19302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

March 21, 2000.

David A. Downey,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–7762 Filed 4–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–81–AD; Amendment

39–11660; AD 2000–07–06]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300,

–400, and –500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Boeing Model 737–100,

–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500

series airplanes. This AD requires

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

of the lower corners of the door frame

and cross beam of the forward cargo

door, and corrective actions, if

necessary. This AD also requires

eventual modification of the outboard

radius of the lower corners of the door

frame and reinforcement of the cross

beam of the forward cargo door, which

would constitute terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. This

amendment is prompted by reports

indicating that fatigue cracks have been

detected in the lower corners of the door

frame and cross beam of the forward

cargo door. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent fatigue

cracking of the lower corners of the door

frame and cross beam of the forward

cargo door, which could result in rapid

depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 16, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 16,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98134–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2557;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all Boeing Model

737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes was published in

the Federal Register on August 20, 1999

(64 FR 45477). That action proposed to

require repetitive inspections to detect

cracking of the lower corners of the door

frame and cross beam of the forward

cargo door, and corrective actions, if

necessary. That action also proposed to

require eventual modification of the

outboard radius of the lower corners of

the door frame and reinforcement of the

cross beam of the forward cargo door,

which would constitute terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Allow Repair In Lieu of

Replacement

Regarding the proposed requirement

to replace any cracked door frame with

a new door frame, one commenter

questions whether there is no level of

damage that can be repaired. The

commenter states that it would be

preferable for operators to repair a

cracked door frame when possible, and

only replace the door frame with a new

door frame if damage is beyond repair

limits.

The FAA infers that the commenter is

requesting that paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the

proposal be revised to allow repair of

the door frame, in lieu of replacement

of the door frame with a new door

frame, when cracking is within repair

limits. The FAA concurs with this

request. The FAA finds that it may be

possible for damage within certain

limits to be repaired. However, no

service information that defines

allowable limits for repairable damage is

available. Without established limits

and defined repair procedures, all

proposed repairs on the door frame

must be approved by the FAA or an

authorized Boeing Company Designated

Engineering Representative (DER). The

FAA has revised paragraph (a)(2)(i) and

added paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and

(a)(2)(i)(B) to this final rule, to provide

repair of a cracked door frame and

replacement of a cracked door frame

with a new door frame as two

alternatives for compliance with

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD. (Operators

should note that regardless of which

alternative for compliance is

accomplished, this AD requires

installation of a cross beam repair and

reinforcement modification of the cross

beam, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)

of this AD, and modification of the

repaired or replaced door frame, as

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD.)

Request To Increase Threshold for

Terminating Action

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for the terminating

action be increased from four years, as

proposed, to 75,000 total flight cycles,

as required by AD 90–06–02,

amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372,

March 7, 1990). The commenter states

that a compliance threshold based on

calendar time, rather than on the total

number of flight cycles, is inconsistent,

because fatigue cracking is related to

cabin pressurization cycles. Further, the

commenter states that the proposed

threshold of four years will cause

unnecessary cost to operators that have

relatively new or low-flight-cycle

airplanes.

The FAA partially concurs with the

commenter’s request. The FAA does not

concur that a threshold of 75,000 total

flight cycles for accomplishment of the

terminating action, as currently required

by AD 90–06–02, provides an adequate

level of safety. However, the FAA does

concur that fatigue cracking is a

function of pressurization cycles and,

thus, a threshold based on flight cycles

should be included for the terminating

action. Therefore, paragraphs (c) and (d)

of this final rule have been revised to

specify accomplishment of the actions

required by that paragraph within 4

years or 12,000 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later.

Request To Increase Compliance Time

For the initial inspections specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposal,

one commenter requests, for certain

airplanes, an increase in the proposed

compliance time of one year or 4,500

flight cycles after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later, to prior

to the accumulation of 12,000 total

flight cycles on the cargo door. The

commenter states that, ‘‘if an operator

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 19303

has accurate accounting of the history of

the cargo door, then the number of flight

cycles for this door can be determined.’’

Another commenter requests that the

compliance time for the initial

inspections specified in paragraphs (a)

and (b) of the proposal be increased to

between 15,000 and 20,000 total flight

cycles. That commenter states that a

compliance time of one year or 4,500

flight cycles is ‘‘harsh for young

aircraft.’’ The commenter also claims

that cracking in the door frames does

not start until 20,000 to 30,000 total

flight cycles.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to increase the

compliance time for the inspections. In

the preamble of the proposal, the FAA

explained the difference between the

compliance time stated in the service

bulletin and the proposed compliance

time by stating that the number of total

flight cycles for an airplane may not be

a good indicator of the number of total

flight cycles for the forward cargo door.

For example, a door may have been

removed from an airplane with many

total flight cycles and installed on an

airplane with fewer total flight cycles.

Also, the FAA has received a report

indicating that a cracked door frame was

found on an airplane that had

accumulated 15,700 total flight cycles.

This report contradicts the second

commenter’s claim that cracking of the

door frames does not start until 20,000

to 30,000 total flight cycles. In view of

the nature of the cracking and the

severity of the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD (rapid

depressurization of the airplane), the

FAA finds that it would be

inappropriate to extend the compliance

time for the actions required by this AD.

No change to the final rule is necessary

in this regard.

Request for Clarification on

Replacement Door Frame

One commenter requests that

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposal be

revised to specify a part number or

modification status for the replacement

door frame. The FAA infers that the

commenter is stating that, by making the

proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) more

specific, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would be

unnecessary and could be removed from

the AD. The commenter states that it is

not clear why a new door frame should

have to be modified, and points out that

no specific instructions are provided for

modification of new door frames. The

commenter also states that introduction

of a new door frame that does not

require additional modification [such as

the modification described in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii) of the proposal] is in order.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. To date, the

manufacturer has not issued service

information that provides specific

instructions on how to modify new door

frames. Without such instructions, the

FAA cannot provide specific

instructions for modification of replaced

door frames and, therefore, cannot

revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii)

of this AD. The FAA anticipates that the

manufacturer will issue a new revision

of the service bulletin that, among other

things, will include instructions for

modification of replaced door frames.

However, based on the nature of the

cracking and the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD, the FAA finds

that it would be inappropriate to delay

this AD until the manufacturer issues a

new revision of the service bulletin.

With regard to the commenter’s

question of why it is necessary to

modify new door frames, as stated in the

preamble of the proposal, the FAA has

received reports that cracks have been

detected in redesigned door frames,

though these frames were supposed to

be less susceptible to fatigue cracking.

No new design has been developed.

Therefore, to prevent any more cracking,

the FAA has determined that it is

necessary to require a reinforcement

modification on newly installed door

frames. There is no door frame currently

available that is acceptable for

installation without such modification.

No change to the final rule is necessary

in this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 3,100 Model

737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 1,400 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane to accomplish the required

inspections, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspections required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $84,000, or

$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 38 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required terminating modifications at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost $1,865 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the terminating modifications

required by this AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $5,803,000, or $4,145

per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

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.

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from 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, pursuant to 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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

19304 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2000–07–06 Boeing: Amendment 39–11660.

Docket 99–NM–81–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737–100, –200,

–200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the lower

corners of the door frame and cross beam of

the forward cargo door, which could result in

rapid depressurization of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

High Frequency Eddy Current Initial/

Repetitive Inspections

(a) Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking

of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the

door frame of the forward cargo door in

accordance with Boeing 737 Nondestructive

Test Manual, Part 6, Section 51–00–00,

Figure 4 or Figure 23.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the

requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD have

been accomplished.

(2) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) AND

(a)(2)(ii) of this AD, which constitute

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections required by paragraph (a)(1) of

this AD.

(i) Accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) OR (a)(2)(i)(B) of this

AD, and install a cross beam repair and

reinforcement modification of the cross beam

in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,

1994.

(A) Repair the door frame of the forward

cargo door in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with

data meeting the type certification basis of

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company

Designated Engineering Representative (DER)

who has been authorized by the Manager,

Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a

repair or modification method to be approved

by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by

this paragraph; and paragraphs (a)(2)(ii),

(b)(2), (b)(3)(ii), and (c)(2) of this AD; the

Manager’s approval letter must specifically

reference this AD.

(B) Replace the door frame of the forward

cargo door with a new door frame in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,

1994.

(ii) Modify the repaired or replaced door

frame of the forward cargo door in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with

data meeting the type certification basis of

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company

DER who has been authorized by the

Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such

findings.

Detailed Visual Initial/Repetitive Inspections

(b) Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect cracking of the cross

beam (i.e., upper and lower chord and web

sections) of the forward cargo door in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,

1994.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation or

assembly to detect damage, failure or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc. may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the

requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD have

been accomplished.

(2) If any cracking is detected on the lower

chord section of the cross beam during any

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with

data meeting the type certification basis of

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company

DER who has been authorized by the

Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such

findings.

(3) If any cracking is detected on any area

excluding the lower chord section of the

cross beam (i.e., upper chord and web

section) during any inspection required by

paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to further

flight, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii), as applicable,

of this AD, which constitute terminating

action for the repetitive inspections required

by paragraph (b)(1) of this AD.

(i) For airplanes with line numbers 1

through 1231: Install a cross beam repair and

preventative modification of the outboard

radius of the lower corners (forward and aft)

of the door frame in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2,

dated March 31, 1994.

Note 3: Due to implications and

consequences associated with cracking, this

AD does not allow the option of replacing the

door frame as an alternative method of

compliance to installing the preventative

modification.

(ii) For airplanes with line numbers 1232

and subsequent: Install a cross beam repair

and preventative modification of the

outboard radius of the lower corners (forward

and aft) of the door frame in accordance with

a method approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO or in accordance with data meeting the

type certification basis of the airplane

approved by a Boeing Company DER who has

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle

ACO, to make such findings.

Terminating Action

(c) Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Install the preventative

modification of the outboard radius of the

lower corners (forward and aft) of the door

frame and the reinforcement modification of

the cross beam of the forward cargo door in

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of

this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of

paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as

applicable, constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive inspections required by

paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1

through 1231: Accomplish the preventative

modification and the reinforcement

modification in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2,

dated March 31, 1994.

(2) For airplanes with line numbers 1232

and subsequent: Accomplish the preventative

modification and the reinforcement

modification in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO or in

accordance with data meeting the type

certification basis of the airplane approved

by a Boeing Company DER who has been

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to

make such findings.

Modifications Previously Accomplished

(d) For all airplanes on which

modifications of the forward lower corner of

the door frame and the cross beam of the

forward cargo door were accomplished in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, dated August 25, 1988, or

Revision 1, dated July 20, 1989, or in

accordance with the requirements of AD 90–

06–02, amendment 39–6489: Within 4 years

or 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, install the

reinforcement modification of the aft corner

of the door frame of the forward cargo door

in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,

1994. Accomplishment of such modification

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections required by this AD.

Note 4: Accomplishment of Boeing Service

Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated

March 31, 1994, does not supersede the

requirements of AD 90–06–02, amendment

39–6489.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 19305

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(g) Except as provided by paragraphs

(a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3)(ii), and

(c)(2) of this AD; the actions shall be done

in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,

1994; and Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test

(NDT) Manual, D6–37239, Part 6, Section 51–

00–00, Figure 4 or Figure 23; dated August

5, 1997, as applicable. Boeing 737 NDT

Manual contains the following list of

effective pages:

Page No.

Revision

level

shown on

page

Date

shown on

page

Title Page ............. Not Shown Not

Shown.

List of Effective

Pages, Pages 1,

2.

Not Shown Aug. 5,

1997.

List of Effective

Pages, Page 2A.

Not Shown Feb. 5,

1997.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98134–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

May 16, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

31, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–8515 Filed 4–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–65–AD; Amendment 39–

11665; AD 2000–07–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Industrie

Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Model

Piaggio P–180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to all Industrie Aeronautiche e

Meccaniche (I.A.M.) Model Piaggio P–

180 airplanes. This AD requires

repetitively inspecting the brake

assembly rods and tubings for wear or

damage, and replacing any worn or

damaged parts. This AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Italy. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the brake hydraulic

fluid from leaking because of the brake

assembly rods contacting the brake

valve tubing, which could result in the

inability to adequately stop the airplane

during ground operations.

DATES: Effective May 29, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 29,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A., Via

Cibrario, 4 16154 Genoa, Italy. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 99–CE–65–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: Mr.

Randy Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4126; facsimile: (816) 329–4091.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to all I.A.M. Model Piaggio P–180

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on December 22,

1999 (64 FR 71694). The NPRM

proposed to require repetitively

inspecting the brake assembly rods and

tubings for wear or damage, and

replacing any worn or damaged parts.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections as specified in the NPRM

would be required in accordance with

Piaggio Service Bulletin (Mandatory)

No.: SB–80–0107, Original Issue: April

30, 1999. Accomplishment of any

necessary replacement as specified in

the NPRM would be required in

accordance with the maintenance

manual.

The NPRM was the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Italy.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 4 airplanes in

the U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 3

workhours per airplane to accomplish

the initial inspection, and that the

average labor rate is approximately $60

an hour. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of the initial inspection on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $720,

or $180 per airplane.

These figures only take into account

the cost of the initial inspection and do

not take into account the costs of any

replacements necessary or repetitive

inspections. The FAA has no way of

determining the number of parts that

will need replacement or the number of

inspections each owner/operator of the

affected airplanes will incur.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on