78902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Dated: December 8, 2000.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–31871 Filed 12–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–69–AD; Amendment 39–

12035; AD 2000–25–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA–31 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 80–26–05,

which currently requires you to

repetitively inspect the main landing

gear (MLG) inboard door hinges and

attachment angles for cracks on certain

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA–

31 series airplanes. AD 80–26–05 also

requires you to replace any cracked

MLG inboard door hinge or attachment

angle with parts of improved design.

This AD results from the Federal

Aviation Administration’s policy on

aging commuter-class aircraft and the

determination that an improved design

MLG inboard door hinge and

attachment assembly, when

incorporated, will eliminate the need for

the currently required repetitive shortinterval inspections; however, we have

received reports of cracks in the

improved design MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies on the affected

airplanes. This AD retains the current

repetitive inspections contained in AD

80–26–05, and requires inspections on

the improved design parts. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

detect and correct cracked MLG inboard

door hinge assemblies. These cracked

door hinge assemblies could result in

the MLG becoming jammed, with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane during landing operations.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

January 19, 2001.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of January 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer

Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960. You may examine this

information at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–CE–69–

AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, 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:

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; email: william.o.herderich@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What prior AD action did FAA take

on this subject? In 1980, FAA issued AD

80–26–05, Amendment 39–3994, in

order to detect and correct cracked main

landing gear (MLG) inboard door hinge

assemblies on certain Piper PA–31

series airplanes. AD 80–26–05 currently

requires you to repetitively inspect the

MLG inboard door hinges and

attachment angles for cracks; and

requires you to replace any cracked

MLG inboard door hinge or attachment

angle.

On December 1, 1995, we issued a

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an AD that would apply to

certain Piper PA–31 series airplanes.

This proposal was published in the

Federal Register as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on December 7,

1995 (60 FR 62774), and proposed to

supersede AD 80–26–05, Amendment

39–3994. The NPRM proposed to:

—Retain the requirement of repetitively

inspecting the MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies for cracks, and

replacing any cracked MLG inboard

door hinge assembly; and

—Require incorporating a MLG inboard

door hinge assembly of improved

design (part number (P/N) 47529–32)

or FAA-approved equivalent part

number, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would have been required

in accordance with Piper Service

Bulletin (SB) No. 682, dated July 24,

1980.

This NPRM was consistent with

FAA’s aging commuter-class aircraft

policy, which briefly states that, when

a modification exists that could

eliminate or reduce the number of

required critical inspections, the

modification should be incorporated.

This policy is based on FAA’s

determination that reliance on critical

repetitive inspections on aging

commuter-class airplanes carries an

unnecessary safety risk when a design

change exists that could eliminate or, in

certain instances, reduce the number of

those critical inspections. The

alternative to installing the improved

design hinge assemblies on the affected

airplanes would be to rely on the

repetitive inspections required by AD

80–26–05 to detect cracks in these areas.

Was the public invited to comment on

the NPRM? The FAA invited interested

persons to participate in the making of

this amendment. Due consideration was

given to the one comment received.

What issue did this comment address?

The comment received on the NPRM

contained information that the

improved design MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies, P/N 47529–32, are

also susceptible to fatigue cracking, and

that installing this assembly should not

eliminate the need for the repetitive

inspections currently required by AD

80–26–05. The commenter stated that its

airplane fleet has experienced three

failures and three incidents related to

fatigue cracking of the P/N 47529–32

hinge assemblies.

What action did FAA take? We

conducted a review of the

manufacturer’s service history and

service difficulty reports in FAA’s

database associated with the P/N

47529–32 MLG inboard door hinge

assembly. Based on a review of this

information, including the information

received from the commenter, we

determined that more information and

analysis were needed before mandating

MLG inboard door hinge assembly

replacements through an AD.

We then issued an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on

February 11, 1997. The ANPRM was

published in the Federal Register on

February 19, 1997 (62 FR 7375). The

purpose of the ANPRM was to

encourage interested persons to provide

information that describes what they

consider the best action (if any) for FAA

to take regarding the P/N 47529–32

MLG inboard door hinge assembly

issue. The FAA also withdrew the

NPRM. We received no information or

comments regarding the ANPRM.

We then re-evaluated the information

in our service difficulty database. The

database, at that time, contained 10

reports of failure or cracks found in the

MLG inboard door hinge assembly on

the affected airplanes. The commenter

to the original NPRM had submitted six

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 78903

of these reports. Three of these six

incident reports were specifically

attributed to the original MLG inboard

door hinge assemblies and three to the

improved design MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies. The four reports that

others submitted do not specifically

identify whether the original MLG

inboard door hinge assemblies were

installed or the improved design

assemblies were installed. Since the

incidents occurred on high service time

airplanes and since there is no AD

action mandating the installation of the

improved-design MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies, we presumed that the

original hinge assemblies were installed.

The FAA then reviewed the three

incident reports on the improved design

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies

and, along with the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),

performed extensive testing and

analysis of the improved design MLG

inboard door hinge assemblies. Based

on this review, testing, and analysis, we

determined that:

—The incidents were isolated and that

mandating repetitive inspections was

not needed when the P/N 47529–32

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies

are installed; and

—AD action should be taken to

eliminate the repetitive short-interval

inspections that AD 80–26–05

requires and to prevent separation of

a MLG door from the airplane caused

by a cracked inboard door hinge

assembly.

On October 14, 1997, FAA issued an

NPRM to address these issues. The

NPRM was published in the Federal

Register on October 21, 1997 (62 FR

54595).

What has happened to justify this AD

action? Since issuance of the NPRM, we

have received additional reports of

cracks in the MLG inboard door hinge

assemblies. The reports reference

incidents on both the original design

assemblies and the improved design

hinges. As of the issue date of this

document, we have reports of the

following:

—27 reports of cracked improved design

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies;

and

—41 reports of cracked original design

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies.

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would apply to certain Piper PA–31

series airplanes. This proposal was

published in the Federal Register as a

supplemental NPRM on July 21, 2000

(65 FR 45323). The supplemental NPRM

proposed to supersede AD 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994, with a new AD

that proposed to require:

—Repetitively inspecting the MLG

inboard door hinge assemblies

(regardless of part number); and

—Immediately replacing any cracked

MLG inboard door hinge assembly

with a new MLG inboard door hinge

assembly, Piper part number (P/N)

47529–32 (or FAA-approved

equivalent part number).

What is the potential impact if FAA

took no action? These actions are

necessary to detect and correct cracked

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies.

These cracked door hinge assemblies

could result in the MLG becoming

jammed with consequent loss of control

of the airplane during landing

operations.

Was the public invited to comment?

The FAA encouraged interested persons

to participate in the making of this

amendment. The following presents the

comments received on the proposal and

FAA’s response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Piper Part

Number (P/N) 47529–32 MLG Door

Hinge Assemblies Are Not Made of

Steel

What is the commenter’s concern?

The commenter states that the NPRM

incorrectly identifies the Piper P/N

47529–32 MLG door hinge assemblies as

parts made of steel. The commenter

explains that these assemblies are made

of aluminum.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We concur that the Piper P/N

47529–32 MLG door hinge assemblies

are made of aluminum. We

inadvertently referenced these parts as

steel parts in the supplemental NPRM.

We are changing the final rule AD

accordingly.

Comment Issue No. 2: All MLG Door

Hinge Assemblies Should Be Inspected

at 100-Hour TIS Intervals

What is the commenter’s concern?

The commenter expresses doubt that the

Piper P/N 47529–32 MLG door hinge

assemblies can go as long as 2,000-hour

TIS intervals between inspections before

cracking. The commenter recommends

100-hour TIS interval inspections for

these assemblies.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We determined that the 2,000-

hour TIS interval was an adequate

compliance time for these parts based

on our conservative estimate of all

quantitative information available. The

service reports indicate failures on

airplanes ranging from a low of 3,615

total hours TIS to a high of 14,852 total

hours TIS.

We are not changing the final rule AD

as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 3: FAA

Underestimated the Cost Impact

What is the commenter’s concern?

The commenter states that the cost

impact presented in the supplemental

NPRM is incorrect because:

—Removal of the hinges provides the

most practical method of fluorescent

dye-penetrant inspections and this

would raise the inspections costs from

$120 to $500; and

—The cost of Piper P/N 47–528–32 MLG

door hinge assemblies is

approximately $465 instead of $270 as

specified in the supplemental NPRM.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We do not concur with

changing the cost to accomplish the

inspection. While removing the hinges

from the airplane to accomplish the

inspection is an option, FAA has

determined that you can adequately

accomplish the inspections without

removing the hinges.

After checking with the manufacturer,

we concur that the cost for the

replacement MLG door hinge assemblies

is approximately $465.

We are changing the Cost Impact

section of this document accordingly.

Comment Issue No. 4: AD Should Not

Apply to MLG Door Hinge Assemblies

That Are Made of Steel

What is the commenter’s concern?

The commenter states that the AD

should follow Piper Service Bulletin No.

682 and not require inspections on

airplanes that have MLG door hinge

assemblies that are made of steel. The

commenter also requests that FAA

include a list of the two outside sources

that currently provide assemblies made

of steel.

What is FAA’s response to the

concern? We concur that the AD should

not apply to MLG door hinge assemblies

that are made of steel and we are

changing the final rule accordingly.

However, FAA is not including the

list of those outside sources that

currently provide assemblies made of

steel. If we did include this list, out of

fairness, we would feel obligated to

revise the AD anytime an outside source

developed and received approval for

installation of MLG door hinge

assemblies made of steel on the affected

airplanes.

A list of outside vendors with FAAapproved assemblies made of steel is

always available from the FAA address

included in the AD.

78904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA’s Determination

What is FAA’s final determination on

this issue? We carefully reviewed all

available information related to the

subject presented above and determined

that air safety and the public interest

require the adoption of the rule as

proposed except for the changes

discussed above and editorial

corrections. These changes and

corrections provide the intent that was

proposed in the supplemental NPRM for

correcting the unsafe condition and do

not impose any additional burden than

what was intended in the supplemental

NPRM.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes does this AD

impact? We estimate that this AD affects

2,344 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on

owners/operators of the affected

airplanes? We estimate the following

costs to accomplish the initial

inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

Total cost

on U.S.

airplane

operators

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ......... No parts required for the inspection ......... $120 per airplane ...................................... $281,280

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the replacement, if necessary:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ................................. $465 per airplane ............................................................. $585 per airplane.

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) 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994, and by adding a

new AD to read as follows:

2000–25–01 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.

(formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation):

Amendment 39–12035; Docket No. 96–

CE–69–AD; Supersedes AD 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

The following airplane models and serial

numbers that are:

(1) Certificated in any category; and

(2) Equipped with Piper part number

46653–00 or 47529–32 main landing gear

door hinge assemblies made of aluminum (or

FAA-approved equivalent part numbers).

Models Serial Nos.

PA–31 .......................................... 31–2 through 31–900 and 31–7300901 through 31–8312019.

PA–31–300 .................................. 31–2 through 31–900 and 31–7300901 through 31–8312019.

PA–31–350 .................................. 31–5001 through 31–5004 and 31–7305005 through 31–8553002.

PA–31–325 .................................. 31–7400990, 31–7512001 through 31–8312019.

PA–31P ....................................... 31P–1 through 31P–109 and 31P–7300110 through 31P–7730012.

PA–31T ........................................ 31T–7400002 through 31T–8120104.

PA–31T1 ...................................... 31T–7804001 through 31T–8104073; 31T–8104101; 31T–8304001 through 31T–8304003; and 31T–1104004

through 31T–1104017.

PA–31T2 ...................................... 31T–8166001 through 31T–8166076, and 31T–1166001 through 31T–1166008.

PA–31T3 ...................................... 31T–8275001 through 31T–8475001, and 31T–5575001.

PA–31P–350 ............................... 31P–8414001 through 31P–8414050.

Note 1: Aircraft referred to as Model PA–

31–310 are actually Model PA–31 airplanes.

Actions specified for PA–31 airplanes must

also be performed. See also AD 80–26–05,

Piper Service Bulletin No. 682, dated July 24,

1980, and type certificate data sheet A20SO.

(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 correct cracked main landing

gear (MLG) inboard door hinge assemblies.

This could result in the MLG becoming

jammed with consequent loss of control of

the airplane during landing operations.

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