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

12714

Vol. 60, No. 45

Wednesday, March 8, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–CE–28–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft

Corporation PA–28 and PA–32 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 76–25–06, which

currently requires replacing certain

engine oil hoses on Piper Model PA–28–

140 airplanes, and inspecting for a

minimum clearance between the oil

hose assemblies and the front exhaust

stacks and adjusting if proper clearance

is not obtained. The proposed action

would maintain the clearance

inspection and hose replacement,

require this inspection and replacement

to be repetitive, and extend the

applicability to include PA–32 series

and other PA–28 series airplanes. It

would also provide the option of

installing an approved TSO–C53a, Type

D, hose assembly as terminating action

for the repetitive inspection

requirement. Numerous incidents/

accidents caused by oil cooler hose

rupture or failure on the affected

airplanes prompted the proposed action.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent these hoses

from failing or rupturing, which could

result in engine stoppage and

subsequent loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–CE–28–

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 applies to

this AD may be obtained from the Piper

Aircraft Corporation, 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: Ms.

Juanita Craft-Lloyd, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7373; 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. 94–CE–28–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. 94–CE–28–AD, Room

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

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

AD 76–25–06, Amendment 39–2788,

currently requires replacing certain

engine oil hoses on Piper Model PA–28–

140 airplanes, and inspecting for a

minimum clearance between the oil

hose assemblies and the front exhaust

stacks and adjusting if proper clearance

is not obtained.

Since issuance of that AD, the FAA

has received over 20 incident and

accident reports on Piper PA–28 and

PA–32 series airplanes where the oil

cooler hoses either ruptured or failed.

Many of these occurrences required the

pilot to make an emergency landing. In

some instances, oil spraying from these

ruptured hoses contacted the hot engine

and produced smoke in the cockpit or

caused controllability problems when

sprayed on the windshield.

Other airplane models have shown a

history of oil cooler hose problems;

however, most of these have been

attributed to leaking hoses instead of

ruptured or broken hoses as detailed in

the incident/accident reports referenced

above on the PA–28 and PA–32 series

airplanes. The close proximity of the oil

cooler hoses to the exhaust stacks in

some of these airplanes also contributes

to the hazardous nature of these oil

cooler hose failures.

The Model PA–28–140 airplanes in

the referenced incidents/accidents were

in compliance with AD 76–26–05;

however, that AD did not establish any

repetitive oil cooler hose inspection or

replacement requirements.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that (1) the oil

cooler assemblies should be repetitively

inspected for clearance, and the oil

cooler hoses should be replaced at

certain time intervals; (2) the

applicability of AD 76–26–05 should be

extended to include other PA–28 series

and the PA–32 series airplanes; and (3)

AD action should be taken to prevent oil

cooler hoses from failing or rupturing,

which could result in engine stoppage

and subsequent loss of control of the

airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Piper PA–28 and PA–
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 12715

32 series airplanes of the same type

design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 76–25–06, Amendment

39–2788, with a new AD that would

retain the clearance inspection and hose

replacement for the Piper Model PA–

28–140 airplanes, and make the

inspection and replacement repetitive

for these airplane models as well as

other PA–28 series and the PA–32 series

airplanes. It would also provide the

option of installing an approved TSO–

C53a, Type D, hose assembly as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement.

The replacement compliance time for

the proposed AD is presented in both

hours time-in-service (TIS) and calendar

time with the prevalent compliance

time being that which occurs first.

Deterioriation or failure of the oil cooler

hose assemblies could occur as a result

of normal flight operation or as a result

of time. Therefore, the FAA has

determined that this proposed dual

replacement compliance time is needed

to assure that the oil cooler hose

assemblies are replaced before they

deteriorate and rupture or fail.

The FAA estimates that 25,000

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 2 workhours

(1 workhour inspection and 1 workhour

replacement) per airplane to accomplish

the proposed action, and that the

average labor rate is approximately $60

an hour. Parts cost approximately $110

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$5,750,000. This figure does not take

into the account the cost of repetitive

inspections or repetitive replacements.

The FAA has no way of determining the

number of repetitive inspections or

replacements each owner/operator

would incur over the life of the airplane.

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 part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing AD 76–25–06, Amendment

39–2788, and by adding a new

airworthiness directive to read as

follows:

Piper Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 94–

CE–28–AD; Supersedes AD 76–25–06,

Amendment 39–2788.

Applicability: The following airplane

models, all serial numbers, that are equipped

with one of the applicable oil cooler hose

assembly part numbers (specified below),

certificated in any category:

Models Part Nos.

PA–28–140 ............... 63901–69 or 63901–

72.

PA–28–150, PA–28–

160, PA–28S–160,

PA–28–180, and

PA–28S–180.

63635–00, 63636–00,

63701–00, 63901–

20, 63901–26,

63901–43, or

63901–72.

PA–28R–180, PA–

28R–200, and PA–

28R–201.

63901–43.

PA–28–151 and PA–

28–161.

63901–34 or 63901–

49.

PA–28–181 ............... 63901–26, 63901–43,

or 63901–50.

PA–28–235 ............... 61413–3, 63901–16,

or 63901–26.

PA–28–236 ............... 35801 or 35801–7.

PA–32–260 ............... 63901–26.

PA–32–300, PA–

32S–300, and PA–

32–301.

63901–26, 63901–35,

or 63901–73.

Models Part Nos.

PA–32R–300, PA–

32RT–300, PA–

32R–301(SP), and

PA–32R–301(HP).

63901–98, 63901–99,

or 63901–100.

PA–32RT–300T, PA–

32R–301T, and

PA–32–301T.

63901–26 or 63901–

91.

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (f) of this AD to

request approval from the FAA. This

approval may address either no action, if the

current configuration eliminates the unsafe

condition, or different actions necessary to

address the unsafe condition described in

this AD. Such a request should include an

assessment of the effect of the changed

configuration on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. In no case does the

presence of any modification, alteration, or

repair remove any aircraft from the

applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent oil cooler hoses from failing or

rupturing, which could result in engine

stoppage and subsequent loss of control of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

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

AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

100 hours TIS, inspect the oil cooler hoses

to ensure that the hoses meet the criteria

presented in the paragraphs below.

(1) For airplanes that have any oil cooler

mounted at the front or back of the airplane,

or both, the fire sleeve of the hose should not

be soaked with oil or have a brownish or

whitish color, and there should be no

evidence of deterioration as a result of heat,

brittleness, or oil seepage. Prior to further

flight, replace any hose that is soaked with

oil, has a brownish or whitish color, or has

evidence of deterioration.

(2) On airplanes that have any oil cooler

mounted in the front of the airplane, ensure

that the following exists, and, prior to further

flight, adjust accordingly:

(i) The hose passes underneath and behind

the electrical ground cable and in front of the

lower of the two engine mount struts when

the hose is routed to the rear of the engine;

and

(ii) The hose is tied to the engine mount

strut and a clearance of at least 2 inches

exists between the oil hose and exhaust

stack.

Note 2: Figure 1 of this AD relates to the

conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
12716 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 12717

(b) Upon the accumulation of 8 years or

1,000 hours TIS on the oil cooler assembly,

whichever occurs first, and thereafter at

every 8 years or 1,000 hours TIS (whichever

occurs first), accomplish one of the

following:

(1) Replace the oil cooler hose assembly

with a part number specified in the

APPLICABILITY section of this AD, and

reinspect in accordance with paragraph (a) of

this AD at intervals not to exceed 100 hours

TIS; or

(2) Replace the oil cooler assembly with an

approved TSO–C53a, Type D, hose assembly

ensuring that there is a minimum of 2 inches

between the oil cooler hoses and exhaust

stacks (as applicable) upon installation.

(c) The replacement specified in paragraph

(b)(2) of this AD may be accomplished at any

time prior to the 8-year or 1,000-hour

compliance time as terminating action for the

100-hour TIS repetitive inspection

requirement of this AD.

(d) After adjusting or installing oil cooler

hoses, prior to further flight, run the engine

for 5 minutes to ensure that there are no oil

leaks and that the 2-inch clearance is

maintained (as applicable) when the engine

is warm. Prior to further flight, replace any

leaking oil cooler hoses and adjust the

clearance accordingly.

Note 3: Although not required by this AD,

it is recommended that a hose flexibility test

be accomplished at each 100-hour TIS

inspection interval. Hose flexibility may be

determined by gently lifting the hose in

several places from the bottom of its

downward arc to the oil cooler. If the hose

moves slightly either from side-to-side or

upward with the hand at the center of an

even arc, then some flexibility remains. If the

hose appears hardened or inflexible, hose

replacement is recommended.

(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), 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 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(g) Figure 1 of this AD may be obtained

from the Atlanta ACO at the address

specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. This

document or any other information that

relates to this AD may be inspected at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 76–

25–06, Amendment 39–2788.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March

2, 1995.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–5601 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 199

[DoD 6010.8–R]

RIN–0720–AA27

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS);

Provider Certification Requirements—

Corporate Services Provider Class;

Occupational Therapists

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule presents

requirements to permit payment of

professional or technical health care

services rendered by certain corporate

providers and to self-employed

occupational therapists; makes changes

to clarify the general requirements for

individual professional providers; and

adds standard provider participation

agreement provisions when such

agreements are otherwise required.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Office of CHAMPUS (PDD),

Aurora, CO 80045–6900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theresa R. Gilstrap, telephone (303)

361–1309.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)

supplements the availability of health

care in military hospitals and clinics.

Services and items allowable as

CHAMPUS benefits must be obtained

from CHAMPUS authorized civilian

providers to be considered for

CHAMPUS payment. Requirements for

CHAMPUS provider authorization are

published as regulation.

This amendment proposes to create a

fourth class of CHAMPUS provider

consisting of freestanding corporations

and foundations that render principally

professional ambulatory or in-home care

and technical diagnostic procedures.

Such organizations are currently

excluded as an allowable type of

CHAMPUS-authorized institutional

provider, and employees of these

organizations are excluded as

CHAMPUS-authorized individual

professional providers.

The CHAMPUS currently has

requirements for three classes of

providers. The institutional provider

class includes hospitals and other

categories of similar facilities. The

individual professional provider class

includes physicians and other categories

of licensed individuals who render

professional services independently,

and certain allied health and extra

medical providers that must function

under physician orders and supervision.

The third class of providers consists of

sellers of items and supplies of an

ancillary or supplemental nature, such

as durable equipment.

CHAMPUS payment depends upon a

service being both allowable as a benefit

and rendered by a CHAMPUS

authorized provider. Consequently, it is

currently possible that, for example,

outpatient treatment by an occupational

therapist employed by a hospital may be

paid (to the hospital) while the same

service provided by an employee of a

freestanding clinic, home care agency,

or self-employed occupational therapist

is denied payment.

This administrative exclusion is

difficult for beneficiaries to apply when

seeking health care services because it

requires an understanding of the

underlying business structure of the

provider. But the underlying business

structure of a provider organization is

important to CHAMPUS management

decisions regarding quality assurance

and payment methods.

Corporations, both not-for-profit and

shareholder, and foundations are an

alternative source of ambulatory and inhome care. The proposed addition of the

corporate provider class will recognize

the current range of providers within

today’s health care delivery structure

and give beneficiaries access to another

segment of the health care delivery

industry.

This amendment proposes to allow

qualified self-employed occupational

therapists to be authorized for direct

CHAMPUS payment for allowable

services as individual professional

providers.

This amendment proposes to more

clearly establish that a professional

corporation or association is not itself a

provider but may file claims and receive

payment on behalf of an individual

professional provider member, and to

more clearly state the other general

requirements for these providers.

This amendment proposes to establish

standard general provisions for

agreements with certain providers when

such agreements are otherwise required.

These provisions will improve