76752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, the proposed rule would 

make several clarifications and changes 

to the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program. First, it 

would clarify that mentors must be 

organized as for-profit business 

concerns. Second, the rule also 

proposed to establish consequences and 

options following the acquisition of a 

firm that is currently participating as a 

mentor in SBA’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program. Third, the proposed rule 

would revise the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program regulations to make clear that 

a business concern cannot be a prote ́ge ́

for a total of more than 12 years. The 

proposed rule has a 45-day comment 

period, with comments due on or before 

October 7, 2024. 

Pursuant to the Agency’s Tribal 

Consultation Policy, SBA consults with 

Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations 

(ANC), and other Native communities 

prior to implementing regulatory or 

policy changes with a direct and 

substantial effect on their participation 

in the HUBZone and 8(a) BD programs. 

SBA recognizes that regular 

communication and collaboration 

between the SBA and its Tribal and 

ANC stakeholders are vital to improving 

their program participation experience 

and maximizing the benefits to Native 

American communities, even where 

SBA is not actively considering program 

policy changes. SBA therefore makes 

efforts to consult Native communities 

periodically to obtain input on how the 

SBA could improve its programs. To 

these ends, SBA announced that it was 

holding Tribal consultations concerning 

the proposed rule and the following two 

matters. 89 FR 59010 (July 22, 2024). 

First, the proposed rule explained that 

SBA was seeking input on how best to 

implement Executive Order (E.O.) 

14112, Reforming Federal Funding and 

Support for Tribal Nations To Better 

Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and 

Promote the Next Era of Tribal SelfDetermination, which directed agencies 

to identify and execute policy reforms 

designed to promote accessible, 

equitable, and flexible administration of 

Federal funding and support programs 

for Tribal Nations to better live up to the 

Federal Government’s trust 

responsibilities and help address the 

needs of all Tribal Nations. The Agency 

requested comments on several 

potential opportunities for reform as 

well as one change SBA had already 

made to address the business and 

economic development needs of Tribal 

Nations. 

Second, SBA requested comments on 

prospective policy changes addressing 

joint venture participation in SBA 

programs. Specifically, SBA requested 

input on the perception that mentorprote ́ge ́ joint ventures are winning an 

inordinate number of orders issued 

under small business multiple award 

contracts and suggestions on how to 

incentivize a more equitable 

marketplace for individual small 

businesses who compete against 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ joint ventures for 

multiple award, small business 

contracts. SBA also sought comments on 

the perception that small businesses 

often enter joint ventures to seek 

multiple award contract awards because 

procuring agency past performance and 

experience requirements make it 

difficult for many small businesses to 

qualify for the awards individually. SBA 

explained it was considering whether to 

propose eliminating the exception to 

affiliation between an SBA-approved 

mentor and its prote ́ge ́ for multiple 

award contracts to address this concern. 

In the alternative, the Agency might 

consider proposing a rule that would 

allow an exclusion from affiliation for a 

joint venture between a prote ́ge ́ firm and 

its mentor only for contracts or orders 

that do not exceed five years. Lastly, the 

proposed rule stated SBA was 

considering steps to eliminate the 

applicability of the HUBZone price 

evaluation preference to HUBZone joint 

ventures formed under the MentorProte ́ge ́ Program. 

This document clarifies that the 

above-referenced possible prospective 

policy change to eliminate or restrict the 

exclusion from affiliation available to 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ joint ventures is outside 

the scope of the proposed rule 

published on August 23, 2024. 

Additionally, SBA is not addressing the 

applicability of the HUBZone price 

evaluation preference to HUBZone joint 

ventures formed under the MentorProte ́ge ́ Program as part of this proposed 

rule. To the extent SBA decides to 

propose amendments to its mentorprote ́ge ́ joint venture policies beyond 

those outlined in the rulemaking 

published on August 23, 2024, the 

Agency would do so through a separate 

proposed notice and comment 

rulemaking action in which all 

interested SBA stakeholders may 

participate. 

Jaqueline Robinson-Burnette, 

Associate Administrator, Office of 

Government Contracting and Business 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21362 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2143; Project 

Identifier AD–2024–00008–A] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model 

PA–28–140, PA–28–150, PA–28–160, 

PA–28–180, PA–28S–160, PA–28S–180, 

PA–28–236, PA–28–201T, PA–32–300, 

PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, PA–32RT– 

300T, PA–32–301FT, PA–32–301XTC, 

PA–32R–301 (HP), PA–32R–301 (SP), 

PA–32R–301T, PA–32–301, and PA–32– 

301T airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of a wing 

separation caused by fatigue cracking in 

a visually inaccessible area of the lower 

main wing spar cap and additional 

reports of fatigue cracking in the wing 

spars of airplanes that share common 

type design features. This proposed AD 

would require reviewing airplane 

maintenance records to determine if an 

eddy current inspection of the lower 

main wing spar bolt holes was done 

and, depending on the result, doing a 

one-time eddy current inspection of the 

lower wing spar bolt holes for crack(s), 

and replacing any cracked main wing 

spar. The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by November 4, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76753 

No. FAA–2024–2143; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for Docket Operations is 

listed above. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For Piper material identified in this 

proposed AD, contact Piper Aircraft, 

Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, 

Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567–4361; 

email: customerservice@piper.com; 

website: piper.com. 

• You may view this material at the 

FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5507; 

email: 9-ASO-ATLACO-ADS@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under the ADDRESSES section. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2024–2143; Project 

Identifier AD–2024–00008–A’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. The FAA 

will consider all comments received by 

the closing date and may revise this 

proposal because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. The agency 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact received 

about this NPRM. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Fred Caplan, Aviation 

Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any 

commentary that the FAA receives 

which is not specifically designated as 

CBI will be placed in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Background 

The FAA issued AD 2020–26–16, 

Amendment 39–21371 (86 FR 3769, 

January 15, 2021) (AD 2020–26–16), for 

certain Piper Model PA–28–151, PA– 

28–161, PA–28–181, PA–28–235, PA– 

28R–180, PA–28R–200, PA–28R–201, 

PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT–201, PA– 

28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA–32–300, 

PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, and PA– 

32RT–300T airplanes. AD 2020–26–16 

was prompted by an accident involving 

wing separation on a Piper Model PA– 

28R–201 airplane. An investigation by 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) revealed a fatigue crack in 

a visually inaccessible area of the lower 

main wing spar cap. The applicability of 

the NPRM for AD 2020–26–16 included 

additional Piper model airplanes with 

similar main wing spar structures as the 

Model PA–28R–201. Based on airplane 

usage history, the FAA determined that 

only those airplanes with a higher risk 

for fatigue cracks (airplanes with a 

significant history of operation in flight 

training or other high-load 

environments) should be subject to the 

inspection requirements proposed in 

that NPRM. 

AD 2020–26–16 requires calculating 

the factored service hours for each main 

wing spar to determine when an 

inspection is required, inspecting the 

lower main wing spar bolt holes for 

cracks, and replacing any cracked main 

wing spar. The agency issued AD 2020– 

26–16 to detect and correct fatigue 

cracks in the lower main wing spar cap 

bolt holes. 

Actions Since AD 2020–26–16 Was 

Issued 

The preamble to AD 2020–26–16 

explains that the FAA considers the 

requirements ‘‘interim action’’ and was 

considering further rulemaking. The 

FAA has now determined that further 

rulemaking is necessary, and this 

proposed AD and a separate proposed 

rulemaking action (Docket No. FAA– 

2024–2142) that would supersede AD 

2020–26–16 follows from that 

determination. Similar to AD 2020–26– 

16, this proposed AD is also considered 

to be an interim action that would 

determine the need for additional 

actions in the fleet addressed currently. 

The FAA evaluated the inspection 

reports submitted by operators as 

required by AD 2020–26–16 and 

determined that wing spars from 

additional Piper airplane models should 

be inspected. 

Since the FAA issued AD 2020–26– 

16, the FAA has analyzed the accident 

history of the airplanes affected by AD 

2020–26–16 and other Piper airplanes 

operated in a similar fashion. The 

following paragraphs communicate the 

FAA’s findings on this subject. 

Accident History 

Fatigue cracking was present in the 

main wing spars of Piper Model PA–28– 

181, Model PA–28R–201, and Model 

PA–28–161 airplanes involved in the 

following accidents. The following 

NTSB reports are related to this issue 

and can be found on ntsb.gov. 

• NTSB Accident Number 

FTW87FA088: March 30, 1987—Marlin, 

TX—Piper Model PA–28–181—7,490 

hours time-in-service (TIS). This 

accident was determined to have been 

caused by fatigue cracking in the 

outboard bolt holes of the main wing 

spar. This airplane’s primary usage was 

a ‘‘Pipeline Patrol’’ mission. 

• NTSB Accident Number 

NYC93FA140: August 2, 1993— 

Provincetown, MA—Piper Model PA– 

28–181—11,683 hours TIS. This 

accident was determined to have been 

caused by structural overloading related 

to weather, but fatigue cracks were 

present near the outboard bolt holes. 

This airplane’s usage history included 

personal use, flight instruction, and 

charter flights. 

• NTSB Accident Number 

ERA18FA120: April 4, 2018—Daytona 

Beach, FL—Piper Model PA–28R–201— 

7,691 hours TIS. This accident was 

determined to have been caused by 

fatigue cracking in the outboard bolt 

holes of the main wing spar. This 

airplane’s primary usage was flight 

instruction. 

Bolt Hole Cracks and Other Findings 

Following the release of AD 2020–26– 

16, the FAA and Piper received over 

2,800 bolt-hole eddy current inspection 

reports. The inspections performed in 

the field revealed a mix of observations 

that warrant further discussion. Of the 

total inspections, over 100 reported a 

positive eddy current indication, with 

several including pictures of the bolt 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
76754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

hole showing the source of the 

indication. 

Piper later conducted more detailed 

inspections in a study of 24 main wing 

spars with 20 having positive eddy 

current indications. Out of the 20 

positive indications, 3 were identified 

as fatigue cracks, where 1 was 

confirmed by Piper, and 2 were 

confirmed by the NTSB. The remaining 

were determined to be features not 

consistent with a crack, and 1 overstress 

crack as confirmed by the NTSB. 

Though not all are confirmed, many 

of the indications are likely not fatigue 

cracks but are a variety of anomalies in 

the hole. These can include corrosion 

pitting, scratches, gouges, and threading 

marks possibly caused by forceful 

insertion and removal of the close-fit 

bolts without proper unloading of the 

wing or other reasons. While these may 

not present as fatigue cracks at the time 

of inspection, anomalies in the hole 

create a stress concentration where 

cracks can begin to grow. Therefore, it 

is still crucial to inspect the critical bolt 

holes for these issues and take 

corrective action to prevent the 

formation of fatigue cracks. Piper 

Service Bulletin No. 1345, Revision A, 

dated September 17, 2021 (Piper SB No. 

1345, Revision A); and Piper Service 

Bulletin No. 1412, dated May 7, 2024 

(Piper SB No. 1412), include procedures 

for distinguishing between indications 

caused by hole damage or other 

anomalies from those caused by cracks. 

In addition to the various forms of 

non-crack hole damage, the inspections 

revealed several cracks in and around 

the bolt holes. As part of the AD 2020– 

26–16 inspection reports, 6 cracks were 

found, including 2 later verified by 

NTSB lab examination and 1 verified by 

Piper (from the Piper study referenced 

above), and 3 visible cracks in photos. 

Other known cracks include those 

found in an airplane in the same fleet 

as the 2018 accident airplane, a 

separately submitted crack finding 

confirmed with dye penetrant, and a 

crack located on the lower spar cap 

surface running alongside the 

inspection bolt holes. Given these 

findings, additional cracks may be 

present among the other unconfirmed 

reported indications. 

Other cracks have been discovered 

that may be caused by overload rather 

than by fatigue. While use of the 

airplane within its limits should not 

cause an overload crack, some crack 

findings have revealed that airplanes 

have been operated outside their limits. 

Though cracks due to overload are not 

the primary source of this corrective 

action, this emphasizes the need for and 

importance of inspecting the spar bolt 

holes for evidence of any cracking. 

Long-Term Continued Operational 

Safety 

The AD 2020–26–16 inspection report 

results indicated that additional 

inspections are needed to manage the 

safety of the fleet. Data indicates that 

more airplanes will need to be 

inspected, including the need to expand 

inspections to Piper airplane models 

that share a similar structural design of 

the main wing spar beyond the models 

addressed in AD 2020–26–16. 

Crack development is a function of 

many factors, including the design of 

the structure, how severely the aircraft 

is flown, and manufacturing processes. 

Small imperfections may exist in any 

aircraft structure from an early age; 

however, through operation, these 

imperfections may slowly grow into 

fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracks have the 

effect of weakening the structure and its 

ability to support the stresses the 

airplane was originally designed to 

handle. 

The 2018 accident, along with other 

accidents in this fleet attributed to 

fatigue cracking, and the AD 2020–26– 

16 inspection reports, indicate an aging 

fleet that requires intervention to ensure 

any fatigue cracking does not reach a 

critical state prior to being detected. 

Ensuring further damage is not caused 

by an inspection itself is important; 

however, inspecting for fatigue cracks as 

well as other hole anomalies is critical 

and outweighs the risk associated with 

doing the inspections. Piper has 

developed service actions, most recently 

in Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A; and 

Piper SB No. 1412, that mitigate 

inspection-induced damage by 

emphasizing proper unloading of the 

wing for both bolt and wing removal 

and replacement, if necessary, along 

with other instructions for ensuring care 

of the bolt holes. 

Corrective Action Development 

Each requirement outlined in this 

proposed AD has been developed to 

both address the unsafe condition and 

limit the number of required 

inspections, reducing the burden on 

operators where possible. A brief 

discussion of each aspect of the 

requirements continues below. 

Airplane Model Grouping 

The inspection data received via the 

reporting requirement in AD 2020–26– 

16, along with testing of the baseline 

spar common to all Piper Model PA–28 

and PA–32 airplanes, has shown that 

inspections should be extended to 

include Piper airplane models that share 

similar structural design but were not 

included in the applicability of AD 

2020–26–16. It is likely that a significant 

contributing factor in the formation of 

cracks found in the main wing spar bolt 

attachment area is the cold bending of 

the spar to achieve the wing’s dihedral. 

This method of forming the spar 

dihedral combined with the proximity 

to the wing attachment bolt holes leads 

to high residual stress in that area. The 

potential for fatigue cracking in and 

around the bolt holes, as well as higher 

variability in crack location and 

severity, is higher under this constant 

additional stress. 

In an attempt to support less onerous 

inspections and to understand the 

causal factors, Piper investigated the 

residual stresses in the critical bolt-hole 

area. That investigation showed that the 

residual stress due to the spar cold 

bending process is a significant 

contributing factor in reducing the 

fatigue life of the spar bolt holes. An 

additional outcome of this investigation 

is a change to all new manufactured 

spars having machined dihedral bends 

to eliminate the residual stresses in the 

critical area. 

Though there are differences between 

all Model PA–28 and PA–32 airplanes, 

such as additional reinforcing structure 

and lower operational loads, all airplane 

models share this same baseline spar 

with the cold bent dihedral. Differing 

characteristics allow for a grouping and 

tailoring of the requirements for each 

airplane model, but all airplane models 

need to be inspected. The airplane 

models in the applicability of this 

proposed AD are not the same airplane 

models that are included in the 

applicability of the proposed 

rulemaking action (Docket No. FAA– 

2024–2142) that would supersede AD 

2020–26–16, and the proposed required 

actions are different between these two 

proposed rulemaking actions. 

The remaining Piper Model PA–28 

and PA–32 airplanes that would not be 

included in the applicability of this 

proposed AD either experience higher 

operational loads or have less structure. 

Both of these conditions increase the 

stress experienced in the subject bolt 

holes of the baseline spar and thus are 

subject to the proposed rulemaking 

action (Docket No. FAA–2024–2142) to 

supersede AD 2020–26–16. 

Determination of Inspection 

Compliance Time 

The proposed compliance time for the 

eddy-current inspection specified in 

this proposed AD was based on an 

inspection report received in response 

to AD 2020–26–16 that showed a crack 

indication in a Model PA–32–300 wing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76755 

spar, later verified by Piper as a crack. 

Some airplanes in the proposed 

applicability of this AD may have been 

inspected as part of the requirements of 

AD 2020–26–16; however, if cracks in 

the wing spar are not expected as early 

due to the structural differences 

discussed above, these inspections may 

not yield the intended insight into the 

state of the wing spars. Therefore, the 

current proposed compliance time was 

set near and prior to the time-in-service 

of this confirmed crack finding in a 

wing spar of the same population as 

those in the airplanes in the 

applicability of this proposed AD. 

Wing spars on the affected Piper 

airplanes could develop cracks that, if 

not addressed, would result in a wing 

separating from the fuselage in flight. 

FAA’s Determination 

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after 

determining that the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

Under 1 CFR Part 51 

The FAA reviewed Piper Service 

Bulletin 1412, dated May 7, 2024. This 

material specifies procedures for doing 

a one-time eddy current inspection of 

the lower wing spar bolt holes for 

crack(s) and replacing any cracked main 

wing spar. This material also includes 

instructions to report the results of the 

inspection to Piper. This material is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Proposed AD Requirements in This 

NPRM 

This proposed AD would require 

reviewing airplane maintenance records 

to determine if an eddy current 

inspection of the lower main wing spar 

bolt holes was done and depending on 

the result, doing an eddy current 

inspection of the lower wing spar for 

crack(s) if not previously done or if 

done prior to 12,000 hours TIS, and 

replacing any cracked main wing spar. 

This proposed AD would also require 

sending all inspection results to Piper 

and the FAA. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Referenced Material 

Piper SB 1412 specifies to contact 

Piper for disposition if any non-crack 

damage is found in the main wing spar 

bolt holes or any crack(s) or non-crack 

damage is found in the spar box bolt 

holes but this proposed AD would 

require contacting either the Manager, 

East Certification Branch, FAA, or the 

Piper Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA) for instructions 

and doing those actions. To be 

approved, the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification 

basis of the airplane, and the approval 

must specifically refer to the proposed 

AD. 

Piper SB 1412 specifies using its 

feedback form to report the inspection 

results but this proposed AD would 

require using the form included as 

Appendix 1 to this proposed AD. 

Interim Action 

The FAA considers that this proposed 

AD would be an interim action. The 

proposed inspection reports would 

provide the FAA with additional data 

for determining the number of cracks 

present in the fleet. After analyzing the 

data, the FAA may take further 

rulemaking action. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this AD, if 

adopted as proposed, would affect 

10,927 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Review airplane maintenance records ........... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................. $0 $85 $928,795 

The FAA estimates the following 

costs to do any necessary actions that 

would be required based on the results 

of the proposed airplane maintenance 

records review. The agency has no way 

of determining the number of airplanes 

that might need these actions: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Eddy current inspection of the left and right 

lower main wing spar (including access and 

restoring the airplane).

1 work-hour contracted service × $600 per hour 

= $600 for the eddy current inspection.

$20 $960. 

4 work hours × $85 per hours = $340 for access and restoration.

Report inspection results ..................................... 1 work-hours × $85 per hour = $85 .................... 0 $85. 

Replace main wing spar ...................................... 40 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,400 per 

main wing spar.

10,983 $14,383 per main wing spar. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to a penalty for failure to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to be 

approximately 1 hour per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

All responses to this collection of 

information are mandatory. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
76756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701: General requirements. Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it addresses an 

unsafe condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Findings 

The FAA determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Would not affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, and 

(3) Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2024– 

2143; Project Identifier AD–2024–00008– 

A. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by November 4, 

2024. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

(Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category, 

with a model and serial number shown in 

Table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph 

(c) of this AD and that meet at least one of 

the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this 

AD. 

TABLE 1 TO THE INTRODUCTORY TEXT

OF PARAGRAPH (c)—APPLICABILITY

Model Serial Nos. 

PA–28–140 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–28–150 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–28–160 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–28–180 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–28S–160 ........ All serial numbers. 

PA–28S–180 ........ All serial numbers. 

PA–28–236 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–28–201T ........ All serial numbers. 

PA–32–300 .......... All serial numbers greater than and including 

32–7940001. 

PA–32R–300 ........ All serial numbers. 

PA–32RT–300 ...... All serial numbers. 

PA–32RT–300T ... All serial numbers. 

PA–32–301FT ...... All serial numbers. 

PA–32–301XTC ... All serial numbers. 

PA–32R–301 (HP) All serial numbers. 

PA–32R–301 (SP) All serial numbers. 

PA–32R–301T ...... All serial numbers. 

PA–32–301 .......... All serial numbers. 

PA–32–301T ........ All serial numbers. 

(1) Has accumulated 12,000 or more total 

hours time-in-service (TIS) on a wing spar; or 

(2) Has missing or incomplete maintenance 

records. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 5711, WING SPAR. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in 

a visually inaccessible area of the main wing 

lower spar cap and additional reports of 

fatigue cracking in the wing spars of 

airplanes that share common type design 

features. The FAA is issuing this AD to 

address fatigue crack(s) in the lower main 

wing spar cap bolt holes. The unsafe 

condition, if not addressed, could result in 

the wing separating from the fuselage in 

flight. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Review Airplane Maintenance Records 

To Determine When Previous Main Wing 

Spar Inspections Completed 

Within 30 days or 100 hours TIS after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later, review the airplane maintenance 

records to determine when the previous 

inspection of each main wing spar was 

completed. The owner/operator (pilot) 

holding at least a private pilot certificate may 

accomplish this and must enter compliance 

with this paragraph of the AD into the 

airplane maintenance records in accordance 

with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The 

record must be maintained as required by 14 

CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. If it can be 

determined from the airplane maintenance 

records review that an eddy current 

inspection of the main wing spar was done 

prior to the effective date of this AD at 12,000 

hours TIS or greater and in accordance with 

Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 

27, 2020; or Piper Service Bulletin 1345A, 

dated September 17, 2021, then you may take 

credit for the inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(h) Bolt Hole Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

(1) Within the compliance time specified 

in either paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, 

as applicable, on both the left and right main 

wing spars, do an eddy current inspection of 

the inner surface of each bolt hole in the 

lower wing spar cap for crack(s) and for noncrack damage (including deep scratches, 

gouges, and thread marks), in accordance 

with paragraph 5. of the Instructions in Piper 

Service Bulletin No. 1412, dated May 7, 2024 

(Piper SB No. 1412). Although Piper SB No. 

1412 specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level III 

certification to perform eddy current and 

fluorescent penetrant inspections, this AD 

allows Level II or Level III qualification 

standards for inspection personnel using any 

inspector criteria approved by the FAA. 

Note 1 to the introductory text of 

paragraph (h)(1): FAA Advisory Circular 65– 

31B, ‘‘Training, Qualification, and 

Certification of Nondestructive Inspection 

Personnel,’’ dated February 24, 2014, 

contains FAA-approved Level II and Level III 

qualification standards criteria for personnel 

doing nondestructive test inspections. 

(i) Within 100 hours TIS after complying 

with paragraph (g) of this AD or within 100 

hours TIS after a main wing spar accumulates 

12,000 hours TIS, whichever occurs later; or 

(ii) For airplanes with an unknown number 

of hours TIS on a main wing spar, within 100 

hours TIS or 60 days after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(2) If the eddy current inspection does not 

identify any indications, before further flight, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76757 

install new wing spar bolts and nuts as 

required by paragraph (j) of this AD and 

report the inspection results as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(3) If the eddy current inspection identifies 

any crack(s), indications, or noisy signal, 

before further flight, do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph 5.b. through k. 

of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1412. 

(i) If any non-crack damage is found in the 

main wing spar bolt holes or any crack(s) or 

non-crack damage is found in the spar box 

bolt holes contact either the Manager, East 

Certification Branch, FAA, or the Piper 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) for instructions and do those actions. 

To be approved, the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(ii) If any crack(s) is found in the main 

wing spar bolt hole, replace the main wing 

spar as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(iii) If no crack(s) or non-crack damage is 

found in the main wing spar bolt holes install 

new main wing spar bolts and nuts as 

required by paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(i) Replace Main Wing Spar 

If any crack is found during the inspection 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before 

further flight, replace the affected main wing 

spar with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing 

spar or with a serviceable (more than zero 

hours TIS) main wing spar that has passed 

the eddy current inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(j) Install New Main Wing Spar Bolts and 

Nuts 

Before further flight, after completing the 

actions required by paragraph (h) or (i) of this 

AD, install new main wing spar bolts and 

nuts in accordance with paragraph (step) 9 of 

the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1412. 

(k) Report Inspection Results 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD, report the 

inspection results to the FAA, East 

Certification Branch, and to Piper Aircraft, 

Inc., using Appendix 1, ‘‘Inspection Results 

Form,’’ of this AD, 

(1) If the action was done on or after the 

effective date of this AD, submit the report 

within 30 days after the action was done. 

(2) If the action was done before the 

effective date of this AD, submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(l) Credit for Previous Actions 

If the inspections of the main wing spars 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD were 

done before the effective date of this AD at 

12,000 hours TIS or greater in accordance 

with Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated 

March 27, 2020; or Piper Service Bulletin 

1345A, dated September 17, 2021, then you 

may take credit for these inspections. 

(m) Special Flight Permit 

A special flight permit may be issued in 

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 

to permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight 

to a location where the airplane can be 

inspected. This ferry flight must be 

performed with only essential flight crew. 

This AD prohibits a special flight permit if 

any inspection reveals a crack in the main 

wing spar. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, East Certification Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or local Flight Standards 

District Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the manager of the 

East Certification Branch, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (o)(1) of this AD and email to: 

AMOC@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(o) Additional Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, East Certification Branch, 

FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5507; email: 9- 

ASO-ATLACO-ADs@faa.gov. 

(2) Piper material identified in this AD that 

is not incorporated by reference is available 

at the address specified in paragraph (p)(3) of 

this AD. 

(3) FAA Advisory Circular 65–31B, 

‘‘Training, Qualification, and Certification of 

Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,’’ dated 

February 24, 2014, may be found at 

drs.faa.gov. 

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph 

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

(2) You must use this material as 

applicable to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1412, dated 

May 7, 2024. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(3) For Piper material identified in this AD, 

contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, 

Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 567– 

4361; email: customerservice@piper.com; 

website: piper.com. 

(4) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 

64106. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
76758 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA–2024– 

2143 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP19SE24.053</GPH>

Inspection Results Form 

Email completed form to: 

9-ASO-ATLCOS-Reporting@faa.gov 

and 

Or mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 

East Certification Branch 

1701 Columbia A venue 

customer.service@piper.com College Park, GA 30337 

SUBJECT line: Docket No. FAA-2024-2143 

Include photos if applicable 

Aircraft Model No.: PA- Serial Number: 

Aircraft Total Hours Time-In-Service (TIS): Registration Number: 

Inspection Results 

LH Wing Spar Fwd Accepted □ Rejected D RH Wing Spar Fwd Accepted D Rejected D 

LH Wing Spar Aft Accepted D Rejected D RH Wing Spar Aft Accepted D Rejected D 

Inspector Comments 

Inspector Information 

Name (print): ____________ Signature: ___________ _ 

Certificate No.: Date: --------------- ---------------
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 76759 

Issued on September 10, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21209 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–118269–23] 

RIN 1545–BR19 

Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle 

Refueling Property Credit 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations regarding the 

Federal income tax credit under the 

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for 

certain costs relating to qualified 

alternative fuel vehicle refueling 

property that is placed in service within 

a low-income community or within a 

non-urban census tract. These proposed 

regulations would affect eligible 

taxpayers who place qualified property 

into service during a taxable year. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing must 

be received by November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit public comments 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–118269–23) by following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Requests for a public hearing 

must be submitted as prescribed in the 

‘‘Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing’’ section. Once submitted to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury 

Department) and the IRS will publish 

for public availability any comments 

submitted to the IRS’s public docket. 

Send paper submissions to: 

CC:PA:01:PR (REG–118269–23), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

contact Kevin I. Babitz or Whitney E. 

Brady of Office of Associate Chief 

Counsel (Passthroughs & Special 

Industries) at (202) 317–6853 (not a tollfree number); concerning submissions of 

comments and requests for a public 

hearing, Publications and Regulations 

Section at (202) 317–6901 (not a toll-free 

number) or by email to publichearings@

irs.gov (preferred). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority 

This document contains proposed 

amendments to the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under 

sections 30C, 48, 48E, 6417, and 6418 of 

the Internal Revenue Code (Code) issued 

by the Secretary of the Treasury or her 

delegate (Secretary) under the authority 

granted under sections 30C(e)(5), (g)(4), 

and (h), 45(b)(12), 48(a)(16), 48E(i), 

6417(h), 6418(g) and (h), and 7805(a) of 

the Code (proposed regulations). 

Section 30C includes three specific 

delegations of regulatory authority. 

First, 30C(h) provides a general grant of 

regulatory authority for section 30C as a 

whole, stating, ‘‘[t]he Secretary shall 

prescribe such regulations as necessary 

to carry out the provisions of this 

section.’’ Second, section 30C(g)(4) 

provides a specific delegation of 

authority related to the prevailing wage 

and registered apprenticeship (PWA) 

requirements: ‘‘The Secretary shall issue 

such regulations or other guidance as 

the Secretary determines necessary to 

carry out the purposes of this 

subsection, including regulations or 

other guidance that provides for 

requirements for recordkeeping or 

information reporting for purposes of 

administering the requirements of this 

subsection.’’ Third, section 30C(e)(5) 

provides a specific delegation of 

authority by cross-reference to provide 

recapture rules similar to those under 

former section 179A (described in part 

III.A. of the Background section and part 

IV.A. of the Explanation of Provisions 

section) as authorized by former section 

179A(e)(4). 

Sections 45(b)(12) and 48(a)(16) 

provide specific delegations of authority 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 45(b), including the PWA 

requirements of section 45(b)(7) and (8) 

that sections 48(a)(10) and (11) and 

48E(d)(3) and (4) refer to, each stating, 

‘‘[t]he Secretary shall issue such 

regulations or other guidance as the 

Secretary determines necessary to carry 

out the purposes of this subsection, 

including regulations or other guidance 

which provides for requirements for 

recordkeeping or information reporting 

for purposes of administering the 

requirements of this subsection.’’ 

Section 48E(i) provides a specific 

delegation of authority with respect to 

the requirements of section 48E, 

including the PWA requirements of 

section 48E(d)(3) and (4), stating, that 

‘‘[n]ot later than January 1, 2025, the 

Secretary shall issue guidance regarding 

implementation of this section.’’ 

Sections 6417(h) and 6418(h) provide 

specific delegations of authority with 

respect to the elective payment election 

rules of section 6417 and the transfer of 

certain credits under section 6418, each 

stating, in part, that ‘‘[t]he Secretary 

shall issue such regulations or other 

guidance as may be necessary to carry 

out the purposes of this section . . .’’ 

Finally, section 7805(a) authorizes the 

Secretary to prescribe all needful rules 

and regulations for the enforcement of 

the Code. 

Background 

I. Overview 

Section 30C of the Code allows a 

credit (section 30C credit) against the 

tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code 

(chapter 1) with respect to each item of 

qualified alternative fuel vehicle 

refueling property that a taxpayer places 

in service. The section 30C credit is 

determined and allowed with respect to 

the taxable year in which the taxpayer 

places the item of property in service. 

Section 30C was originally enacted by 

section 1342(a) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, Public Law 109–58, 119 Stat. 

594, 1049 (Aug. 8, 2005), to provide a 

credit for the cost of qualified 

alternative fuel vehicle refueling 

property. Section 30C has been 

amended several times since its 

enactment, most recently by section 

13404 of Public Law 117–169, 136 Stat. 

1818, 1966 (August 16, 2022), 

commonly known as the Inflation 

Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). As 

amended by the IRA, section 30C allows 

taxpayers to claim a credit for up to 30 

percent of the cost of qualified 

alternative fuel vehicle refueling 

property placed in service after 

December 31, 2022, and on or before 

December 31, 2032. 

The amount of the section 30C credit 

is treated as a personal credit or a 

general business credit depending on 

the character of the property that the 

taxpayer places in service. In general, 

the section 30C credit is a 

nonrefundable personal credit allowed 

under subpart B of part IV of subchapter 

A of chapter 1. However, the amount of 

the section 30C credit that is attributable 

to property that is of a character subject 

to an allowance for depreciation 

(depreciable property) is treated under 

section 30C(d)(1) as a current year 

business credit under section 38(b) of 

the Code instead of being allowed under 

section 30C(a). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1