Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20143

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 1997–

094 (A), dated September 30, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 16,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10755 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–72–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; All Models of

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly

Piper Aircraft Corporation) Airplanes

Equipped With Wing Lift Struts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

93–10–06, which currently applies to all

models of The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.

(Piper) airplanes equipped with wing

lift struts. AD 93–10–06 requires

repetitively inspecting the wing lift

struts and wing lift strut forks for cracks

or corrosion, and replacing any strut or

fork found cracked or corroded. The

proposed AD results from reports,

questions, and information received

from the field on AD 93–10–06, which

show a need to clarify and add

information that will more fully achieve

the safety intent of that AD. This action

clarifies certain requirements of AD 93–

10–06, eliminates the lift strut fork

repetitive inspection requirement on the

Piper PA–25 series airplanes,

incorporates models inadvertently

omitted from AD 93–10–06, and

requires fabricating and installing a

placard on the lift strut. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent in-flight separation

of the wing from the airplane caused by

corroded wing lift struts or cracked

wing lift forks, which could result in

loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–CE–72–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

The service bulletins referenced in

this AD may be obtained from The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services,

2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida

32960. Copies of the instructions to the

Jensen Aircraft STC’s may be obtained

from Jensen Aircraft, Inc., 9225 County

Road 140, Salida, Colorado 81201.

Copies of the instructions to the F. Atlee

Dodge STC may be obtained from F.

Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services, Inc., P.O.

Box 190409, Anchorage, Alaska 99519–

0409. This information also may be

examined at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William O. Herderich, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; telephone: (770) 703–6084;

facsimile: (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 96–CE–72–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 96–CE–72–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586

(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), currently

requires the following on Piper airplane

models equipped with wing lift struts:

repetitively inspecting the wing lift

struts and wing lift strut forks for cracks

or corrosion, and replacing any strut or

fork found cracked or corroded. AD 93–

10–06 provides the option of installing

certain lift struts and forks as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. Accomplishing

the actions required by AD 93–10–06 is

in accordance with Piper Service

Bulletin No. 528D, dated October 19,

1990, or Piper Service Bulletin No.

910A, dated October 10, 1989, as

applicable.

AD 93–10–06 resulted from reports of

corroded wing lift struts and cracked

wing lift strut forks on several Piper

airplanes.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

AD 93–10–06 requires inspecting the

wing lift struts in accordance with Piper

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 528D, dated

October 19, 1990, and Piper SB No.

910A, dated October 10, 1989. These

SB’s specify these inspections using a

Maule ‘‘fabric tester.’’ After reviewing

data submitted with requests from

operators of the affected airplanes for

alternative inspection methods, the FAA

has determined that an alternative nondestructive inspection method for the

wing lift struts is available through the

use of ultrasonic equipment. The FAA

worked with a research facility to

develop ultrasound inspection

procedures for the wing lift struts.

The FAA inadvertently mandated the

inspections of the lift strut forks on

Piper PA–25 series airplanes through

AD 93–10–06. Lift strut fork inspections

are not necessary for Piper PA–25 series

airplanes. In addition, the FAA

inadvertently omitted certain models

equipped with lift struts. These models

(referenced in Piper SB 528D) are

equipped with lift strut assemblies of

the same type design and therefore

should be subjected to the repetitive

inspection requirement of AD 93–10–06.

Piper equipped all of the affected

airplanes with a ‘‘No Step’’ placard on

the wing lift struts. The reason for this

placard is to assure that no person steps

on the wing lift struts and puts

excessive pressure on the struts, which

could result in fatigue failure. The

intent was to include in AD 93–10–06
20144 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the requirement of installing this

placard or painting the words ‘‘No Step’’

on the wing lift struts during any

replacement required by that AD. The

FAA inadvertently left that requirement

out, and will include that provision in

this proposed AD.

The FAA has also received numerous

calls from owners/operators of the

airplanes affected by AD 93–10–06 in

which clarification to the AD was

requested. The FAA is keeping this

information in mind in drafting the

proposed AD.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to prevent in-flight

separation of the wing from the airplane

caused by corroded wing lift struts or

cracked wing lift forks.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in Piper airplane models of the

same type design that are equipped with

wing lift struts, the FAA is proposing an

AD that would supersede AD 93–10–06.

The proposed AD would retain the

requirements of repetitively inspecting

the wing lift struts and wing lift strut

forks for cracks or corrosion, and

replacing any strut or fork found

cracked or corroded. This proposed AD

would also clarify certain requirements

of AD 93–10–06, eliminate the lift strut

fork repetitive inspection requirement

on the Piper PA–25 series airplanes,

incorporate airplane models

inadvertently omitted from the

applicability of AD 93–10–06, and

require installing a placard on the lift

strut.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 22,000

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 8 workhours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

initial inspection, and that the average

labor rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $10,560,000,

or $480 per airplane.

These figures are based only on the

cost of the initial inspection and do not

account for the costs of any repetitive

inspections. The FAA has no way of

determining how many repetitive

inspections each owner/operator would

incur over the life of the airplane. The

FAA also has no way of determining

how many airplanes have improved

design wing lift struts and forks

installed. This would eliminate the

requirements of the proposed AD, and

thus reduce the cost impact of the

proposed AD upon the public.

AD 93–10–06 currently requires the

same actions as proposed in this

document. The only differences

between AD 93–10–06 and the proposed

AD are the addition of ultrasonic

methods as an option for accomplishing

the inspections, the elimination of the

requirement of inspecting the lift strut

forks on Piper PA–25 series airplanes,

the addition of certain airplane models

equipped with Piper lift strut

assemblies, the addition of the

requirement of installing the ‘‘No Step’’

placard on the wing lift struts, and

editorial corrections and additions for

clarification purposes.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed in the Rules

Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93–10–

06, Amendment 39–8536 (58 FR 29965,

May 25, 1993), and by adding a new AD

to read as follows:

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 96–

CE–72–AD; Supersedes AD 93–10–06,

Amendment 39–8536.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category:

Models Serial numbers

TG–8 (Army TG–8, Navy XLNP–1) ................................................................................................ All serial numbers.

E–2 and F–2 .................................................................................................................................... All serial numbers.

J3C–40, J3C–50, J3C–50S (Army L–4, L–4B, L–4H, and L–4J), J3C–65 (Navy NE–1 and NE–

2), J3C–65S, J3F–50, J3F–50S, J3F–60, J3F–60S, J3F–65, (Army L–4D), J3F–65S, J3L,

J3L–S, J3L–65 (Army L–4C), and J3L–65S.

All serial numbers.

J4, J4A, J4A–S, and J4E (Army L–4E) .......................................................................................... 4–401 through 4–1649.

J5A (Army L–4F), J5A–80, J5B (Army L–4G), J5C, L–14, AE–1, and HE–1 ................................ All serial numbers.

PA–11 and PA–11S ........................................................................................................................ 11–1 through 11–1678.

PA–12 and PA–12S ........................................................................................................................ 12–1 through 12–4036.

PA–14 .............................................................................................................................................. 14–1 through 14–523.

PA–15 .............................................................................................................................................. 15–1 through 15–388.

PA–16 and PA–16S ........................................................................................................................ 16–1 through 16–736.

PA–17 .............................................................................................................................................. 17–1 through 17–215.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20145

Models Serial numbers

PA–18, PA–18S, PA–18 ‘‘105’’ (Special), PA–18A, PA–18 ‘‘125’’ (Army L–21A), PA–18S ‘‘125’’,

PA–18AS ‘‘125’’, PA–18 ‘‘135’’ (Army L–21B), PA–18A ‘‘135’’, PA–18S ‘‘135’’, PA–18AS

‘‘135’’, PA–18 ‘‘150’’, PA–18A ‘‘150’’, PA–18S ‘‘150’’, PA–18AS ‘‘150’’, PA–18A (Restricted),

PA–18A ‘‘135’’ (Restricted), and PA–18A ‘‘150’’ (Restricted).

18–1 through 18–8309025, 189001 through

1809032, and 1809034 through 1809040.

PA–19 (Army L–18C), and PA–19S ............................................................................................... 19–1, 19–2, and 19–3.

PA–20, PA–20S, PA–20 ‘‘115’’, PA–20S ‘‘115’’, PA–20 ‘‘135’’, and PA–20S ‘‘135’’ ..................... 20–1 through 20–1121.

PA–22, PA–22–108, PA–22–135, PA–22S–135, PA–22–150, PA–22S–150, PA–22–160, and

PA–22S–160.

22–1 through 22–9848.

PA–25, PA–25–235, and PA–25–260 ............................................................................................. 25–1 through 25–8156024.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the modification, alteration, or repair

on the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent in-flight separation of the wing

from the airplane caused by corroded wing

lift struts or cracked wing lift strut forks,

which could result in loss of control of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Note 2: The paragraph structure of this AD

is as follows:

Level 1: (a), (b), (c), etc.

Level 2: (1), (2), (3), etc.

Level 3: (i), (ii), (iii), etc.

Level 4: (A), (B), (C), etc.

Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 structures are

designations of the Level 1 paragraph they

immediately follow.

(a) For all affected airplane models, within

1 calendar month after the effective date of

this AD or within 24 calendar months after

the last inspection accomplished in

accordance with AD 93–10–06 (superseded

by this action), whichever occurs later,

remove the wing lift struts in accordance

Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 528D, dated

October 19, 1990, or Piper SB No. 910A,

dated October 10, 1989, as applicable, and

accomplish one of the following (the actions

in either paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),

or (a)(5); including subparagraphs, of this

AD):

(1) Inspect the wing lift struts for corrosion

in accordance with the ‘‘INSTRUCTIONS’’

section in Part I of either Piper SB No. 528D,

dated October 19, 1990, or Piper SB No.

910A, dated October 10, 1989, as applicable.

(i) If no perceptible dents (as defined in the

above SB’s) are found in the wing lift strut

and no corrosion is externally visible, prior

to further flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to

each strut in accordance with whichever of

the above SB’s that is applicable. Reinspect

the lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24

calendar months provided no perceptible

dents or external corrosion is found.

(ii) If a perceptible dent (as defined in the

above SB’s) is found in the wing lift strut or

external corrosion is found, prior to further

flight, accomplish one of the installations

(and subsequent actions presented in each

paragraph) specified in paragraphs (a)(3),

(a)(4), or (a)(5) of this AD.

(2) Inspect the wing lift struts for corrosion

in accordance with the Appendix to this AD.

The inspection procedures in this Appendix

must be accomplished by a Level 2 inspector

certified using the guidelines established by

the American Society for Non-destructive

Testing, or MIL–STD–410.

(i) If no corrosion is found that is

externally visible and all requirements in the

Appendix to this AD are met, prior to further

flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each strut

in accordance with whichever of the above

SB’s that is applicable. Reinspect the lift

struts at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar

months provided no external corrosion is

found and all of the requirements included

in the Appendix of this AD are met.

(ii) If external corrosion is found or if any

of the requirements in the Appendix of this

AD are not met, prior to further flight,

accomplish one of the installations (and

subsequent actions presented in each

paragraph) specified in paragraphs (a)(3),

(a)(4), or (a)(5) of this AD.

(3) Install original equipment manufacturer

(OEM) part number wing struts (or FAAapproved equivalent part numbers) that have

been inspected in accordance with the

specifications presented in either paragraph

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, and are found to

be airworthy according to the inspection

requirements included in these paragraphs.

Thereafter, inspect these wing lift struts at

intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months

in accordance with the specifications

presented in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2)

of this AD.

(4) Install new sealed wing lift strut

assemblies, part numbers as specified in

Piper SB No. 528D and Piper SB No. 910A

(or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers)

on each wing as specified in the

INSTRUCTIONS section in Part II of the

above-referenced SB’s. These sealed wing lift

strut assemblies also include the wing lift

strut forks. Installation of these assemblies

constitute terminating action for the

inspection requirements of both paragraphs

(a) and (b) of this AD.

(5) Install F. Atlee Dodge wing lift strut

assemblies in accordance with F. Atlee

Dodge Installation Instructions No. 3233–I for

Modified Piper Wing Lift Struts

(Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)

SA4635NM), dated February 1, 1991.

Thereafter, inspect these wing lift struts at

intervals not to exceed 60 calendar months

in accordance with the specifications

presented in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

(b) For all affected airplane models, except

for Models PA–25, PA–25–235, and PA–25–

260, within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD or within 500 hours TIS after the last

inspection accomplished in accordance with

AD 93–10–06 (superseded by this action),

whichever occurs later, remove the wing lift

strut forks, and accomplish one of the

following (the actions in either paragraph

(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), or (b)(5); including

subparagraphs, of this AD):

(1) Inspect the wing lift strut forks using

FAA-approved magnetic particle procedures.

(i) If no cracks are found, reinspect at

intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS

provided that the replacement requirements

of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(1)(ii)(C) of

this AD have been met.

(ii) Replace the wing lift strut forks at

whichever of the following is applicable:

(A) If cracks are found on any wing lift

strut fork: Prior to further flight;

(B) If the airplane is equipped with floats

or has been equipped with floats within the

last 2,000 hours TIS and no cracks are found

during the above inspections: Upon

accumulating 1,000 hours TIS on the wing

lift strut forks or within the next 100 hours

TIS, whichever occurs later; or

(C) If the airplane has not been equipped

with floats within the last 2,000 hours TIS

and no cracks are found during the above

inspections: Upon accumulating 2,000 hours

TIS on the wing lift strut forks or within the

next 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs later.

(iii) Replacement parts shall be of the same

part numbers of the existing part (or FAAapproved equivalent part numbers) and shall

be manufactured with rolled threads. Lift

strut forks manufactured with machined (cut)

threads shall not be utilized.

(iv) The 500-hour TIS interval repetitive

inspections are still required when the above

replacements are accomplished.

(2) Install new OEM part number wing lift

strut forks (or FAA-approved equivalent part

numbers). Reinspect and replace these wing

lift strut forks at the intervals specified in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), and

(b)(1)(iv), including all paragraphs, of this

AD.

(3) Install new sealed wing lift strut

assemblies, part numbers as specified in

Piper SB No. 528D and Piper SB No. 910A

(or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers)

on each wing as specified in the

INSTRUCTIONS section in Part II of the

above-referenced SB’s.
20146 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(i) This installation may have ‘‘already

been accomplished’’ through the actions

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD.

(ii) No repetitive inspections are required

after installing these sealed wing lift strut

assemblies.

(4) Install Jensen Aircraft wing lift strut

fork assemblies as specified in the STC’s

presented in the paragraphs that follow, as

applicable, in accordance with Jensen

Aircraft Installation Instructions for Modified

Lift Strut Fittings, which incorporates the

following pages:

Pages Revision

level Date

1 and 5 ......... Original ....

Issue ........

July 15, 1983.

2, 4, and 6 .... Revision ...

No. 1 ........

Mar. 30, 1984.

a and 3 ......... Revision ...

No. 2 ........

Apr. 20, 1984.

No repetitive inspections are required after

installing these Jensen Aircraft wing lift strut

fork assemblies; however, repetitive

inspections are required as specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD:

(i) For Models PA–12 and PA–12S

airplanes: STC SA1583NM;

(ii) For Model PA–14 airplanes: STC

SA1584NM;

(iii) For the Models PA–16 and PA–16S

airplanes: STC SA1590NM;

(iv) For the Models PA–18, PA–18S,

189001 PA–18 ‘‘105’’ (Special), PA–18S

‘‘105’’ (Special), PA–18A, PA–18 ‘‘125’’

(Army L–21A), PA–18S ‘‘125’’, PA–18AS

‘‘125’’, PA–18 ‘‘135’’ (Army L–21B), PA–18A

‘‘135’’, PA–18S ‘‘135’’, PA–18S ‘‘135’’, PA–

18AS ‘‘135’’, PA–18 ‘‘150’’, PA–18A ‘‘150’’,

PA–18S ‘‘150’’, PA–18AS ‘‘150’’, PA–18A

(Restricted), PA–18A ‘‘135’’ (Restricted), and

PA–18A ‘‘150’’ (Restricted) airplanes: STC

SA1585NM;

(v) For the Models PA–20, PA–20S, PA–20

‘‘115’’, PA–20S ‘‘115’’, PA–20 ‘‘135’’, and

PA–20S ‘‘135’’ airplanes: STC SA1586NM;

and

(vi) For the Model PA–22 airplanes: STC

SA1587NM.

(5) Install F. Atlee Dodge wing lift strut

assemblies in accordance with F. Atlee

Dodge Installation Instructions No. 3233–I for

Modified Piper Wing Lift Struts (STC

SA4635NM), dated February 1, 1991.

(i) No repetitive inspections of the wing lift

strut forks are required when these

assemblies are installed.

(ii) This installation may have ‘‘already

been accomplished’’ through the actions

specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this AD.

(c) If holes are drilled, in either one of the

scenarios presented in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this AD, to attach cuffs, door clips,

or other hardware, inspect the wing lift struts

at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months

using the procedures specified in paragraphs

(a)(1) and (a)(2), including all subparagraphs,

of this AD:

(1) Wing lift strut assemblies installed in

accordance with (a)(4) or (b)(3) of this AD; or

(2) F. Atlee Dodge wing lift strut

assemblies installed in accordance with

paragraph (a)(5) or (b)(5) of this AD.

(d) For all affected airplane models, within

1 calendar month after the effective date of

this AD or within 24 calendar months after

the last inspection accomplished in

accordance with AD 93–10–06 (superseded

by this action), whichever occurs later, and

thereafter prior to further flight after the

installation of any lift strut assembly,

accomplish one of the following:

(1) Install ‘‘NO STEP’’ decal, Piper part

number (P/N) 80944–02, on each wing lift

strut approximately 6 inches from the bottom

of the struts in a way that the letters can be

read when entering and exiting the aircraft;

or

(2) Paint the statement ‘‘NO STEP’’

approximately 6 inches from the bottom of

the struts in a way that the letters can be read

when entering and exiting the aircraft. Use a

minimum of 1-inch letters using a color that

contrasts with the color of the airplane.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349.

(1) The request shall be forwarded through

an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 93–10–06,

Amendment 39–8536, are considered

approved as alternative methods of

compliance for this AD.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office.

(g) The service bulletins referenced in this

AD may be obtained from The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper

Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Copies of

the instructions to the Jensen Aircraft STC’s

may be obtained from Jensen Aircraft, 9225

County Road 140, Salida, Colorado 81201.

Copies of the instructions to the F. Atlee

Dodge STC may be obtained from F. Atlee

Dodge, Aircraft Services, Inc., P.O. Box

190409, Anchorage, Alaska 99519–0409.

These documents may be examined at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 93–

10–06, Amendment 39–8536.

Appendix to Docket No. 96–CE–72–AD—

Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic

Inspection of Piper Wing Lift Struts

Equipment Requirements

1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or

flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital

thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001

inch and an A-trace waveform display will be

needed to accomplish this inspection.

2. An ultrasonic probe with the following

specifications will be needed to accomplish

this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283

inch (or smaller) diameter dual element or

delay line transducer designed for thickness

gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic

system shall be capable of accurately

measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel

down to 0.020 inch. An accuracy of

+/¥0.002 inch throughout a 0.020 inch to

0.050 inch thickness range while calibrating

shall be the criteria for acceptance.

3. Either a precision machined step wedge

made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with

equivalent sound velocity) or at least three

shim samples of same material will be

needed to accomplish this inspection. One

thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be

less than or equal to 0.020 inch, one shall be

greater than or equal to 0.050 inch and at

least one other step or shim shall be between

these two values.

4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water

based ultrasonic couplants are recommended

in the setup and inspection procedures.

Water-based couplants, containing

appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be

utilized, provided they are removed from

both the reference standards and the test item

after the inspection procedure is completed

and adequate corrosion prevention steps are

then taken to protect these items.

Note: Couplant is defined as ‘‘a substance

used between the face of the transducer and

test surface to improve transmission of

ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut

interface.’’

• Note: If surface roughness due to paint

loss or corrosion is present, the surface

should be sanded or polished smooth before

testing to assure a consistent and smooth

surface for making contact with the

transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a

minimal amount of structural material. Paint

repairs may be necessary after the inspection

to prevent further corrosion damage from

occurring. Removal of surface irregularities

will enhance the accuracy of the inspection

technique.

Instrument Setup

1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for

thickness measurements as specified in the

instrument’s user’s manual. Because of the

variety of equipment available to perform

ultrasonic thickness measurements, some

modification to this general setup procedure

may be necessary. However, the tolerance

requirement of step 13 and the record

keeping requirement of step 14, must be

satisfied.

2. If battery power will be employed, check

to see that the battery has been properly

charged. The testing will take approximately

two hours. Screen brightness and contrast

should be set to match environmental

conditions.

3. Verify that the instrument is set for the

type of transducer being used, i.e. single or

dual element, and that the frequency setting

is compatible with the transducer.

4. If a removable delay line is used, remove

it and place a drop of couplant between the

transducer face and the delay line to assure

good transmission of ultrasonic energy.

Reassemble the delay line transducer and

continue.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20147

5. Program a velocity of 0.231 inch/

microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless

an alternative instrument calibration

procedure is used to set the sound velocity.

6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per

item 3 of the Equipment Requirements. Place

the probe on the thickest sample using

couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back

and forth to ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to the

sample. Adjust the delay and range settings

to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the

first backwall echo from the steel near the left

side of the screen and the second backwall

echo near the right of the screen. Note that

when a single element transducer is used, the

initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface

will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the

gain to place the amplitude of the first

backwall signal at approximately 80% screen

height on the A-trace.

7. ‘‘Ring’’ the transducer on the thinnest

step or shim using couplant. Select positive

half-wave rectified, negative half-wave

rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain

the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage,

pulse width, and damping to obtain the best

signal resolution. These settings can vary

from one transducer to another and are also

user dependent.

8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the

gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo

and ends at the second backwall echo.

(Measuring between the first and second

backwall echoes will produce a measurement

of the steel thickness that is not affected by

the paint layer on the strut). If instability of

the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate

level, and/or damping to stabilize the

thickness reading.

9. Check the digital display reading and if

it does not agree with the known thickness

of the thinnest thickness, follow your

instrument’s calibration recommendations to

produce the correct thickness reading. When

a single element transducer is used this will

usually involve adjusting the fine delay

setting.

10. Place the transducer on the thickest

step of shim using couplant. Adjust the

thickness gate width so that the gate is

triggered by the second backwall reflection of

the thick section. If the digital display does

not agree with the thickest thickness, follow

your instruments calibration

recommendations to produce the correct

thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the

velocity may be necessary to get both the

thinnest and the thickest reading correct.

Document the changed velocity value.

11. Place couplant on an area of the lift

strut which is thought to be free of corrosion

and ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to surface. Minor

adjustments to the signal and gate settings

may be required to account for coupling

improvements resulting from the paint layer.

The thickness gate level should be set just

high enough so as not to be triggered by

irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper

surface of the lift strut above the inspection

area would be a good location to complete

this step and should produce a thickness

reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.

12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both

thick and thin shim measurements are within

tolerance and the lift strut measurement is

reasonable and steady.

13. Verify that the thickness value shown

in the digital display is within +/¥0.002

inch of the correct value for each of the three

or more steps of the setup wedge or shims.

Make no further adjustments to the

instrument settings.

14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual

thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims

available as a record of setup.

Inspection Procedure

1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing

lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all

dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely

affect the accuracy of the inspection

technique. Light sanding or polishing may

also be required to reduce surface roughness

as noted in the Equipment Requirements

section.

2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1⁄4-inch

grid on the surface of the first 11 inches from

the lower end of the strut as shown in Piper

Service Bulletin No. 528D or 910A, as

applicable. This can be done using a soft (#2)

pencil and should be done on both faces of

the strut. As an alternative to drawing a

complete grid, make two rows of marks

spaced every 1⁄4 inch across the width of the

strut. One row of marks should be about 11

inches from the lower end of the strut, and

the second row should be several inches

away where the strut starts to narrow. Lay the

flexible ruler between respective tick marks

of the two rows and use tape or a rubber band

to keep the ruler in place. See Figure 1.

3. Apply a generous amount of couplant

inside each of the square areas or along the

edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant

may be necessary.

4. Place the transducer inside the first

square area of the drawn grid or at the first

1⁄4-inch mark on the ruler and ‘‘ring’’ the

transducer to the strut. When using a dual

element transducer, be very careful to record

the thickness value with the axis of the

transducer elements perpendicular to any

curvature in the strut. If this is not done, loss

of signal or inaccurate readings can result.

5. Take readings inside each square on the

grid or at 1⁄4-inch increments along the ruler

and record the results. When taking a

thickness reading, rotate the transducer

slightly back and forth and experiment with

the angle of contact to produce the lowest

thickness reading possible. Pay close

attention to the A-scan display to assure that

the thickness gate is triggering off of

maximized backwall echoes.

• Note: A reading shall not exceed .041

inch. If a reading exceeds .041 inch, repeat

steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup

section before proceeding further.

6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the

thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the

signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain

reasonable and steady readings. If any

instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13

and 14 of the Instrument Setup section

before proceeding further.

7. In areas where obstructions are present,

take a data point as close to the correct area

as possible.

• Note: The strut wall contains a

fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the

strut chord. The bead may interfere with

accurate measurements in that specific

location.

8. A measurement of 0.024 inch or less

shall require replacement of the strut prior to

further flight.

9. If at any time during testing an area is

encountered where a valid thickness

measurement cannot be obtained due to a

loss of signal strength or quality, the area

shall be considered suspect. These areas may

have a remaining wall thickness of less than

0.020 inch, which is below the range of this

setup, or they may have small areas of

localized corrosion or pitting present. The

latter case will result in a reduction in signal

strength due to the sound being scattered

from the rough surface and may result in a

signal that includes echoes from the pits as

well as the backwall. The suspect area(s)

shall be tested with a Maule ‘‘Fabric Tester’’

as specified in Piper Service Bulletin No.

528D or 910A.

10. Record the lift strut inspection in the

aircraft log book.
20148 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

16, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10749 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 102

[Docket No. 94P–0043]

Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or

Usual Name Regulation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend the regulation for crabmeat by

adding the species Callinectes sapidus

(C. sapidus) to those listed in the

regulation and to provide that the

common or usual name of crabmeat

derived from this species is ‘‘Blue

crabmeat.’’ FDA is further proposing, on

its own initiative, to adopt common or

usual names for 18 additional crab

species. FDA is proposing these names

based on ‘‘The Seafood List’’ and the

information provided in the National

Blue Crab Industry Association (NBCIA)

petition. This proposal, which is in

response to a citizen petition submitted

by the NBCIA, is intended to allow

crabmeat packers to properly identify

their product so that consumers can

make informed decisions.

DATES: Written comments by July 7,

1998. See section IV of this document

for the proposed effective date of a final

rule based on this document.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony P. Brunetti, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

416), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–418–3160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Crabmeat Labeling

The NBCIA, 1525 Wilson Blvd., suite

500, Arlington, VA 22209, filed a

petition on February 15, 1994, to amend

the common or usual name regulation

for crabmeat (§ 102.50 (21 CFR 102.50))

to provide that the common or usual

name of crabmeat derived from the

species C. sapidus is ‘‘Blue crabmeat.’’

Section 102.50 lists the following

genera and species of crabs and the

associated common or usual name of the

meat from these crabs: Chionoecetes

opilio, Chionoecetes tanneri,

Chionoecetes bairdii, and Chionoecetes

angulatus as Snow crabmeat; Erimacrus

isenbeckii as Korean variety crabmeat or

Kegani crabmeat; Lithodes aequispina as

Brown King crabmeat; Paralithodes

brevipes as King crabmeat or Hanasaki

crabmeat; and Paralithodes

camtschaticus and Paralithodes

platypus as King crabmeat. (Note: The

latter listing is currently incorrect in the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The

CFR lists the common or usual names of

Paralithodes camtschaticus as King

crabmeat and Paralithodes Platypus.

This error is being corrected in this

document.)

FDA has been dealing with common

or usual name issues involving crabmeat

since 1954. In the Federal Register of

April 8, 1954 (19 FR 2013), FDA

announced its policy for the appropriate

labeling of imported canned crabmeat.

FDA later codified this policy and the

other common or usual names for

crabmeat in § 102.50 when it issued part

102—Common or Usual Names For

Nonstandardized Foods (21 CFR part

102) in 1973 (38 FR 6966, March 14,

1973).

Guidance on the appropriate labeling

of the crabmeats derived from species

that are not listed in § 102.50 is set forth

in the agency’s Compliance Policy

Guides (CPG 7108.04). Under this

guidance, products derived from

domestic sources that are labeled as

‘‘crabmeat,’’ without additional

qualification, are generally accepted as

being derived from C. sapidus (blue

crab), historically one of the most

common and widely recognized sources

of crabmeat in the United States. In

labeling other species of crab, the CPG

encourages the use of a prefix that