24878 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

15, will relieve restrictions on District 2

shippers and help them become more

competitive with shippers from these

production areas without diminishing

program objectives.

Section 8e provides that whenever

certain specified commodities,

including onions, are regulated under a

Federal marketing order, imports of that

commodity must meet the same or

comparable grade, size, quality, and

maturity requirements as those in effect

for the domestically produced

commodity, subject to concurrence by

the United States Trade Representative.

The Act further provides that when two

or more marketing orders covering the

same commodity are concurrently in

effect, imports will be subject to the

requirements established for the

commodity grown in the area with

which the imported commodity is in

most direct competition. Because this

rule changes the regulatory period

under the South Texas onion marketing

order, corresponding changes will be

needed in the onion import regulations.

Such changes are addressed in a

separate onion import rule.

The proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the February

20, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 6328),

with a 30-day comment period ending

March 21, 1996. One comment was

received in opposition to the proposed

rule from a packer. The commenter

stated that both South Texas and IdahoEastern Oregon successfully compete

with onion producing areas that are not

regulated. He further stated that he

believed that the order was necessary to

improve quality and thus make the

production area a stronger competitor in

the onion industry. The committee

contends that this competition tends to

bring about low prices to the late

producing areas, and sometimes the

addition of an administrative

assessment and inspection fee may

leave the shipper of late season South

Texas onions at a competitive

disadvantage. Thus, the committee

believes that removing inspection and

assessment requirements for a very short

period will help shippers of late onions

meet the competition from production

areas outside of South Texas without

diminishing program objectives.

After thoroughly analyzing the

comment received and other available

information, the Department has

concluded that ending the regulatory

period on June 4, rather than June 15,

as recommended by the committee will

reduce the regulatory burden on late

season shippers and help them compete

more effectively with shippers from

unregulated areas in the United States

without adversely affecting the overall

objectives of the marketing order. As

mentioned earlier, onion prices are

usually quite low late in the season and

unregulated areas have a competitive

advantage over the late season shippers

from South Texas because inspection

costs for quality control purposes and

administrative assessments are not

incurred by shippers from many of these

areas.

This final rule also changes the name

of the largest size classification of

onions under the handling regulation (7

CFR 959.322(b)(5)) from ‘‘Extra large’’ to

‘‘Colossal’’ to bring that designation into

conformity with the designation used in

the U.S. Standards for Grades of

Bermuda-Granex-Grano Type Onions (7

CFR 51.3195–51.3209), and the U.S.

Standards for Grades of Onions (Other

Than Bermuda-Granex-Grano and

Creole Types) (7 CFR 51.2830–51.2854).

The standards were revised effective

October 10, 1995 (60 FR 46976). One of

the revisions was the addition of a new

size classification called ‘‘Colossal’’ for

onions 33⁄4 inches or larger in diameter.

A conforming change failed to be made

in the handling regulations and onions

of this size continued to be referred to

as ‘‘Extra large’’ in paragraph (b)(5) of

section 959.322. Hence, this term

should be changed to ‘‘Colossal’’ to

bring the handling regulation into

conformity with the standards. The

committee recommended this minor

conforming change.

In accordance with section 8e of the

Act, the United States Trade

Representative has concurred with the

issuance of this final rule.

Based on the above, the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the commenter, committee

and other available information, it is

hereby found that this rule, as

hereinafter set forth, will tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553, it is further

found that good cause exists for not

postponing the effective date of this

action until 30 days after publication in

the Federal Register because: (1) This

regulation relaxes restrictions on South

Texas onion handlers by ending

regulations on June 4 of each season

rather than June 15 of each season; (2)

the shipping season for South Texas

onions has already begun and the

committee would like this action

effective for this season; (3) changing

the ending date of the handling

regulation was discussed at a public

meeting, and all interested persons had

an opportunity to provide input; and (4)

there are no additional regulatory

burdens imposed by this rule which

require special preparations of handlers.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959

Marketing agreements, Onions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is hereby

amended as follows:

PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN

SOUTH TEXAS

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 959 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 959.322, the introductory text

and paragraph (b)(5) are revised to read

as follows:

§ 959.322 Handling regulation.

During the period beginning March 1

and ending June 4, no handler shall

handle any onions unless they comply

with paragraphs (a) through (d), or (e),

or (f) of this section. In addition, no

handler may package or load onions on

Sunday during the period March 1

through May 20.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) ‘‘Colossal’’—33⁄4 inches or larger in

diameter.

* * * * *

Dated: May 14, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12434 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–62–AD; Amendment 39–

9621; AD 96–10–14]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 88–05–05,

which currently requires the following

on certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.

(Piper) PA31, PA31P, and PA31T series

airplanes: repetitively inspecting both
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24879

the left and right main landing gear

(MLG) forward sidebrace, and replacing

any cracked MLG forward sidebrace.

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. This action retains the current

repetitive inspection and necessary

replacement requirements contained in

AD 88–05–05, and requires

incorporating both a left and right MLG

forward sidebrace of improved design as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent the MLG from retracting

because of a cracked MLG forward side

brace, which, if not detected and

corrected, could result in gear collapse

and loss of control of the airplane

during landing operations.

DATES: Effective June 27, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 27,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer

Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960. This information may

also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 90–

CE–62–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

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:

Events Leading to the AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to Piper PA31, PA31P, and PA31T

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register on December 7, 1995

(60 FR 62776). The action proposed to

supersede AD 88–05–05 with a new AD

that would (1) retain the requirement of

repetitively inspecting both the left and

right MLG forward sidebrace for cracks,

and replacing any cracked MLG forward

sidebrace; and (2) require replacing both

the left and right MLG forward

sidebrace with a part of improved

design, part number (P/N) 85165–02

(left) and 85165–03 (right) or P/N

85166–02 (left) and 85166–03 (right), as

applicable, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would be in accordance

with Piper Service Bulletin No. 845A,

dated October 9, 1987. The improved

MLG forward sidebrace installations

would be accomplished in accordance

with the applicable maintenance

manual.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 2,384

airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 8 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the required replacement,

and that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $1,000 per airplane (2

MLG forward sidebraces per airplane at

approximately $500 per sidebrace).

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of this AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,528,320 or $1,480 per

airplane. This figure is based on the

assumption that no affected airplane

owner/operator has accomplished the

required replacement.

Piper has informed the FAA that parts

have been distributed to owners/

operators to equip 2,123 of the affected

airplanes (4,246 MLG forward

sidebraces of improved design).

Assuming that each set of parts has been

installed on an affected airplane, the

cost impact of the required replacement

upon U.S. owners/operators of the

affected airplanes is reduced by

$3,142,040 from $3,528,320 to $386,280.

The FAA’s Aging Commuter Class

Aircraft Policy

This AD is part of the FAA’s aging

commuter class airplane policy, which

briefly states that, when a modification

exists that could eliminate or reduce the

number of required critical inspections,

the modification should be

incorporated.

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 261 affected

airplanes (2,384 affected airplanes ¥

2,123 airplanes with a set of parts

distributed) that will be affected by this

AD are operated in various types of air

transportation. This includes scheduled

passenger service, air cargo, and air taxi.

This AD allows 1,200 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of

the 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 will

have to accomplish the required

replacement within 7 to 12 months after

the AD becomes effective. For private

owners, who typically operate between

100 to 200 hours TIS per year, this

allows 6 to 12 years before the required

replacement will be mandatory.

The FAA established the 1,200 hours

TIS replacement compliance time based

on its engineering evaluation of the

problem. Among the issues examined

during 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 mandating the

replacement for all operators ‘‘within

the next 1,200 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 PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T series airplanes (such as

5,000 hours TIS) imposes 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.
24880 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Instead, the FAA believes that Piper

should maintain parts for several years;

in this case about 12 years to allow lowusage airplanes time to accumulate the

1,200 hours TIS after the effective date

of the AD. The FAA has determined that

the compliance time of this AD provides

the level of safety required for

commuter air service while still

minimizing the impact on the private

airplane owners of Piper PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T series airplanes.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

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)

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 final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained 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, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

88–05–05, Amendment 39–5861, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

96–10–14 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.

(formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation):

Amendment 39–9621; Docket No. 90–

CE–62–AD. Supersedes AD 88–05–05,

Amendment 39–5861.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category, that do not have left and right main

landing gear (MLG) forward sidebraces of

improved design installed, part numbers (P/

N) 85165–02 (left) and 85165–03 (right) or P/

N 85166–02 (left) and 85166–03 (right).

Models Serial Nos.

PA31, PA31–

300, and

PA31–325.

31–2 through 31–8312019.

PA31–350 .... 31–5001 through 31–

8553002.

PA31P .......... 31P–2 through 31P–7730012.

PA31P–350 31P–8414001 through 31P–

8414050.

PA31T .......... 31T–7400002 through 31T–

8120104.

PA31T1 ........ 31T–7804001 through 31T–

8304003 and 31T–1104004

through 31T–1104017.

PA31T2 ........ 31T–8166001 through 31T–

8166076 and 31T–1166001

through 31T–1166008.

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 the MLG from retracting

because of a cracked MLG forward side brace,

which, if not detected and corrected, could

result in gear collapse 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 88–05–05), and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours

TIS until the modification required by

paragraph (d) of this AD is incorporated,

inspect (using dye penetrant methods) both

the left and right MLG sidebraces for cracks.

Accomplish the inspections in accordance

with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper

Service Bulletin No. 845A, dated October 9,

1987.

(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, replace the

cracked MLG sidebrace with a part of

improved design, P/N 85165–02 (left) or

85165–03 (right) or P/N 85166–02 (left) or

85166–03 (right), as applicable. Accomplish

this replacement in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual.

(d) Within the next 1,200 hours TIS after

the effective date of this AD, unless already

accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of

this AD, replace both the left and right MLG

side braces with parts of improved design, 

P/N 85165–02 (left) and 85165–03 (right) or

P/N 85166–02 (left) and 85166–03 (right),

as applicable. Accomplish these

replacements in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual.

(e) Installing both the left and right MLG

side braces with parts of improved design, 

P/N 85165–02 (left) and 85165–03 (right) or

P/N 85166–02 (left) and 85166–03 (right),

as applicable, as required by paragraph (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 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 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 88–05–05

(superseded by this AD) are not considered

approved for this AD.

(h) The inspection required by this AD

shall be done in accordance with Piper

Service Bulletin No. 845A, dated October 9,

1987. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper

Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room

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

Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment (39–9621) supersedes

AD 88–05–05, Amendment 39–5861.

(j) This amendment (39–9621) becomes

effective on June 27, 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24881

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 8,

1996.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12390 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–63–AD; Amendment 39–

9622; AD 96–10–15]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31,

PA31–300, PA31–325, and PA31–350

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 80–14–06,

which currently requires the following

on The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper)

Models PA31, PA31–300, PA31–325,

and PA31–350 airplanes: repetitively

inspecting the outboard flap tracks,

wing rib flanges, and the rear spar web

at Wing Station (WS) 147.5 on each

wing, and modifying the area at WS

147.5 on both wings if any cracks are

found as terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement. 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. This action retains the

repetitive inspection requirement of AD

80–14–06, and requires modifying the

area at WS 147.5 on both wings as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent structural failure under certain

load conditions caused by cracked areas

at WS 147.5, which, if not detected and

corrected, could result in loss of control

of the airplane.

DATES: Effective June 27, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 27,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer

Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960. This information may

also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 90–

CE–63–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

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:

Events Leading to the AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to Piper Models PA31, PA31–300,

PA31–325, and PA31–350 airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62779). The

action proposed to supersede AD 80–

14–06 with a new AD that would (1)

retain the requirement of repetitively

inspecting the outboard flap track, wing

rib flanges, and the rear spar web at WS

147.5 for cracks, and, if any cracks are

found, modifying the area at WS 147.5

by incorporating Piper Kit 763 986 as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement; and (2) require

incorporating Piper Kit 763 986 at a

specified hours TIS time-period for

airplanes where no cracks were found

during the inspections as terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirement. Accomplishment of the

modification would be in accordance

with the instructions included with

Piper Kit 763 986, Revised April 15,

1991, as referenced in Piper SB No.

647A, dated November 24, 1980.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 2,906

airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 30 workhours per

airplane to accomplish the required

modification, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

cost approximately $468 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the required modification on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$6,590,808 or $2,268 per airplane. This

figure is based on the assumption that

no affected airplane owner/operator has

accomplished the required

modification.

Piper has informed the FAA that parts

have been distributed to enough

owners/operators to equip 234 of the

affected airplanes. Assuming that each

set of parts has been installed on an

affected airplane, the cost impact of this

AD upon U.S. owners operators of the

affected airplanes is reduced by

$530,712 from $6,590,808 to $6,060,096.

The FAA’s Aging Commuter Class

Aircraft Policy

This AD is part of the FAA’s aging

commuter class airplane policy, which

briefly states that, when a modification

exists that could eliminate or reduce the

number of required critical inspections,

the modification should be

incorporated.

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 2,672 affected

airplanes (2,906 airplanes—234 sets of

parts distributed) that will be affected

by this AD are operated in various types

of air transportation. This includes

scheduled passenger service, air cargo,

and air taxi.

This AD allows 1,000 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of

the 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 will

have to accomplish the required

modification within 6 to 10 months after

this AD becomes effective. For private

owners, who typically operate between

100 to 200 hours TIS per year, this

allows 5 to 10 years before the required

modification is mandatory.

The FAA established the 1,000 hours

TIS modification compliance time based

on its engineering evaluation of the

problem. Among the issues examined

during this engineering evaluation were

analysis of service difficulty reports, the