62774 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(c) For propellers with 500 or more total

hours TIS, or unknown TIS on the effective

date of this AD, inspect, and rework or

replace, as necessary, within the next 50

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,

in accordance with Sensenich Propeller SB

No. R–14A, dated November 15, 1994.

(d) For propellers with less than 500 total

hours TIS on the effective date of this AD,

inspect, and rework or replace, as necessary,

prior to accumulating 550 total hours TIS, in

accordance with Sensenich Propeller SB No.

R–14A, dated November 15, 1994.

(e) Mark with a suffix letter ‘‘K’’ propellers

that have been inspected, reworked, or

replaced in accordance with Sensenich

Propeller SB No. R–14A, dated November 15,

1994, and found satisfactory. New

production propellers include change ‘‘K’’ or

subsequent changes.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial compliance time

that provides an acceptable level of safety

may be used if approved by the Manager,

New York Aircraft Certification Office. The

request should be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York Aircraft

Certification Office.

(g) 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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

November 28, 1995.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–29843 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–59–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31,

PA31–325, PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1,

and PA31T Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

80–26–05, which currently requires the

following on The New Piper Aircraft,

Inc. (Piper) Models PA31, PA31–325,

PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1, and PA31T

airplanes: repetitively inspecting the

main landing gear (MLG) inboard door

hinges and attachment angles for cracks,

and replacing any cracked MLG inboard

door hinge or attachment angle. The

Federal Aviation Administration’s

policy on aging commuter-class aircraft

is to eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of certain repetitive

short-interval inspections when

improved parts or modifications are

available. The proposed action would

retain the current repetitive inspections

contained in AD 80–26–05, and would

require incorporating a MLG inboard

door hinge and attachment angle

assembly of improved design (part

number 47529–32) or approved hinges

and angles made of steel as terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirement. The actions specified in

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent separation of the inboard MLG

door from the airplane caused by a

cracked inboard door hinge or

attachment angle, which, if not detected

and corrected, could result in the MLG

jamming and loss of control of the

airplane during landing operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 21, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 90–CE–59–

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.

Service information that relates to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer

Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7362; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

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. 90–CE–59–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

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 90–CE–59–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

The FAA has determined that reliance

on critical repetitive inspections on

aging commuter-class airplanes carries

an unnecessary safety risk when a

design change exists that could

eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of those critical

inspections. In determining what

inspections are critical, the FAA

considers (1) the safety consequences if

the known problem is not detected

during the inspection; (2) the

probability of the problem not being

detected during the inspection; (3)

whether the inspection area is difficult

to access; and (4) the possibility of

damage to an adjacent structure as a

result of the problem.

These factors have led the FAA to

establish an aging commuter-class

aircraft policy that requires

incorporating a known design change

when it could replace a critical

repetitive inspection. With this policy

in mind, the FAA conducted a review

of existing AD’s that apply to Piper

Models PA31–350 and PA31T3

airplanes. Assisting the FAA in this

review were (1) The New Piper Aircraft,

Inc.; (2) the Regional Airlines

Association (RAA); and (3) several

operators of the affected airplanes.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 62775

From this review, the FAA has

identified AD 80–26–05, Amendment

39–3994, as one that should be

superseded with a new AD that would

require a modification that would

eliminate the need for short-interval and

critical repetitive inspections. AD 80–

26–05 currently requires the following

on Piper Models PA31, PA31–325,

PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1, and PA31T

airplanes:

—Repetitively inspecting the main

landing gear (MLG) inboard door

hinges and attachment angles for

cracks, and replacing any cracked

MLG inboard door hinge or

attachment angle. Accomplishment of

the inspections required by AD 80–

26–05 is in accordance with Piper

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 682, dated

July 24, 1980; and

—Allowing for the provision of

installing inboard door hinges and

attachment angles made of steel as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections.

Piper SB No. 682, dated July 24, 1980,

references a new improved door hinge

assembly, part number (P/N) 47529–32,

which, when incorporated, provides

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections of the MLG inboard door

hinge and attachment angles. Piper SB

No. 682 contains procedures for

incorporating this new improved door

hinge assembly.

Based on its aging commuter-class

aircraft policy and after reviewing all

available information related to this

subject including the referenced service

information, the FAA has determined

that AD action should be taken to

eliminate the repetitive short- interval

inspections required by AD 80–26–05,

and to prevent separation of a MLG door

from the airplane caused by a cracked

inboard door hinge or attachment angle,

which, if not detected and corrected,

could result in the MLG jamming and

loss of control of the airplane during

landing operations.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Piper Models PA31,

PA31–325, PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1,

and PA31T airplanes of the same type

design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 80–26–05 with a new AD

that would (1) retain the requirement of

repetitively inspecting the MLG inboard

door hinges and attachment angles for

cracks, and replacing any cracked MLG

inboard door hinge or attachment angle;

and (2) require incorporating a MLG

inboard door hinge and attachment

angle assembly of improved design (part

number 47529–32) or FAA-approved

hinges and angles made of steel as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would be in accordance

with Piper SB No. 682, dated July 24,

1980.

The FAA estimates that 2,448

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 2 workhours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

replacement, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

cost approximately $1,664 per airplane

($416 per assembly ×4 assemblies per

airplane). Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$4,367,232 or $1,784 per airplane. This

figure is based on the assumption that

no affected airplane owner/operator has

accomplished the proposed

replacement.

Piper has informed the FAA that

hinge assemblies have been distributed

to equip approximately 400 (1,600

separate assemblies) of the affected

airplanes. Assuming that 400 of the

affected airplanes have four of these

hinge assemblies incorporated, the cost

impact of the proposed AD upon U.S.

owners operators of the affected

airplanes would be reduced by $713,600

from $4,367,232 to $3,653,632.

The intent of the FAA’s aging

commuter airplane program is to ensure

safe operation of commuter-class

airplanes that are in commercial service

without adversely impacting private

operators. The FAA believes that a large

number of the remaining 2,048 affected

airplanes (2,448 affected airplanes—400

airplanes) that would be affected by the

proposed AD are operated in various

types of air transportation. This

includes scheduled passenger service,

air cargo, and air taxi.

The proposed AD would allow 800

hours time-in-service (TIS) after the

effective date of the proposed AD before

mandatory accomplishment of the

design modification. The average

utilization of the fleet for those

airplanes in air transportation is

between 25 to 40 hours TIS per week.

Based on these figures, operators of

commuter-class airplanes involved in

commercial operation would have to

accomplish the proposed modification

within 5 to 8 months after the proposed

AD would become effective. For private

owners, who typically operate between

100 to 200 hours TIS per year, this

would allow 4 to 8 years before the

proposed modification would be

mandatory.

The FAA established the 800 hours

TIS replacement compliance time based

on its engineering evaluation of the

problem. Among the issues examined in

this engineering evaluation were

analysis of service difficulty reports, the

difficulty level of the inspection, and

how critical the situation would be if

cracks occurred in the subject area

despite accomplishment of the

repetitive inspections.

Usually, the FAA establishes the

mandatory design modification

compliance time on AD’s affecting aging

commuter-class airplanes upon the

accumulation of a certain number of

hours TIS on the airplane. For this

action, the FAA is proposing to mandate

the modification for all operators

‘‘within the next 800 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD.’’ The total TIS

levels of the airplane fleet vary from

under 1,000 hours TIS to over 5,000

hours TIS, and annual accumulation

rates vary from 50 hours TIS to over

1,000 hours TIS. Establishing a longterm set compliance time of hours TIS

accumulated on Piper Models PA31,

PA31–325, PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1,

and PA31T airplanes (such as 5,000

hours TIS) would impose an undue

burden on the manufacturer of having to

maintain a supply of replacement parts

for the entire fleet when many airplanes

in the fleet may never reach this

compliance time.

Instead, the FAA believes that Piper

should maintain parts for several years;

in this case about 8 years to allow lowusage airplanes time to accumulate the

800 hours after the effective date of the

AD. The FAA has determined that the

compliance time of the proposed rule

provides the level of safety required for

commuter air service while still

minimizing the impact on the private

airplane owners of Piper Models PA31,

PA31–325, PA31–350, PA31P, PA31T1,

and PA31T airplanes.

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
62776 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

80–26–05, Amendment 39- 3994, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation): Docket No. 90–

CE–59–AD. Supersedes AD 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category, that are not equipped with Piper

part number (P/N) 47529–32 door hinge

assemblies or FAA-approved inboard door

hinges and attachment angles made of steel

at all four hinge assembly locations:

Models Serial Nos.

PA31 and PA31–325 ............................................................................................................................................................... 31–2 through 31–

8012077.

PA31–350 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31–5001 through 31–

8052168.

PA31P ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31P–3 through 31P–

7730012.

PA–31T1 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31T–7804001 through

31T–8004040.

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

31T–8020076.

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 (g) 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 separation of a main landing

gear (MLG) door from the airplane caused by

a cracked inboard door hinge or attachment

angle, which, if not detected and corrected,

could result in the MLG jamming and loss of

control of the airplane during landing

operations, accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, unless already accomplished

(compliance with AD 80–26–05), and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours

TIS until the modification required by

paragraph (c) or (d) of this AD is

incorporated, inspect (using dye penetrant

methods) the MLG inboard door hinges and

attachment angles for cracks. Accomplish the

inspections in accordance with the

INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper Service

Bulletin No. 682, dated July 24, 1980.

(b) The initial dye penetrant inspection

type must be utilized for all future repetitive

inspections. Dye penetrant inspection types

consist of Type I: fluorescent; Type II: nonfluorescent or visible dye; and Type III: dual

sensitivity.

(c) If cracks are found during any of the

inspections required in paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, incorporate a Piper

P/N 47529–32 MLG inboard door hinge and

attachment angle assembly or install FAAapproved hinges and angles made of steel.

(d) Within the next 800 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, unless already

accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of

this AD, incorporate a Piper P/N 47529–32

MLG inboard door hinge and attachment

angle assembly or install FAA-approved

hinges and angles made of steel in all four

hinge assembly locations.

(e) Incorporating a Piper P/N 47529–32

MLG inboard door hinge and attachment

angle assembly or installing FAA-approved

hinges and angles made of steel in all four

assembly locations as required by paragraphs

(c) and (d) of this AD is considered

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement of this AD.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(g) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), Campus Building,

1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748. The request shall

be forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 80–26–05

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

(h) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960; or may examine this

document at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

(i) This amendment supersedes AD 80–26–

05, Amendment 39–3994.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 1, 1995.

John R. Colomy,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–29858 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–62–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).