This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

77457 

Vol. 89, No. 184 

Monday, September 23, 2024 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2142; Project 

Identifier AD–2024–00033–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 

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2020–26–16, which applies to certain 

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (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 requires calculating the 

factored service hours (FSH) for each 

main wing spar to determine when an 

inspection is required, inspecting the 

lower main wing spar bolt holes for 

crack(s), and replacing any cracked 

main wing spar. Since the FAA issued 

AD 2020–26–16, the FAA evaluated the 

reports required by AD 2020–26–16 and 

determined that repetitive inspections 

of the lower main wing spar bolt holes 

for crack(s) and non-crack damage 

(including deep scratches, gouges, and 

thread marks) and replacement or 

modification of the main wing spar 

should be required, calculated service 

hours (CSH) should be used instead of 

FSH to determine times for required 

actions for each main wing spar, and 

that certain airplanes should be 

removed from the applicability and a 

new airplane model added to the 

applicability. This proposed AD would 

require calculating the CSH for each 

main wing spar; repetitively inspecting 

the lower main wing spar bolt holes for 

crack(s) and non-crack damage and 

taking corrective actions as needed; and 

replacing or modifying main wing spars 

at a specified time. This proposed AD 

would also revise the applicability by 

removing certain airplanes and adding a 

new airplane model. 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 7, 

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 

No. FAA–2024–2142; 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 ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2024–2142; Project Identifier AD– 

2024–00033–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 amend the 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– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
77458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 FSH 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 follows from that 

determination. The FAA evaluated the 

inspection reports submitted by 

operators as required by AD 2020–26–16 

and determined that additional action is 

needed, including requiring repetitive 

inspections of the lower main wing spar 

bolt holes for crack(s) and non-crack 

damage and replacement or 

modification of the main wing spar, 

using CSH instead of FSH to determine 

times for required actions, and revising 

the applicability by removing certain 

serial-numbered Piper Model PA–32– 

300 airplanes and all Model PA–32R– 

300, PA–32RT–300, and PA–32RT–300T 

airplanes because those airplanes would 

be included in the applicability of a 

proposed separate rulemaking action. 

The FAA also determined that Piper 

Model PA–32S–300 airplanes should be 

added to the applicability. 

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 

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. 1372, dated April 3, 2024 

(Piper SB No. 1372), 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 of the same 

operator 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. While AD 2020–26– 

16 addressed the immediate safety 

concern, data indicates that more 

airplanes will need to be inspected and, 

due to aging, the airplanes already 

inspected will need additional 

inspections. This includes the need to 

expand inspections to include Piper 

Model PA–32S–300 airplanes in the 

applicability of this proposed AD 

because these airplanes share a similar 

structural design of the main wing spar 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77459 

with the airplane 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 

aircraft 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. 

This often takes the form of repetitive 

inspections to be able to capture the 

formation of a detectable crack, 

requiring repair or replacement. The 

FAA has also determined that 

inspections alone are not sufficient to 

keep the fleet risk acceptably low longterm. Cracks are more likely to develop 

with aging of the main wing spar, so 

over time it becomes more likely that 

cracks will exist throughout the fleet 

and could be missed by inspection, due 

in part to the inherent imperfections of 

the inspection method; therefore, 

replacement or modification of the spars 

is needed. Both the FAA and Piper 

attempted to determine an inspection 

program that would manage risk to an 

acceptable level using inspection alone; 

however, no method could be found 

that did not eventually require spar 

replacement. 

Ensuring further damage is not caused 

by the inspection itself is important, 

especially with repetitive inspections; 

however, inspecting for fatigue cracks as 

well as other hole anomalies is critical 

and outweighs the risk associated with 

repetitive inspections. Additionally, 

repeated inspections inherently allow 

for continued direct observation of the 

bolt holes over time and correcting noncrack damage if necessary. Piper has 

developed service actions, most recently 

in Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A, and 

Piper SB No. 1372, 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 all models that share a similar 

structural design by utilizing the same 

baseline spar. 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 current 

proposed requirements separate models 

into two groups, each requiring its own 

actions with a separate action for a third 

group under a separate proposed 

rulemaking action. The airplane models 

discussed share similar spar structure, 

while one group experiences higher 

operational loads than the other, due 

mostly to differences in gross weight 

and maximum airspeed. The remaining 

Piper Model PA–28 and PA–32 

airplanes that would not be included in 

the applicability of this proposed AD 

either experience lower operational 

loads or have additional structure, both 

effectively lowering the stress 

experienced in the subject bolt holes of 

the baseline spar. 

Hours Calculation 

The potential for fatigue cracking of 

the main wing spar bolt holes is highly 

influenced by the usage profile of the 

spar and airplane. For airplanes 

included in the applicability of this 

proposed AD, the primary usage is 

either flight instruction or personal use. 

Flight instruction consists of more hours 

spent flying at lower altitudes where the 

airplane is exposed to gusts and more 

takeoffs and landings than is typical for 

personal usage. These characteristics 

lead to reaching the fatigue life of the 

spar more quickly than personal usage, 

which generally involves a large time 

spent in cruise and fewer takeoffs and 

landings. As a result of the usage 

differences, the same TIS for an airplane 

used in flight instruction is not 

equivalent to the same time for a 

personal-use airplane. 

An FSH equation was established in 

AD 2020–26–16 to account for the 

differences in usage and reduce the 

burden on personal use airplanes. This 

equation is still the best method 

available to account for different usage 

when determining when inspections 

should occur. In the United States, 

airplanes used in flight instruction for 

hire are required by FAA regulation to 

receive 100-hour inspections. Because 

instructional usage is unable to be 

tracked directly, a count of these 

inspections is used as a method for 

determining instructional usage to 

differentiate it from personal usage. 

When AD 2020–26–16 was issued, 

available analysis indicated 

instructional usage was approximately 

17 times more severe than personal 

usage, leading to this factor appearing in 

the FSH equation. After AD 2020–26–16 

was published, further analysis 

completed by Piper estimated this factor 

was significantly lower. This has 

resulted in a new equation, now referred 

to as CSH in Piper SB No. 1372. The 

CSH calculation has the same 

instructions and intent as the FSH from 

AD 2020–26–16, but the value in the 

equation has been updated based on 

improved analysis and data. For Group 

1 airplanes this proposed AD would 

require using a value of 3 instead of the 

value of 2 that is specified in Piper SB 

No. 1372, and a value of 2 would be 

used for Group 2 airplanes, as specified 

in Piper SB No. 1372. 

Determination of Inspection and Spar 

Retirement or Modification Timing 

The fleet corrective actions analyzed 

consist of an initial inspection, followed 

by repetitive inspections until a time is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
77460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

reached when the spar should be 

modified or replaced. The FAA has 

worked with Piper to develop the 

specific timing for these actions using 

actual service data to determine current 

and future risk of fatigue cracks 

developing, and analysis using the 

physical properties of the structure to 

estimate formation and growth of cracks 

in the critical area of the spar. These 

efforts have resulted in inspection 

timing estimates that provide 

opportunities to locate cracks before 

reaching a critical size. 

The proposed initial inspection time 

requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 

airplanes have been determined using 

data from AD 2020–26–16 inspection 

reports and prior inspections consisting 

of known crack findings and known 

inspections that did not find an 

anomaly that exceeds the eddy current 

size threshold, to estimate times when 

a crack will exist in each group’s fleet. 

An initial inspection time is then set 

just prior to when cracks would be 

expected in the fleet. This proposed 

initial inspection serves as a baseline 

inspection and will be followed by 

repetitive inspections to ensure a crack 

is not missed. 

The proposed repetitive inspection 

programs have been set differently for 

each airplane group. For Group 1 

airplanes, a tiered approach of 

inspecting more often with increasing 

age has been proposed as a method of 

reducing the burden on lower TIS 

airplanes. It is possible to inspect less 

used airplanes less often because these 

carry the least risk of developing a 

fatigue crack within the population. As 

age increases, and therefore risk 

increases, the proposed inspections are 

set to be more frequent. A similar 

approach would be possible for Group 

2 airplanes, but the inspection intervals 

are estimated to be much shorter based 

on inspection data, structural design, 

and airplane performance, so stepping 

down with age would not be practical. 

As an airplane ages, the likelihood or 

risk of a crack developing increases. A 

potential solution to this would be to 

continue to increase the frequency of 

inspections to ensure a crack is found 

before reaching a critical length; 

however, frequent and increased 

inspections are not a practical or safe 

approach due to the inherent risk in 

repeated bolt removal and reinsertion. 

At the fleet level, an ever-increasing age 

of the fleet means a higher risk that 

cracks are present in the fleet and may 

be missed, even with frequent 

inspections. This leaves a solution of 

removing or modifying the highest age 

spars to reduce and maintain the fleet 

risk, therefore spar retirement or 

modification where possible is 

proposed. 

These proposed fleet inspection 

requirements must be adjusted as 

needed to ensure cracks are found 

before they reach a critical size. A recent 

inspection of a Model PA–28–181 

airplane main wing spar was performed 

at a time earlier than required by AD 

2020–26–16 and revealed cracks at a TIS 

earlier than anticipated. A section of the 

main wing spar was sent to an 

independent materials lab, and under 

high magnification normally spaced 

fatigue striations were found, 

confirming this crack was caused by 

fatigue. This new finding required the 

FAA to adjust the Group 1 inspection 

schedules to earlier times to ensure a 

similar crack would be found in time. 

Although this airplane was used 

almost exclusively for flight instruction, 

reducing the inspection times resulted 

in additional burden on all airplanes, 

including those for personal usage. 

Therefore, for this proposed AD, the 

FAA determined that for Group 1 

airplanes a value of 3 should be used in 

the CSH instead of the value of 2 that 

is specified in Piper SB No. 1372. An 

increase in this value from 2 to 3 serves 

to mitigate the increased burden on 

Group 1 airplanes resulting from the 

reduced inspection times and provides 

relief for operators of personal-use 

airplanes. 

Spar Modification and Replacement 

Options 

Piper has developed a reinforcement 

kit as an option and alternative to 

retirement of the main wing spar, 

applicable to certain Group 1 airplanes. 

There is currently no spar modification 

developed for Piper Model PA–28R–180 

and PA–28R–200 airplanes that are 

included in Group 1 or any airplanes 

designated as Group 2 airplanes, as 

specified in Piper SB No. 1372. The 

proposed inspection times after 

installing a reinforcement kit would 

provide an extended life of the main 

wing spar and longer intervals between 

the proposed repetitive inspections. The 

reinforcement kit provides additional 

structure that lowers and distributes the 

stress in the critical areas, allowing for 

slower crack growth. Piper used damage 

tolerance analysis when developing the 

inspection times after a reinforcement 

kit is installed. 

Finally, new wing spars are available 

from Piper that have machined the spar 

dihedral bend instead of the cold 

bending process, eliminating the 

residual stress factor in these spars. 

These new wing spars have a different 

life limit and will not require any 

inspections. 

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 SB No. 1372. 

This material specifies procedures for 

reviewing airplane maintenance records 

to determine the number of 100-hour 

inspections completed on the airplane 

since new and any record of main wing 

spar replacement; calculating the 

service hours; doing eddy current 

inspections of the main wing spar bolt 

holes for crack(s) and non-crack 

damage; repairing bolt holes with noncracking damage; for certain airplanes 

installing a main wing spar 

reinforcement kit; and replacing a main 

wing spar. 

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 ADDRESSES. 

Proposed AD Requirements in This 

NPRM 

This proposed AD would retain none 

of the requirements of AD 2020–26–16. 

This proposed AD would revise the 

applicability by removing certain serialnumbered Model PA–32–300 airplanes 

and all Piper Model PA–32R–300, PA– 

32RT–300, and PA–32RT–300T 

airplanes because those airplanes will 

be included in a separate proposed 

rulemaking action. This proposed AD 

would add serial-numbered Model PA– 

28R–200 and PA–28R–201 airplanes to 

the applicability to include all serial 

numbers and would also add Piper 

Model PA–32S–300 airplanes to the 

applicability. This proposed AD would 

require accomplishing the actions 

specified in the material already 

described, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this AD and the 

Referenced Material.’’ This proposed 

AD would also require reporting 

inspection results to Piper and the FAA 

if any cracks are found during any 

inspection. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Referenced Material 

For Group 1 airplanes, to determine 

the CSH, instead of using the value of 

2 provided in the simplified formula in 

Part 1, paragraph 2.b of the Instructions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77461 

in Piper SB No. 1372, this proposed AD 

would require using a value of 3. 

In addition, for Group 1 airplanes, the 

compliance times for the initial and 

repetitive inspections and the 

replacement or modification of the main 

wing spars specified in paragraphs (i) 

and (j) of this proposed AD are different 

from what is in Table 1 of Piper SB No. 

1372. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this AD, if 

adopted as proposed, would affect 

10,665 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 and determine CSH 

for each main wing spar.

3 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $255, per records review.

$0 $255, per records review ....... $2,719,575, per records review. 

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 and CSH calculation. 

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 inspections of the left-hand 

(LH) and right-hand (RH) inspection 

areas LH and RH lower main wing 

spar (including access and restoring 

the airplane).

1 work-hour contracted service × $600 

per hour = $600 for the eddy current 

inspection.

4 work-hours × $85 per hour for access 

and restoring = $340.

$20 $960 per inspection. 

Report inspection results to the FAA and 

Piper Aircraft, Inc.

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per 

report.

0 85 per report. 

Repair holes with non-crack damage ...... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ...... 20 190. 

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

per main wing spar.

10,983 14,383 per main wing spar. 

Install modification (reinforcement) kit ..... 190 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$16,150 per main wing spar.

4,000 20,150 per 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 

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 that the 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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
77462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: 

■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 

2020–26–16, Amendment 39–21371 (86 

FR 3769, January 15, 2021); and 

■ b. Adding the following new 

airworthiness directive: 

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

2142; Project Identifier AD–2024–00033– 

A. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by November 7, 

2024. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2020–26–16, 

Amendment 39–21371 (86 FR 3769, January 

15, 2021) (AD 2020–26–16). 

(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 paragraph (c) of this AD. 

Table 1 to Paragraph (c)—Applicability and 

Airplane Group 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

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. The FAA is issuing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the 

lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The 

unsafe condition, if not addressed, could 

result in a wing separating from the fuselage 

in flight. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Definitions 

For the purpose of this AD the following 

definitions apply. 

(1) Group 1 airplanes: Airplanes identified 

as Group 1 in Piper Service Bulletin No. 

1372, dated April 3, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1372) 

and Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. 

(2) Group 2 airplanes: Airplanes identified 

as Group 2 in Piper SB No. 1372 and Table 

1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. 

(h) Review Airplane Maintenance Records 

and Determine Calculated Service Hours for 

Each Main Wing Spar 

(1) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 12 

months, whichever occurs first, review the 

airplane maintenance records and determine 

the number of 100-hour inspections 

completed on the airplane since new and any 

record of wing spar replacement(s) in 

accordance with Part I, paragraph 1, of the 

Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP23SE24.000</GPH>

Model Serial Numbers 

Airplane 

Group 

PA-28-151 All serial numbers 1 

PA-28-161 All serial numbers 1 

PA-28-181 

Archer II All serial numbers 1 

PA-28-181 

Archer III All serial numbers lower than and including 2881687 1 

PA-28-181 

Piper Pilot All serial numbers lower than and including 28020148 1 

PA-28R-180 All serial numbers 1 

PA-28R-200 All serial numbers 1 

PA-28-235 All serial numbers 2 

PA-28R-201 All serial numbers 2 

PA-28R-201T All serial numbers 2 

PA-28RT-201 All serial numbers 2 

PA-28RT-201T All serial numbers 2 

PA-32-260 All serial numbers 2 

PA-32-300 All serial numbers lower than and including 32-7840202 2 

PA-32S-300 All serial numbers 2 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77463 

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. 

(2) Before further flight after doing the 

action required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD, determine the calculated service hours 

(CSH) for each main wing spar using the 

applicable formula for your airplane group 

specified in Figure 1 or Figure 2 to paragraph 

(h)(2) of this AD and in accordance with Part 

I, paragraphs 2.a. through b., of the 

Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. Thereafter, 

after each 100-hour or annual inspection, recalculate the CSH for each main wing spar 

to determine the compliance time for the 

actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of 

this AD. If a factored service hour (FSH) 

inspection required by AD 2020–26–16 was 

done using Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, 

dated March 27, 2020; or Piper Service 

Bulletin No. 1345A, dated September 17, 

2021, you may use that data, including the 

TIS and number of 100-hour inspections at 

the time of the last inspection, to calculate 

the CSH for that inspection using the 

requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD and 

Part I, paragraph 2.c. of the Instructions in 

Piper SB No. 1372 to determine the next 

required actions, including if an action is 

now due according to the requirements of 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. 

Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(2)—Group 1 

Airplanes CSH Calculation 

Note 1 to Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(2): This 

calculation is not the same as the simplified 

calculation specified in Piper SB No. 1372 

because this calculation uses a value of 3, for 

Group 1 airplanes only, and Piper SB No. 

1372 uses a value of 2. 

Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2)—Group 2 

Airplanes CSH Calculation 

Note 2 to Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2): This 

calculation is the same as the simplified 

calculation specified in Piper SB No. 1372, 

but with a different form, and is for Group 

2 airplanes only. 

(i) Bolt Hole Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

(1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current 

inspections of the inner surface of each bolt 

hole in the lower wing spar cap for cracks 

and for non-crack damage (including deep 

scratches, gouges, and thread marks), at the 

times in Table 2 and Table 3 to paragraph 

(i)(1) of this AD and in accordance with Part 

II, paragraph 4.a. of the Instructions in Piper 

SB No. 1372. Although Piper SB No. 1372 

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 3 to paragraph (i)(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. 

Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1)—Compliance 

Times for Group 1 Airplane Inspections 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP23SE24.001</GPH> EP23SE24.002</GPH>

N is the number of 100-hour inspections; and T is the total hours TIS of the 

airplane main wing spar. 

T-{Nx 100) CSH = {N x 100) + 3 for Group 1 airplanes 

N is the number of 100-hour inspections; and T is the total hours TIS of the 

airplane main wing spar. 

T-{Nx 100) CSH = {N x 100) + 2 for Group 2 airplanes 
77464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Note 4 to Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1): The compliance times are not the same as 

the times specified in Piper SB No. 1372 for 

Group 1 airplanes. 

Table 3 to Paragraph (i)(1)—Compliance 

Times for Group 2 Airplane Inspections 

Note 5 to Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1): The 

compliance times are the same as the times 

specified in Piper SB No. 1372 for Group 2 

airplanes. 

(2) For any Group 1 or Group 2 airplane 

where the initial CSH cannot be calculated 

due to missing or incomplete airplane 

maintenance records: Do the initial 

inspection within 100 hours TIS or 60 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(3) If an eddy current inspection does not 

identify any indications, then continue the 

repetitive eddy current inspections required 

by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD at the 

applicable times specified in Table 2 and 

Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. 

(4) If any eddy current inspection identifies 

any indications or noisy signal, before further 

flight, do the applicable actions specified in 

Part II, paragraphs 4.b. through i., and if 

applicable the bolt hole oversize repair 

specified in Part III, paragraphs 1. through 7. 

and paragraph 9., of the Instructions in Piper 

SB No. 1372. 

(5) If any eddy current inspection identifies 

any crack(s), before further flight, do the 

applicable actions specified in Part II, 

paragraph 4.k., of the Instructions in Piper SB 

No. 1372, and replace the affected main wing 

spar in accordance with Part IV, paragraphs 

2.a. through d., of the Instructions in Piper 

SB No. 1372. 

(j) Replace or Modify Main Wing Spar 

For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: 

(1) At the applicable time specified in 

Table 4 to paragraph (j) of this AD replace the 

affected main wing spars in accordance with 

Part IV, paragraphs 2.a. through d., of the 

Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372 or modify 

the main wing spars by installing the Piper 

reinforcement kit, in accordance with Part IV, 

paragraphs 1.a. through c., of the Instructions 

in Piper SB No. 1372. 

(2) As required by paragraph (i)(5) of this 

AD, replace the affected main wing spars in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP23SE24.003</GPH> EP23SE24.004</GPH>

Repetitive Inspections 

Tier A TierB TierC TierD 

Wing Spar Initial (3,000 (7,500 (12,000 (14,000 Configuration Inspection through through through through 

7,499 11,999 13,499 25,000 

TotalCSH) TotalCSH) TotalCSH) TotalCSH) 

When wing 

spars reach Perform Perform Perform 

3,000 Total repetitive repetitive repetitive Perform the 

Unmodified CSH, perform inspection at inspection at inspection at action required by 

Wing Spars initial intervals not intervals not intervals not paragraph G) of 

inspection to exceed to exceed to exceed this AD 

within the next 1,750 CSH 700 CSH 500 CSH 

100 hours TIS. 

Wing Spars Initial Perform repetitive inspection upon modified with installation of Perform repetitive inspection at intervals inspection at 

Piper intervals not to 

Reinforcement Piper not to exceed 4,800 CSH exceed 3,700 Reinforcement Kit Kit. CSH 

Repetitive Inspections 

Wing Spar Initial Inspection Configuration 4,500 through 11,999 12,000 

TotalCSH TotalCSH 

When wing spars Perform the action 

Unmodified reach 4,500 Total Perform repetitive required by 

[Wing Spars CSH, perform initial inspection at intervals paragraph G) of inspection within the not to exceed 400 CSH 

next 100 hours TIS. this AD. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77465 

accordance with Part IV, paragraphs 2.a. 

through d., of the Instructions in Piper SB 

No. 1372. 

Table 4 to Paragraph (j)—Compliance Times 

for Main Wing Spar Modification or 

Replacement 

If any cracks are found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD: After completing that inspection, using 

Appendix 1, ‘‘Inspection Results Form,’’ of 

this AD, report the inspection results to the 

FAA, East Certification Branch, and to Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Submit the report at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) 

or (2) 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) 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. 

(m) 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 (n) 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. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2020–26–16 

are not approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of this AD. 

(n) 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 (o)(3) of 

this AD. 

(3) FAA Advisory Circular 65–31B, 

‘‘Training, Qualification, and Certification of 

Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,’’ dated 

February 24, 2014, maybe found at 

drs.faa.gov. 

(o) 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. 1372, dated 

April 3, 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-locationsoremailfr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA–2024–2142 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP23SE24.005</GPH>

Airplane Wing Spar Compliance Time for Main Wing Spar 

Group Configuration Modification or Replacement 

Main wing spars must be replaced prior to 

14,000 Total CSH 

Unmodified Wing or 

Spars Main wing spars must be modified with Piper 

Group 1 

Reinforcement Kit to extend spar life beyond 

14,000 Total CSH 

Wing Spars Modified main wing spars must be replaced prior to modified with Piper 

Reinforcement Kit 25,000 Total CSH 

Group2 Unmodified Wing Main wing spars must be replaced prior to 

Spars 12,000 Total CSH 
77466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP23SE24.006</GPH>

Inspediou Results Form 

Email completed fomi to: 

9-ASO-AU.COS-~gov 

ad 

Or mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 

East Certification Branch 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

customer.sen-ice@piper*com College Park,. GA 30337 

SUBJECT line: Dodcet No~ FAA-2024-2142 

AitttaftModelN<>.: P .. 4. .. Sera1 Number: 

Aitttaft Total Boun Time,.Ia-Serrice rrIS\: Re . Number: 

~ServiceliouR Left~Ha:mt a.m W'tU: Rimt,..lfmldtRHl Wm: 

fffboth winn are fadorviadalled . . • these D.l'IDlben.shouldbethe same) . 

Date ofnff'riou:sin-do 

lamttdonRmdu 

LH W'sn•Snar Fwd .. . ·□ -. . •□ RHWmo-~Fwd " •□ -. . ·□ 

LH Wm Soar Aft A •□ - •□ RH Vma Soar Aft Acceoted 0 - . *O 

,. ___ r Comments 

... 

Inspector Information 

Name(print): __________ _.Signa.ture: __________ _ 

Certificate No.: ____________ Date: __________ _ 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 77467 

Issued on September 10, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21652 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 74 

[Docket No. FDA–2024–C–4339] 

DSM Biomedical; Filing of Color 

Additive Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

announcing that we have filed a 

petition, submitted by DSM Biomedical, 

proposing that the color additive 

regulations be amended to provide for 

the safe use of phthalocyanine green to 

color surgical sutures made of ultra-high 

molecular weight polyethylene 

(UHMWPE) for use in general surgery, at 

a concentration of no more than 0.5 

percent by weight of the suture. 

DATES: The color additive petition was 

filed on August 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document into the 

‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts, 

and/or go to the Dockets Management 

Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food 

Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and 

Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 

College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–2710. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 

379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice that 

we have filed a color additive petition 

(CAP 4C0335), submitted by DSM 

Biomedical, 735 Pennsylvania Dr., 

Exton, PA 19341. The petition proposes 

to amend the color additive regulations 

in 21 CFR part 74, ‘‘Listing of Color 

Additives Subject to Certification,’’ to 

provide for the safe use of 

phthalocyanine green to color surgical 

sutures made of UHMWPE for use in 

general surgery, at a concentration of no 

more than 0.5 percent by weight of the 

suture. 

The petitioner claims that this action 

is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 

25.32(l) because the substance is used in 

sutures. If FDA determines a categorical 

exclusion applies, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. If FDA determines a 

categorical exclusion does not apply, we 

will request an environmental 

assessment and make it available for 

public inspection. 

Dated: September 18, 2024. 

Lauren K. Roth, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21684 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–108920–24] 

RIN 1545–BR26 

Guidance on Clean Electricity LowIncome Communities Bonus Credit 

Amount Program; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to REG–108920–24, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on Tuesday, September 3, 2024. REG– 

108920–24 contained proposed 

regulations concerning the program to 

allocate clean electricity low-income 

communities bonus credit amounts 

established pursuant to the Inflation 

Reduction Act of 2022 for calendar 

years 2025 and succeeding years. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing must 

be received by October 3, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters were strongly 

encouraged to submit public comments 

electronically. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed rules, Office of 

Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs 

& Special Industries) at (202) 317–6853 

(not a toll-free number); concerning 

submissions of comments or the public 

hearing, the Publications and 

Regulations Section at (202) 317–6901 

(not a toll-free number) or by email at 

publichearings@irs.gov (preferred). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–108920–24) that is the subject of 

this correction is under section 48E of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Correction 

Accordingly, FR Doc. 2024–19617 

(REG–108920–24), appearing on page 

71193 in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, September 3, 2024, is 

corrected as follows: 

1. On page 71195, in the third 

column, in the first full paragraph, by 

correcting the fourth line from the top 

of the paragraph to read, ‘‘most recently 

released by American Community 

Survey (ACS) low-income’’. 

2. On page 71196, in the second 

column, in the sixth bullet point from 

the top of the page, by correcting the 

first line of the bullet point to read, 

‘‘Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Section 515 Rural Rental’’. 

3. On page 71204, in the third 

column, in the fourth full paragraph, by 

correcting the fifth sentence from the 

top of the paragraph to read, ‘‘records 

are required for the IRS to validate’’. 

4. On page 71206, in the second 

column, in the third full paragraph, by 

correcting the twelve line from the top 

of the paragraph to read ‘‘The proposed 

regulations do not have substantial’’. 

Kalle L. Wardlow, 

Federal Register Liaison, Publications & 

Regulations Section, Associate Chief Counsel, 

(Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2024–21639 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0418; FRL–12225– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; San 

Diego County Air Pollution Control 

District and Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Diego County Air 

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) 

and Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District (MDAQMD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern negative declarations 

for the Control Techniques Guidelines 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS