suggest that FAA change

the proposal to affect only aircraft

certificated for aerobatic activity.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur. Reports

indicate that spar damage occurs on low

horsepower airplane models that are not

certificated for aerobatic flight. We have

determined that wing damage incidents

are the primary cause of compression

cracks on the lower horsepower

airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 5: Exclude

Airplanes With Damaged Spars That

Can Still Support the Required Load

What is the commenter’s concern?

One commenter requests that FAA

exclude airplanes from the Applicability

of the AD if any wing with a

compression crack can still pass testing

to 150-percent of design limit load.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur.

Compression cracked test spar

specimens may not represent wood

spars where compression cracks occur

randomly along the spar length. The

only assurance that the specimen was in

a ‘‘Pass’’ condition was if the

specimen’s compression crack was

identical to that of a failed spar. All

compression cracks are not identical.

Even slight compression cracks may

seriously reduce the strength of the

material. The approved type design of

the affected airplanes does not allow

cracked spars.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 6: Properly

Performed Annual Inspections are

Sufficient

What is the commenters’ concern?

Several commenters state that, if you

accomplish a proper annual inspection,

then there is no need for this AD. These

commenters state that the required

maintenance programs provide the

procedures to detect spar damage. These

commenters also state that part 43 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 43) requires inspection of the wing

spars.

What is FAA’s response to the

concerns? We concur that maintenance

manuals for the ACAC 7, 8, and 11

series airplanes and part 43 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 43) specify inspecting the wing

spars for cracks during annual and 100-

hour inspections, particularly at the butt

ends and strut attach points. However,

this existing guidance does not provide

instructions for sufficiently accessing

the spar or identifying damage. For

example, compression cracks appear as

barely visible, minute, and jagged series

of lines that run across the grain on the

top or bottom of the spar. If not viewed

with detailed instructions and the

proper equipment, you could overlook

them. SDR’s submitted since the

issuance of AD 98–05–04 have

confirmed the importance of inspecting

the wing spars in accordance with

ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A,

dated May 6, 1998. We can only require

compliance with service information

through AD action.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 7: Exempt

Airplanes With Wings That Were

Recently Rebuilt

What is the commenters’ concern?

Two commenters request that FAA

exempt from the AD airplanes where the

wing spars were recently inspected and

found to be free of damage or where the

spars were replaced.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur. To

adequately inspect the wing spars for

cracks and compression cracks, you

must utilize the detailed inspection

procedures in ACAC Service Letter 406,

Revision A, dated May 6, 1998 (or

procedures approved by FAA).

Information available to FAA reveals

that mechanics have overlooked

compression cracks when not following

these procedures.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments

Comment Issue No. 8: Eliminate,

Minimize, or Provide Alternatives to

Installing Top Inspection Covers

What is the commenters’ concerns?

Several commenters request that FAA

remove from this AD the option of

installing inspection covers on the top

surface of the wings of the ACAC 7, 8,

and 11 series airplanes. Specific

concerns are as follows:

1. Top wing inspection covers could

leak, cause water damage to the spar,

and result in structural degradation of

the wing;

2. Top wing inspection covers could

come off during flight due to the

negative pressure on the top surface,

and result in wing damage; and

3. Top wing inspection covers will

cause aerodynamic and performance

concerns.

What is FAA’s response to the

concerns? We do not concur with

removing the option of installing top

inspection covers from the AD. ACAC

Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated

May 6, 1998, allows the mechanic to

utilize a variety of procedures and

techniques (including the installation of

top inspection covers) to perform a

thorough inspection depending on his/

her experience, equipment, and the

aircraft configuration without

mandating a specific number, type, or

78908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

location of inspection holes/covers. The

service information only specifies the

installation of additional FAA-approved

holes/covers as needed to accomplish a

thorough spar inspection. The mechanic

performing the inspection is in the best

position to determine the minimum

number, type, and location of inspection

holes/covers needed to accomplish a

thorough spar inspection. We also do

not concur that the installation of these

covers will cause other safety concerns.

Our response to each specific concern is

as follows:

1. Water damage to the spar: The

manufacturer designed and tested an

FAA-approved watertight seal for the asneeded wing inspection cover

installation. This minimizes the

potential for water damage.

2. Wing damage: The manufacturer

designed the covers specifically to not

cause damage to the reinforced cutout if

the eight screws that attach the covers

are inadvertently left off or not

tightened, and the covers come off the

airplane. Testing indicates that the

covers easily flip backward off the wing

if all screws are omitted.

3. Aerodynamic and performance

concerns: FAA flight test personnel

have evaluated these as-needed top

inspection covers. As of the issuance of

this document, we have not received

any reports of decreased performance or

service difficulty reports concerning any

of the over 200 sets (400 inspection

covers) that have already been delivered

to the field.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 9: Require the

Installation of Top Inspection Covers

What is the commenter’s concerns?

One commenter requests that we not

require the mechanics to inspect with a

high intensity light source and mirrors.

The commenter states that compression

cracks are extremely difficult to detect

and are easily overlooked.

The commenter also states that the

initial inspection method described in

ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A,

dated May 6, 1998, is inadequate and

the best way to detect compression

cracks is by removing a section of the

leading edge and looking directly at the

top of the spar. This commenter

suggests requiring the installation of

FAA-approved inspection holes/covers

that are better situated on top of the

wing than the holes/covers referenced

in ACAC Service Letter 417, Revision C,

dated May 6, 1998.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? ACAC Service Letter 406,

Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, allows

the mechanic to utilize a variety of

procedures and techniques to perform a

thorough inspection depending on his/

her experience, equipment, and the

aircraft configuration without

mandating a specific number, type and/

or location of inspection holes/covers.

The service information only specifies

the installation of additional FAAapproved holes/covers as needed to

accomplish a thorough spar inspection.

The mechanic performing the

inspection is in the best position to

determine the type, number, and

location of inspection holes/covers

needed to accomplish a thorough spar

inspection.

Mechanics utilizing ACAC Service

Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6,

1998, have detected compression cracks

on the wing spars that were not detected

during previous annual inspections. We

have determined that the procedures in

the service letter, as proposed in the

NPRM, provide sufficient information to

detect compression cracks in the wing

spars of ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series

airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 10: Cost Impact Is

Too Low

What is the commenter’s concern?

One commenter believes that the cost of

installing inspection covers will be

significantly greater than we estimated

in the NPRM. We infer that the

commenter is referring to the additional

costs associated with cosmetic paint

refinishing costs after the installation of

any needed inspection holes/covers.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The cost impact of this AD

reflects 11 as-needed inspection holes

installed in the bottom of each wing (a

total of 22) and 2 as-needed inspection

holes/covers installed in the top of each

wing. The decision on the number and

location of any as-needed inspection

holes/covers is at the discretion of the

inspector in order to adequately inspect

the entire surface of both wing spars.

Cosmetic considerations are not

reflected. If you utilize the alternative

inspection method referenced in ACAC

Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated

May 6, 1998, the number of as-needed

inspection holes/covers would be

reduced. This would further reduce the

cost impact of this AD.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 11: Provide

Additional Inspection Guidance to

Service Letter 406A and/or Require

Additional Training for Inspectors

What is the commenters’ concerns?

Five commenters state that compression

cracks are extremely difficult to detect

and are easily overlooked. Because of

this, the commenters believe that FAA

should:

—Include additional guidance to the AD

to assure a thorough inspection is

performed; and

—Require mechanics to obtain

additional training in the detection of

compression cracks on ACAC 7, 8,

and 11 series airplanes.

What is FAA’s response to the

concerns? We concur that the

compression cracks are difficult to

detect and mechanics could easily

overlook them if they are not

experienced in detecting damage

specific to wood structure. ACAC

Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated

May 6, 1998, contains a detailed

description of compression cracks. This

service letter also:

—Includes a recommendation that

mechanics should have previous

compression crack detection

experience to perform certain

methods of inspection; and

—Allows the mechanic to utilize

different procedures and techniques

to perform a thorough inspection

depending on his/her experience,

equipment, and the aircraft

configuration without mandating a

specific number, type, and/or location

of inspection holes/covers.

Mechanics have detected compression

cracks in aircraft while utilizing ACAC

Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated

May 6, 1998. We have determined that

the procedures in the service letter, as

proposed in the NPRM, provide

sufficient information to detect

compression cracks in the wing spars of

ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 12: Proposed

Inspection Is Too Broad.

What is the commenters’ concern?

Two commenters suggest that FAA

narrow the areas of inspection for

compression cracks. These commenters

state that this will not affect the

inspection results.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur. The

Inspection: (Bottom/Top) section of

ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A,

contains the following:

Both front and rear spars need to be

inspected. The key areas to be concerned

with are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 of this service letter depicts an

isolated area that requires inspection of

the top and bottom surfaces of the spar

(near the strut attachments). The service

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 78909

letter only includes procedures for the

installation of top inspection covers in

this area for the front spar. However, as

stated as a warning in the service letter,

loose rib nails may indicate

compression cracks behind the rib

flanges and you need to inspect these.

Compression cracks have been

detected in locations other than the strut

attachment area. The forward or aft face

of the spar needs to be inspected for

indication of damage. This position has

also been supported by an SDR on an

ACAC Model 7GCBC airplane on the aft

spar. This SDR contains the following

information:

Subject spar indicated irregular lines

across the grain at 163 inches from the root

end. Fore and aft spar faces cleaned and

sanded & the vertical lines remained.

Pressure applied to the spar each side

indicated slight movement. A hard

downward pressure force caused the spar to

crack along the apparent fault lines.

Submitter enclosed a copy of the page taken

from the wood encyclopedia, which

describes compression failures in wood.

Submitter suggests that this could have been

caused by ground contact of the wing tip,

sometime in the aircraft’s history.

We also have received photos of a

badly cracked front spar from an ACAC

Model 7GCAA airplane. This

compression crack occurred just

outboard of the first rib outboard and

adjacent to the fuel tank bay and it

extended 2/3 upward from the bottom of

the spar. The report specifies that the

aircraft had just over 500 hours time-inservice (TIS).

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 13: Improper Wing

Rigging Causes Many Compression

Cracks

What is the commenter’s concern?

One commenter believes improper

rigging of the aircraft wings causes

many compression cracks. This

commenter requests additional service

information.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? While FAA agrees that

improper rigging could lead to

compression cracks, all information

available to us indicates the problem

does not result from improper rigging

alone. The reporting requirement in the

AD will allow us to continue to collect

data and investigate the cause of

compression cracks and other reported

damage. We may initiate further

rulemaking action on this subject based

on the information received.

We are always open for groups such

as the manufacturer and type clubs to

work together to come up with valuable

information, such as standardized

rigging criteria and procedures.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 14: Change the

Wording in the AD

What is the commenters’ concern?

Two commenters suggest that the phrase

‘‘to prevent possible compression cracks

and other * * *’’ that is included in the

NPRM be changed to read ‘‘to detect

possible compression cracks and other

* * *’’

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We concur that the word

detect should be added. We are

changing this part of the final rule AD

to read:

* * * to detect and repair or replace

damaged wood wing spars. Continued

operation with such damage could progress

to in-flight structural failure of the wing with

consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Comment Issue No. 15: Use Carbon

Tetrachloride in the Compression

Crack Inspection Method

What is the commenter’s concern?

One commenter states that use of carbon

tetrachloride would improve the

compression crack inspection method.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The FAA agrees that the use of

carbon tetrachloride may enhance the

inspection of unvarnished wood and

may have limited benefit if used on

varnished spars. However, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has classified carbon tetrachloride as a

carcinogen. Health concerns and the

availability of this substance prevent us

from requiring its use through this AD.

If desired, the application of any

commercially-available ‘‘light weight’’

(not thick or viscous) wood stain instead

of carbon tetrachloride may enhance the

inspection process.

We obtained this information from the

Forest Products Laboratory, which is a

unit of the research organization of the

Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

We have determined that the

application of a high intensity light

source directly on the varnished surface,

as specified in Service Letter 406,

Revision A, dated May 6, 1998,

adequately highlights compression

cracks.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 16: Only Require

Inspection During Fabric Recovering

What is the commenters’ concern?

Two commenters suggest that FAA only

require inspection during fabric

recovering. These commenters state that

this should be adequate to detect wing

spar damage.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The FAA does not concur.

Information tells us differently. For

example, Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13–

1B, paragraph 2.2.a., contains the

following:

Polyester fabric deteriorates only by

exposure to ultraviolet radiation as used in

aircraft covering environment. When coatings

completely cover the fabric, its service life is

infinite.

Therefore, the special instructions

contained in ACAC Service Letter 406,

Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, are

required to identify certain types of

damage that may occur in the span of

10, 20, or more years of service.

Additionally, the above-referenced AC

also specifies ‘‘Therefore, it is very

important to * * * provide adequate

inspection access to all areas of (manmade) fabric covered components

* * *’’

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

Comment Issue No. 17: Preflight of

Aircraft Should Include Wing Flexing

What is the commenter’s concern?

One commenter states that he was

taught to always ‘‘jack the wings back

and forth’’ during the preflight

inspection. The commenter

recommends we consider adding this

preflight technique to the AD. Since the

commenter did not elaborate on the

reason for this technique, we infer that

the commenter believes this technique

will help to audibly detect wing spar

damage.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? The FAA does not concur.

This technique may not detect most

types of damage and may actually

initiate damage if performed too

aggressively.

We are not changing the AD based on

these comments.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the AD

What have we decided? After careful

review of all available information

related to the subject presented above,

including the above-referenced

comments, FAA has determined that:

—Air safety and the public interest

require the adoption of the rule as

proposed except for the changes

described in the above comment

disposition and minor editorial

corrections; and

—These changes and minor corrections

will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

What does this AD require? This AD

retains the inspection and repair or

78910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

replacement requirements of AD 98–05–

04 for the ACAC Model 8GCBC

airplanes; extends all these actions to all

ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes,

except the inspections are not repetitive

for certain 7 and 11 series airplanes;

requires that all damage be reported to

FAA; and incorporates alternative

methods of accomplishing certain

actions.

Why is the compliance time in

calendar time instead of hours time-inservice? The compliance time of this AD

is presented in calendar time and TIS.

We are utilizing repetitive inspection

compliance times that will coincide

with the owner’s/operator’s annual

inspection program. This should have

the least impact upon operators because

the costs of having the airplane out of

service can be absorbed with regularly

scheduled down-time.

To assure that compression cracks do

not go undetected in the wood spars of

the affected airplanes, we are using the

following compliance times:

1. The initial inspection at the first

annual inspection that occurs 30

calendar days or more after the effective

date of the AD or within 13 calendar

months after the effective date of the

AD, whichever occurs later; and

2. The repetitive inspections (for

those airplanes affected) thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 12 calendar

months or 500 hours TIS, whichever

occurs first.

Cost Impact

How did we determine the cost impact

of this AD? The following cost analysis

is based on the presumption that 26 asneeded inspection holes/covers (11 per

wing on the bottom surface and 2 per

wing on the top surface) will be

installed on each affected airplane, in

order to complete a thorough inspection

in accordance with ACAC Service Letter

406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. All

of these inspection holes/covers may

not be needed, which will reduce the

cost impact upon U.S. operators of the

affected airplanes.

How many airplanes are impacted by

this AD? The FAA estimates that 6,701

airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

What is the cost impact of the initial

inspection on owners/operators of the

affected airplanes? We estimate that it

will take approximately 6 workhours

(Installations: 5 workhours; Initial

Inspection: 1 workhour) per airplane to

accomplish this action, and that the

average labor rate is approximately $60

an hour. Parts cost approximately $292

per airplane, provided that each

airplane will have 11 as-needed

standard inspection holes/covers per

wing bottom surface and 2 as-needed

inspection holes/covers per wing top

surface (total of 26 new covers per

airplane) installed. If the airplane needs

more inspection covers installed (e.g., a

result of previous non-factory wing

recover work), the cost could be slightly

higher. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $4,369,052, or $652

per airplane.

What about the cost of repetitive

inspections and possible repairs and

replacements? These cost figures are

based on the presumption that no

affected Model 8GCBC airplane owner/

operator has accomplished the

installations or the initial inspection as

currently required by AD 98–05–04, and

do not account for repetitive

inspections. The FAA has no way of

determining the number of repetitive

inspections each owner/operator of the

affected airplanes will incur over the

life of his/her airplane.

However, each repetitive inspection

will cost substantially less than the

initial inspection because the initial cost

of the as-needed inspection hole/cover

installations will not be repetitive. If

installed, as-needed inspection holes/

covers allow easy access for the

inspection of the wood spars, and the

compliance time will enable the

owners/operators of the affected

airplanes to accomplish the repetitive

inspections at regularly scheduled

annual inspections.

Regulatory Impact

Does this AD impact various entities?

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule

or regulatory action? For the reasons

discussed above, I certify that this

action (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866;

(2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

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. A copy of the final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

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 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. FAA amends § 39.13 by removing

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–05–04,

Amendment 39–10365 (63 FR 10297,

March 3, 1998), and by adding a new

AD to read as follows:

2000–25–02 American Champion Aircraft

Company (ACAC): Amendment 39–

12036; Docket No. 98–CE–121–AD;

Supersedes AD 98–05–04, Amendment

39–10365.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD applies to the following airplane

models, all serial numbers, certificated in any

category, that are equipped with wood wing

spars:

(1) Group 1 airplanes: ACAC Models 7AC,

7ACA, S7AC, 7BCM (L–16A), 7CCM (L–16B),

S7CCM, 7DC, S7DC, 7EC, S7EC, 7FC, 7JC,

11AC, S11AC, 11BC, S11BC, 11CC, and

S11CC airplanes that have not been modified

to incorporate an engine with greater than 90

horsepower.

(2) Group 2 airplanes: ACAC Models 7ECA,

7GC, 7GCA, 7GCAA, 7GCB, 7GCBA, 7GCBC,

7HC, 7KC, 7KCAB, 8GCBC, and 8KCAB

airplanes; and any of the airplane models

referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD that

have been modified to incorporate an engine

with greater than 90 horsepower.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and repair or replace damaged wood

wing spars. Continued operation with such

cracks and damage could progress to an inflight structural failure of the wing with

consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(d) What actions must be accomplished on

all Group 1 airplanes to address this

problem? For any Group 1 airplane as

referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, the

following must be accomplished to address

the problem:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 78911

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) Inspection Requirements: Inspect (detailed visual) the entire length of the

front and rear wood wing spars for

cracks, compression cracks, longitudinal cracks through the boltholes or

nail holes, or loose or missing rib nails.

We will refer to these conditions as

damage throughout the rest of this

section.

Initially inspect at the first annual inspection that occurs 30 calendar

days or more after January 19, 2001

(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.

Accomplish in accordance with the instructions in ACAC

Service Letter No. 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998.

This service bulletin specifies as an FAA-approved inspection option using a high-intensity flexible light (e.g.,

‘‘Bend-A-Light’’). A regular flashlight must not be used

for this portion of the inspection. Alternative FAA-approved inspection options are listed in this service bulletin.

(2) Additional Inspection Requirements:

If, after January 19, 2001 (the effective

day of this AD), any airplane is involved in an accident/incident that involves wing damage (e.g., wing surface deformations such as abrasions,

gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.), accomplish the inspection required in

paragraph (d)(1) of this Ad.

Prior to further flight after each accident/incident that involved wing damage.Accomplish in accordance with the instructions in ACAC

Service Letter No. 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998.

This service bulletin specifies as an FAA-approved inspection option using a high-intensity flexible light (e.g.,

‘‘Bend-A-Light’’). A regular flashlight must not be used

for this portion of the inspection. Alternative FAA-approved inspection options are listed in this service bulletin.

(3) Replacement Requirements: If any

damage is found during any inspection

required by this AD, repair or replace

the wood spar.

Prior to further flight after the inspection where the damage is found.In accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13–1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices; or other

data that is FAA-approved for wing spar repair or replacement.

(4) Reporting Requirements: If any damage is found during any inspection required by this AD, submit a Malfunction or Defect Report (M or D), FAA

Form 8010–4, to the FAA.

Within 10 days after the inspection

where the damage was found or

within 10 days after January 19,

2001 (the effective date of this AD),

whichever occurs later.

Mail the information to: FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), Attention: Docket No. 98–CE–121–AD,

2300 E. Devon avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; facsimile: (847) 294–7834. You may also file electronically

as discussed in this AD.

(i) Include the airplane model and serial

number, the extent of the damage (location and type), and the number of

total hours time-in-service (TIS) on the

damaged wing.

(ii) You may submit M or D reports electronically by accessing the FAA AFS–

600 web page at http://

www.mmac.jccbi.gov/afs/afs600. Because you will lose access to the report once you electronically submit it,

we recommend that you print two copies prior to submitting the report and

forward one to the Chicago ACO and

keep the other for your records.

(iii) The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained

in this regulation under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (14 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The

OMB assigned this approval Control

Number 2120–0056.

(e) What actions must be accomplished on all Group 2 airplanes to address this problem? For any Group 2 airplane as referenced

in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, the following must be accomplished to address the problem:

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) Inspection Requirements: Inspect (detailed

visual) the entire length of the front and rear

wood wing spars for cracks, compression

cracks, longitudinal cracks through the

boltholes or nail holes, or loose or missing rib

nails. We will refer to these conditions as

damage throughout the rest of this section.

Initially inspect at the first annual inspection

that occurs 30 calendar days or more after

January 19, 2001 (the effective dae of this

AD) or within the next 13 calendar months

after January 19, 2001 (the effective date of

this AD), whichever occurs later. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS) or

12 calendar months, whichever occurs first.

Accomplish in accordance with the instructions in American Champion Aircraft Corporation (ACAC) Service Letter No. 406,

Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. This service bulleting specifies an FAA-approved inspection option using a high-intensity flexible light (e.g., ‘‘Bend-A-Light’’). A regular

flashlight must not be used for this portion

of the inspection. Alternative FAA-approved

inspection options are listed in this service

bulletin.

78912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Action Compliance time Procedures

(2) Additional Inspection Requirements: If, after

January 19, 2001 (the effective date of this

AD), any airplane is involved in an accident/

incident that involves wing damage (e.g.,

wing surface deformations such as abrasions, gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.), accomplish the inspection required in paragraph

(e)(1) of this AD.

Prior to further flight after each accident/incident that involved wing damage.Accomplish in accordance with the instuctions

in American Champion Aircraft Corporation

(ACAC) Service Letter No. 406, Revision A,

dated May 6, 1998. This service bulletin

specifies an FAA-approved inspection option using a high-intensity flexible light (e.g.,

‘‘Bend-A-Light’’). A regular flashlight must

not be used for this portion of the inspection. Alternative FAA-approved inspection

options are listed in this service bulletin.

(3) Replacement Requirements: If any damage

is found during any inspection required by

this AD, repair or replace the wood spar.

Prior to further flight after the inspection

where the damage is found.

In accordance with Advisory Circular (AC)

43.13–1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices; or other data that is

FAA-approved for wing spar repair or replacement.

(4) Reporting Requirement: If any damage is

found during any inspection required by this

AD, submit a Malfunction or Defect Report

(M or D), FAA Form 8010–4, to the FAA.

Within 10 days after the inspection where the

damage was found or within 10 days after

January 19, 2001 (the effective date of this

AD), whichever occurs later.

Mail the information to: FAA, Chicago Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), Attention: Docket

No. 98–CE–121–AD, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; facsimile:

(847) 294–7834. You may also file electronically as discussed in this AD.

(i) Include the airplane model and serial number, the extent of the damage (location and

type), and the number of total TIS on the

damaged wing.

(ii) You may submit M or D reports electronically by accessing the FAA AFS–600 web

page at http://www.mmac.jccbi.gov/afs/

afs600. Because you will lose access to the

report once you electronically submit it, we

recommend printing two copies prior to submitting the report and forward one to the Chicago ACO and keep the other for your

records.

(iii) The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained in this regulation under

the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (14 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The

OMB assigned this approval Control Number

2120–0056.

(f) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way?

(1) You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft

Certification Office, approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager.

(2) ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A,

and ACAC Service Letter 417, Revision C,

both dated May 6, 1998, specify additional

inspection and installation alternatives over

that included in the original issue of these

service letters. All inspection and installation

alternatives presented in these service letters

are acceptable for accomplishing the

applicable actions of this AD.

(3) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 98–05–04,

which is superseded by this AD, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (f)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(g) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact the Chicago Aircraft

Certification Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue,

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (817)

294–7697; facsimile: (817) 294–7834.

(h) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

§§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to

operate your airplane to a location where you

can accomplish the requirements of this AD.

(i) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? The inspections

required by this AD must be done in

accordance with American Champion

Aircraft Corporation (ACAC), Service Letter

406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. The

Director of the Federal Register approved this

incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get copies

from the American Champion Aircraft

Corporation, P.O. Box 37, 32032 Washington

Avenue, Highway D, Rochester, Wisconsin

53167; internet address:

‘‘www.amerchampionaircraft.com’’. You can

look at copies at FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room

506, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

(j) Are other AD’s affected by this action?

This amendment supersedes AD 98–05–04,

Amendment 39–10365.

(k) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on January 19, 2001.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 4, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31450 Filed 12–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P