Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 77457-77467 [2024-21652]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77457
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 184
Monday, September 23, 2024
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.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2024–2142; Project
Identifier AD–2024–00033–A]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Piper
Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020–26–16, which applies to certain
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA–
28–151, PA–28–161, PA–28–181, PA–
28–235, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200,
PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT–
201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA–
32–300, PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300,
and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. AD
2020–26–16 requires calculating the
factored service hours (FSH) for each
main wing spar to determine when an
inspection is required, inspecting the
lower main wing spar bolt holes for
crack(s), and replacing any cracked
main wing spar. Since the FAA issued
AD 2020–26–16, the FAA evaluated the
reports required by AD 2020–26–16 and
determined that repetitive inspections
of the lower main wing spar bolt holes
for crack(s) and non-crack damage
(including deep scratches, gouges, and
thread marks) and replacement or
modification of the main wing spar
should be required, calculated service
hours (CSH) should be used instead of
FSH to determine times for required
actions for each main wing spar, and
that certain airplanes should be
removed from the applicability and a
new airplane model added to the
applicability. This proposed AD would
require calculating the CSH for each
main wing spar; repetitively inspecting
the lower main wing spar bolt holes for
crack(s) and non-crack damage and
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
taking corrective actions as needed; and
replacing or modifying main wing spars
at a specified time. This proposed AD
would also revise the applicability by
removing certain airplanes and adding a
new airplane model. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by November 7,
2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2024–2142; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For Piper material identified in this
proposed AD, contact Piper Aircraft,
Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567–4361;
email: customerservice@piper.com;
website: piper.com.
• You may view this material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,
1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5507;
email: 9-ASO-ATLACO-ADS@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2024–2142; Project Identifier AD–
2024–00033–A’’ at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend the proposal
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. The agency
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received
about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Fred Caplan, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any
commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
Background
The FAA issued AD 2020–26–16,
Amendment 39–21371 (86 FR 3769,
January 15, 2021) (AD 2020–26–16), for
certain Piper Model PA–28–151, PA–
28–161, PA–28–181, PA–28–235, PA–
28R–180, PA–28R–200, PA–28R–201,
PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT–201, PA–
28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA–32–300,
PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, and PA–
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
77458
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
32RT–300T airplanes. AD 2020–26–16
was prompted by an accident involving
wing separation on a Piper Model PA–
28R–201 airplane. An investigation by
the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) revealed a fatigue crack in
a visually inaccessible area of the lower
main wing spar cap. The applicability of
the NPRM for AD 2020–26–16 included
additional Piper model airplanes with
similar main wing spar structures as the
Model PA–28R–201. Based on airplane
usage history, the FAA determined that
only those airplanes with a higher risk
for fatigue cracks (airplanes with a
significant history of operation in flight
training or other high-load
environments) should be subject to the
inspection requirements proposed in
that NPRM.
AD 2020–26–16 requires calculating
the FSH for each main wing spar to
determine when an inspection is
required, inspecting the lower main
wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and
replacing any cracked main wing spar.
The agency issued AD 2020–26–16 to
detect and correct fatigue cracks in the
lower main wing spar cap bolt holes.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Actions Since AD 2020–26–16 Was
Issued
The preamble to AD 2020–26–16
explains that the FAA considers the
requirements ‘‘interim action’’ and was
considering further rulemaking. The
FAA has now determined that further
rulemaking is necessary, and this
proposed AD follows from that
determination. The FAA evaluated the
inspection reports submitted by
operators as required by AD 2020–26–16
and determined that additional action is
needed, including requiring repetitive
inspections of the lower main wing spar
bolt holes for crack(s) and non-crack
damage and replacement or
modification of the main wing spar,
using CSH instead of FSH to determine
times for required actions, and revising
the applicability by removing certain
serial-numbered Piper Model PA–32–
300 airplanes and all Model PA–32R–
300, PA–32RT–300, and PA–32RT–300T
airplanes because those airplanes would
be included in the applicability of a
proposed separate rulemaking action.
The FAA also determined that Piper
Model PA–32S–300 airplanes should be
added to the applicability.
Since the FAA issued AD 2020–26–
16, the FAA has analyzed the accident
history of the airplanes affected by AD
2020–26–16 and other Piper airplanes
operated in a similar fashion. The
following paragraphs communicate the
FAA’s findings on this subject.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
Accident History
Fatigue cracking was present in the
main wing spars of Piper Model PA–28–
181, Model PA–28R–201, and Model
PA–28–161 airplanes involved in the
following accidents. The following
NTSB reports are related to this issue
and can be found on ntsb.gov.
• NTSB Accident Number
FTW87FA088: March 30, 1987—Marlin,
TX—Piper Model PA–28–181—7,490
hours time-in-service (TIS). This
accident was determined to have been
caused by fatigue cracking in the
outboard bolt holes of the main wing
spar. This airplane’s primary usage was
a ‘‘Pipeline Patrol’’ mission.
• NTSB Accident Number
NYC93FA140: August 2, 1993—
Provincetown, MA—Piper Model PA–
28–181—11,683 hours TIS. This
accident was determined to have been
caused by structural overloading related
to weather, but fatigue cracks were
present near the outboard bolt holes.
This airplane’s usage history included
personal use, flight instruction, and
charter flights.
• NTSB Accident Number
ERA18FA120: April 4, 2018—Daytona
Beach, FL—Piper Model PA–28R–201—
7,691 hours TIS. This accident was
determined to have been caused by
fatigue cracking in the outboard bolt
holes of the main wing spar. This
airplane’s primary usage was flight
instruction.
Bolt Hole Cracks and Other Findings
Following the release of AD 2020–26–
16, the FAA and Piper received over
2,800 bolt-hole eddy current inspection
reports. The inspections performed in
the field revealed a mix of observations
that warrant further discussion. Of the
total inspections, over 100 reported a
positive eddy current indication, with
several including pictures of the bolt
hole showing the source of the
indication.
Piper later conducted more detailed
inspections in a study of 24 main wing
spars with 20 having positive eddy
current indications. Out of the 20
positive indications, 3 were identified
as fatigue cracks, where 1 was
confirmed by Piper, and 2 were
confirmed by the NTSB. The remaining
were determined to be features not
consistent with a crack, and 1 overstress
crack as confirmed by the NTSB.
Though not all are confirmed, many
of the indications are likely not fatigue
cracks but are a variety of anomalies in
the hole. These can include corrosion
pitting, scratches, gouges, and threading
marks possibly caused by forceful
insertion and removal of the close-fit
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
bolts without proper unloading of the
wing or other reasons. While these may
not present as fatigue cracks at the time
of inspection, anomalies in the hole
create a stress concentration where
cracks can begin to grow. Therefore, it
is still crucial to inspect the critical bolt
holes for these issues and take
corrective action to prevent the
formation of fatigue cracks. Piper
Service Bulletin No. 1345, Revision A,
dated September 17, 2021 (Piper SB No.
1345, Revision A); and Piper Service
Bulletin No. 1372, dated April 3, 2024
(Piper SB No. 1372), include procedures
for distinguishing between indications
caused by hole damage or other
anomalies from those caused by cracks.
In addition to the various forms of
non-crack hole damage, the inspections
revealed several cracks in and around
the bolt holes. As part of the AD 2020–
26–16 inspection reports, 6 cracks were
found, including 2 later verified by
NTSB lab examination and 1 verified by
Piper (from the Piper study referenced
above), and 3 visible cracks in photos.
Other known cracks include those
found in an airplane of the same
operator fleet as the 2018 accident
airplane, a separately submitted crack
finding confirmed with dye penetrant,
and a crack located on the lower spar
cap surface running alongside the
inspection bolt holes. Given these
findings, additional cracks may be
present among the other unconfirmed
reported indications.
Other cracks have been discovered
that may be caused by overload rather
than by fatigue. While use of the
airplane within its limits should not
cause an overload crack, some crack
findings have revealed that airplanes
have been operated outside their limits.
Though cracks due to overload are not
the primary source of this corrective
action, this emphasizes the need for and
importance of inspecting the spar bolt
holes for evidence of any cracking.
Long-Term Continued Operational
Safety
The AD 2020–26–16 inspection report
results indicated that additional
inspections are needed to manage the
safety of the fleet. While AD 2020–26–
16 addressed the immediate safety
concern, data indicates that more
airplanes will need to be inspected and,
due to aging, the airplanes already
inspected will need additional
inspections. This includes the need to
expand inspections to include Piper
Model PA–32S–300 airplanes in the
applicability of this proposed AD
because these airplanes share a similar
structural design of the main wing spar
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
with the airplane models addressed in
AD 2020–26–16
Crack development is a function of
many factors, including the design of
the structure, how severely the aircraft
is flown, and manufacturing processes.
Small imperfections may exist in any
aircraft structure from an early age;
however, through operation, these
imperfections may slowly grow into
fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracks have the
effect of weakening the structure and its
ability to support the stresses the
aircraft was originally designed to
handle.
The 2018 accident, along with other
accidents in this fleet attributed to
fatigue cracking, and the AD 2020–26–
16 inspection reports, indicate an aging
fleet that requires intervention to ensure
any fatigue cracking does not reach a
critical state prior to being detected.
This often takes the form of repetitive
inspections to be able to capture the
formation of a detectable crack,
requiring repair or replacement. The
FAA has also determined that
inspections alone are not sufficient to
keep the fleet risk acceptably low longterm. Cracks are more likely to develop
with aging of the main wing spar, so
over time it becomes more likely that
cracks will exist throughout the fleet
and could be missed by inspection, due
in part to the inherent imperfections of
the inspection method; therefore,
replacement or modification of the spars
is needed. Both the FAA and Piper
attempted to determine an inspection
program that would manage risk to an
acceptable level using inspection alone;
however, no method could be found
that did not eventually require spar
replacement.
Ensuring further damage is not caused
by the inspection itself is important,
especially with repetitive inspections;
however, inspecting for fatigue cracks as
well as other hole anomalies is critical
and outweighs the risk associated with
repetitive inspections. Additionally,
repeated inspections inherently allow
for continued direct observation of the
bolt holes over time and correcting noncrack damage if necessary. Piper has
developed service actions, most recently
in Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A, and
Piper SB No. 1372, that mitigate
inspection-induced damage by
emphasizing proper unloading of the
wing for both bolt and wing removal
and replacement, if necessary, along
with other instructions for ensuring care
of the bolt holes.
Corrective Action Development
Each requirement outlined in this
proposed AD has been developed to
both address the unsafe condition and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
limit the number of required
inspections, reducing the burden on
operators where possible. A brief
discussion of each aspect of the
requirements continues below.
Airplane Model Grouping
The inspection data received via the
reporting requirement in AD 2020–26–
16, along with testing of the baseline
spar common to all Piper Model PA–28
and PA–32 airplanes has shown that
inspections should be extended to
include all models that share a similar
structural design by utilizing the same
baseline spar. It is likely that a
significant contributing factor in the
formation of cracks found in the main
wing spar bolt attachment area is the
cold bending of the spar to achieve the
wing’s dihedral. This method of forming
the spar dihedral combined with the
proximity to the wing attachment bolt
holes leads to high residual stress in
that area. The potential for fatigue
cracking in and around the bolt holes,
as well as higher variability in crack
location and severity, is higher under
this constant additional stress.
In an attempt to support less onerous
inspections and to understand the
causal factors, Piper investigated the
residual stresses in the critical bolt-hole
area. That investigation showed that the
residual stress due to the spar cold
bending process is a significant
contributing factor in reducing the
fatigue life of the spar bolt holes. An
additional outcome of this investigation
is a change to all new manufactured
spars having machined dihedral bends
to eliminate the residual stresses in the
critical area.
Though there are differences between
all Model PA–28 and PA–32 airplanes,
such as additional reinforcing structure
and lower operational loads, all airplane
models share this same baseline spar
with the cold bent dihedral. Differing
characteristics allow for a grouping and
tailoring of the requirements for each
airplane model, but all airplane models
need to be inspected. The current
proposed requirements separate models
into two groups, each requiring its own
actions with a separate action for a third
group under a separate proposed
rulemaking action. The airplane models
discussed share similar spar structure,
while one group experiences higher
operational loads than the other, due
mostly to differences in gross weight
and maximum airspeed. The remaining
Piper Model PA–28 and PA–32
airplanes that would not be included in
the applicability of this proposed AD
either experience lower operational
loads or have additional structure, both
effectively lowering the stress
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77459
experienced in the subject bolt holes of
the baseline spar.
Hours Calculation
The potential for fatigue cracking of
the main wing spar bolt holes is highly
influenced by the usage profile of the
spar and airplane. For airplanes
included in the applicability of this
proposed AD, the primary usage is
either flight instruction or personal use.
Flight instruction consists of more hours
spent flying at lower altitudes where the
airplane is exposed to gusts and more
takeoffs and landings than is typical for
personal usage. These characteristics
lead to reaching the fatigue life of the
spar more quickly than personal usage,
which generally involves a large time
spent in cruise and fewer takeoffs and
landings. As a result of the usage
differences, the same TIS for an airplane
used in flight instruction is not
equivalent to the same time for a
personal-use airplane.
An FSH equation was established in
AD 2020–26–16 to account for the
differences in usage and reduce the
burden on personal use airplanes. This
equation is still the best method
available to account for different usage
when determining when inspections
should occur. In the United States,
airplanes used in flight instruction for
hire are required by FAA regulation to
receive 100-hour inspections. Because
instructional usage is unable to be
tracked directly, a count of these
inspections is used as a method for
determining instructional usage to
differentiate it from personal usage.
When AD 2020–26–16 was issued,
available analysis indicated
instructional usage was approximately
17 times more severe than personal
usage, leading to this factor appearing in
the FSH equation. After AD 2020–26–16
was published, further analysis
completed by Piper estimated this factor
was significantly lower. This has
resulted in a new equation, now referred
to as CSH in Piper SB No. 1372. The
CSH calculation has the same
instructions and intent as the FSH from
AD 2020–26–16, but the value in the
equation has been updated based on
improved analysis and data. For Group
1 airplanes this proposed AD would
require using a value of 3 instead of the
value of 2 that is specified in Piper SB
No. 1372, and a value of 2 would be
used for Group 2 airplanes, as specified
in Piper SB No. 1372.
Determination of Inspection and Spar
Retirement or Modification Timing
The fleet corrective actions analyzed
consist of an initial inspection, followed
by repetitive inspections until a time is
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
77460
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
reached when the spar should be
modified or replaced. The FAA has
worked with Piper to develop the
specific timing for these actions using
actual service data to determine current
and future risk of fatigue cracks
developing, and analysis using the
physical properties of the structure to
estimate formation and growth of cracks
in the critical area of the spar. These
efforts have resulted in inspection
timing estimates that provide
opportunities to locate cracks before
reaching a critical size.
The proposed initial inspection time
requirements for Group 1 and Group 2
airplanes have been determined using
data from AD 2020–26–16 inspection
reports and prior inspections consisting
of known crack findings and known
inspections that did not find an
anomaly that exceeds the eddy current
size threshold, to estimate times when
a crack will exist in each group’s fleet.
An initial inspection time is then set
just prior to when cracks would be
expected in the fleet. This proposed
initial inspection serves as a baseline
inspection and will be followed by
repetitive inspections to ensure a crack
is not missed.
The proposed repetitive inspection
programs have been set differently for
each airplane group. For Group 1
airplanes, a tiered approach of
inspecting more often with increasing
age has been proposed as a method of
reducing the burden on lower TIS
airplanes. It is possible to inspect less
used airplanes less often because these
carry the least risk of developing a
fatigue crack within the population. As
age increases, and therefore risk
increases, the proposed inspections are
set to be more frequent. A similar
approach would be possible for Group
2 airplanes, but the inspection intervals
are estimated to be much shorter based
on inspection data, structural design,
and airplane performance, so stepping
down with age would not be practical.
As an airplane ages, the likelihood or
risk of a crack developing increases. A
potential solution to this would be to
continue to increase the frequency of
inspections to ensure a crack is found
before reaching a critical length;
however, frequent and increased
inspections are not a practical or safe
approach due to the inherent risk in
repeated bolt removal and reinsertion.
At the fleet level, an ever-increasing age
of the fleet means a higher risk that
cracks are present in the fleet and may
be missed, even with frequent
inspections. This leaves a solution of
removing or modifying the highest age
spars to reduce and maintain the fleet
risk, therefore spar retirement or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
modification where possible is
proposed.
These proposed fleet inspection
requirements must be adjusted as
needed to ensure cracks are found
before they reach a critical size. A recent
inspection of a Model PA–28–181
airplane main wing spar was performed
at a time earlier than required by AD
2020–26–16 and revealed cracks at a TIS
earlier than anticipated. A section of the
main wing spar was sent to an
independent materials lab, and under
high magnification normally spaced
fatigue striations were found,
confirming this crack was caused by
fatigue. This new finding required the
FAA to adjust the Group 1 inspection
schedules to earlier times to ensure a
similar crack would be found in time.
Although this airplane was used
almost exclusively for flight instruction,
reducing the inspection times resulted
in additional burden on all airplanes,
including those for personal usage.
Therefore, for this proposed AD, the
FAA determined that for Group 1
airplanes a value of 3 should be used in
the CSH instead of the value of 2 that
is specified in Piper SB No. 1372. An
increase in this value from 2 to 3 serves
to mitigate the increased burden on
Group 1 airplanes resulting from the
reduced inspection times and provides
relief for operators of personal-use
airplanes.
Spar Modification and Replacement
Options
Piper has developed a reinforcement
kit as an option and alternative to
retirement of the main wing spar,
applicable to certain Group 1 airplanes.
There is currently no spar modification
developed for Piper Model PA–28R–180
and PA–28R–200 airplanes that are
included in Group 1 or any airplanes
designated as Group 2 airplanes, as
specified in Piper SB No. 1372. The
proposed inspection times after
installing a reinforcement kit would
provide an extended life of the main
wing spar and longer intervals between
the proposed repetitive inspections. The
reinforcement kit provides additional
structure that lowers and distributes the
stress in the critical areas, allowing for
slower crack growth. Piper used damage
tolerance analysis when developing the
inspection times after a reinforcement
kit is installed.
Finally, new wing spars are available
from Piper that have machined the spar
dihedral bend instead of the cold
bending process, eliminating the
residual stress factor in these spars.
These new wing spars have a different
life limit and will not require any
inspections.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Wing spars on the affected Piper
airplanes could develop cracks that, if
not addressed, would result in a wing
separating from the fuselage in flight.
FAA’s Determination
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
Material Incorporated by Reference
Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Piper SB No. 1372.
This material specifies procedures for
reviewing airplane maintenance records
to determine the number of 100-hour
inspections completed on the airplane
since new and any record of main wing
spar replacement; calculating the
service hours; doing eddy current
inspections of the main wing spar bolt
holes for crack(s) and non-crack
damage; repairing bolt holes with noncracking damage; for certain airplanes
installing a main wing spar
reinforcement kit; and replacing a main
wing spar.
This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course
of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES.
Proposed AD Requirements in This
NPRM
This proposed AD would retain none
of the requirements of AD 2020–26–16.
This proposed AD would revise the
applicability by removing certain serialnumbered Model PA–32–300 airplanes
and all Piper Model PA–32R–300, PA–
32RT–300, and PA–32RT–300T
airplanes because those airplanes will
be included in a separate proposed
rulemaking action. This proposed AD
would add serial-numbered Model PA–
28R–200 and PA–28R–201 airplanes to
the applicability to include all serial
numbers and would also add Piper
Model PA–32S–300 airplanes to the
applicability. This proposed AD would
require accomplishing the actions
specified in the material already
described, except as discussed under
‘‘Differences Between this AD and the
Referenced Material.’’ This proposed
AD would also require reporting
inspection results to Piper and the FAA
if any cracks are found during any
inspection.
Differences Between This Proposed AD
and the Referenced Material
For Group 1 airplanes, to determine
the CSH, instead of using the value of
2 provided in the simplified formula in
Part 1, paragraph 2.b of the Instructions
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
in Piper SB No. 1372, this proposed AD
would require using a value of 3.
In addition, for Group 1 airplanes, the
compliance times for the initial and
repetitive inspections and the
replacement or modification of the main
wing spars specified in paragraphs (i)
and (j) of this proposed AD are different
from what is in Table 1 of Piper SB No.
1372.
77461
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if
adopted as proposed, would affect
10,665 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Review airplane maintenance
records and determine CSH
for each main wing spar.
3 work-hours × $85 per hour
= $255, per records review.
The FAA estimates the following
costs to do any necessary actions that
would be required based on the results
Parts cost
Cost per product
$0
$255, per records review .......
of the proposed airplane maintenance
records review and CSH calculation.
The agency has no way of determining
Cost on U.S. operators
$2,719,575, per records review.
the number of airplanes that might need
these actions:
ON-CONDITION COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Eddy current inspections of the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) inspection
areas LH and RH lower main wing
spar (including access and restoring
the airplane).
Report inspection results to the FAA and
Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Repair holes with non-crack damage ......
Replace main wing spar ..........................
1 work-hour contracted service × $600
per hour = $600 for the eddy current
inspection.
4 work-hours × $85 per hour for access
and restoring = $340.
1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per
report.
2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ......
40 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,400
per main wing spar.
190 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$16,150 per main wing spar.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Install modification (reinforcement) kit .....
Parts cost
$20
0
20
10,983
Paperwork Reduction Act
Authority for This Rulemaking
A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, nor shall a person be subject
to a penalty for failure to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information
collection is 2120–0056. Public
reporting for this collection of
information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send
comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to:
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
44701, General requirements. Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA
with promoting safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce.
This regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it addresses an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost per product
4,000
$960 per inspection.
85 per report.
190.
14,383 per main wing spar.
20,150 per wing spar.
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate
aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
77462
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by:
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive
2020–26–16, Amendment 39–21371 (86
FR 3769, January 15, 2021); and
■ b. Adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
■
■
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
airworthiness directive (AD) by November 7,
2024.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc.
(Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category,
with a model and serial number shown in
Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)—Applicability and
Airplane Group
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 2020–26–16,
Amendment 39–21371 (86 FR 3769, January
15, 2021) (AD 2020–26–16).
Serial Numbers
Airplane
Group
PA-28-151
All serial numbers
1
PA-28-161
All serial numbers
1
PA-28-181
Archer II
All serial numbers
1
PA-28-181
Archer III
All serial numbers lower than and including 2881687
1
PA-28-181
Piper Pilot
All serial numbers lower than and including 28020148
1
PA-28R-180
All serial numbers
1
PA-28R-200
All serial numbers
1
PA-28-235
All serial numbers
2
PA-28R-201
All serial numbers
2
PA-28R-201T
All serial numbers
2
PA-28RT-201
All serial numbers
2
PA-28RT-201T
All serial numbers
2
PA-32-260
All serial numbers
2
PA-32-300
All serial numbers lower than and including 32-7840202
2
PA-32S-300
All serial numbers
2
(d) Subject
(f) Compliance
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 5711, Wing Spar.
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
This AD was prompted by a report of a
wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in
a visually inaccessible area of the main wing
lower spar cap. The FAA is issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the
lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in a wing separating from the fuselage
in flight.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
(c) Applicability
Model
(e) Unsafe Condition
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2024–
2142; Project Identifier AD–2024–00033–
A.
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
(g) Definitions
For the purpose of this AD the following
definitions apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes: Airplanes identified
as Group 1 in Piper Service Bulletin No.
1372, dated April 3, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1372)
and Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
(2) Group 2 airplanes: Airplanes identified
as Group 2 in Piper SB No. 1372 and Table
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(h) Review Airplane Maintenance Records
and Determine Calculated Service Hours for
Each Main Wing Spar
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 12
months, whichever occurs first, review the
airplane maintenance records and determine
the number of 100-hour inspections
completed on the airplane since new and any
record of wing spar replacement(s) in
accordance with Part I, paragraph 1, of the
Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. The
owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a
private pilot certificate may accomplish this
and must enter compliance with this
paragraph of the AD into the airplane
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE24.000</GPH>
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
maintenance records in accordance with 14
CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record
must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) Before further flight after doing the
action required by paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD, determine the calculated service hours
(CSH) for each main wing spar using the
applicable formula for your airplane group
specified in Figure 1 or Figure 2 to paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD and in accordance with Part
I, paragraphs 2.a. through b., of the
Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. Thereafter,
after each 100-hour or annual inspection, recalculate the CSH for each main wing spar
to determine the compliance time for the
actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of
this AD. If a factored service hour (FSH)
inspection required by AD 2020–26–16 was
done using Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345,
dated March 27, 2020; or Piper Service
Bulletin No. 1345A, dated September 17,
2021, you may use that data, including the
TIS and number of 100-hour inspections at
77463
the time of the last inspection, to calculate
the CSH for that inspection using the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD and
Part I, paragraph 2.c. of the Instructions in
Piper SB No. 1372 to determine the next
required actions, including if an action is
now due according to the requirements of
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(2)—Group 1
Airplanes CSH Calculation
N is the number of 100-hour inspections; and T is the total hours TIS of the
airplane main wing spar.
CSH = {N x 100) +
Note 1 to Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(2): This
calculation is not the same as the simplified
calculation specified in Piper SB No. 1372
T-{Nx 100)
for Group 1 airplanes
3
because this calculation uses a value of 3, for
Group 1 airplanes only, and Piper SB No.
1372 uses a value of 2.
Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2)—Group 2
Airplanes CSH Calculation
N is the number of 100-hour inspections; and T is the total hours TIS of the
airplane main wing spar.
CSH = {N x 100) +
Note 2 to Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2): This
calculation is the same as the simplified
calculation specified in Piper SB No. 1372,
but with a different form, and is for Group
2 airplanes only.
(i) Bolt Hole Inspections and Corrective
Actions
Note 3 to paragraph (i)(1): FAA Advisory
Circular 65–31B, ‘‘Training, Qualification,
and Certification of Nondestructive
Inspection Personnel,’’ dated February 24,
2014, contains FAA-approved Level II and
Level III qualification standards criteria for
personnel doing nondestructive test
inspections.
Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1)—Compliance
Times for Group 1 Airplane Inspections
EP23SE24.002</GPH>
scratches, gouges, and thread marks), at the
times in Table 2 and Table 3 to paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD and in accordance with Part
II, paragraph 4.a. of the Instructions in Piper
SB No. 1372. Although Piper SB No. 1372
specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level III
certification to perform eddy current and
fluorescent penetrant inspections, this AD
allows Level II or Level III qualification
standards for inspection personnel using any
inspector criteria approved by the FAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE24.001</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current
inspections of the inner surface of each bolt
hole in the lower wing spar cap for cracks
and for non-crack damage (including deep
T-{Nx 100)
for Group 2 airplanes
2
77464
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Repetitive Inspections
Wing Spar
Configuration
Initial
Inspection
When wing
spars reach
3,000 Total
Unmodified
CSH, perform
Wing Spars
initial
inspection
within the next
100 hours TIS.
Initial
Wing Spars
inspection upon
modified with
installation of
Piper
Piper
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Kit
Kit.
Note 4 to Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1):
Tier A
TierB
TierC
(3,000
(7,500
(12,000
through
through
through
7,499
11,999
13,499
TotalCSH) TotalCSH) TotalCSH)
Perform
repetitive
inspection at
intervals not
to exceed
1,750 CSH
Perform
repetitive
inspection at
intervals not
to exceed
700 CSH
Perform
repetitive
inspection at
intervals not
to exceed
500 CSH
TierD
(14,000
through
25,000
TotalCSH)
Perform the
action required by
paragraph G) of
this AD
Perform repetitive
inspection at
Perform repetitive inspection at intervals
intervals not to
not to exceed 4,800 CSH
exceed 3,700
CSH
The compliance times are not the same as
the times specified in Piper SB No. 1372 for
Group 1 airplanes.
Table 3 to Paragraph (i)(1)—Compliance
Times for Group 2 Airplane Inspections
Repetitive Inspections
When wing spars
reach 4,500 Total
CSH, perform initial
inspection within the
next 100 hours TIS.
Note 5 to Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1): The
compliance times are the same as the times
specified in Piper SB No. 1372 for Group 2
airplanes.
(2) For any Group 1 or Group 2 airplane
where the initial CSH cannot be calculated
due to missing or incomplete airplane
maintenance records: Do the initial
inspection within 100 hours TIS or 60 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.
(3) If an eddy current inspection does not
identify any indications, then continue the
repetitive eddy current inspections required
by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD at the
applicable times specified in Table 2 and
Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
4,500 through 11,999
TotalCSH
12,000
TotalCSH
Perform repetitive
inspection at intervals
not to exceed 400 CSH
Perform the action
required by
paragraph G) of
this AD.
(4) If any eddy current inspection identifies
any indications or noisy signal, before further
flight, do the applicable actions specified in
Part II, paragraphs 4.b. through i., and if
applicable the bolt hole oversize repair
specified in Part III, paragraphs 1. through 7.
and paragraph 9., of the Instructions in Piper
SB No. 1372.
(5) If any eddy current inspection identifies
any crack(s), before further flight, do the
applicable actions specified in Part II,
paragraph 4.k., of the Instructions in Piper SB
No. 1372, and replace the affected main wing
spar in accordance with Part IV, paragraphs
2.a. through d., of the Instructions in Piper
SB No. 1372.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(j) Replace or Modify Main Wing Spar
For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes:
(1) At the applicable time specified in
Table 4 to paragraph (j) of this AD replace the
affected main wing spars in accordance with
Part IV, paragraphs 2.a. through d., of the
Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372 or modify
the main wing spars by installing the Piper
reinforcement kit, in accordance with Part IV,
paragraphs 1.a. through c., of the Instructions
in Piper SB No. 1372.
(2) As required by paragraph (i)(5) of this
AD, replace the affected main wing spars in
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE24.004</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Unmodified
[Wing Spars
Initial Inspection
EP23SE24.003</GPH>
Wing Spar
Configuration
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
accordance with Part IV, paragraphs 2.a.
through d., of the Instructions in Piper SB
No. 1372.
Airplane
Group
Group 1
77465
Table 4 to Paragraph (j)—Compliance Times
for Main Wing Spar Modification or
Replacement
Wing Spar
Configuration
Compliance Time for Main Wing Spar
Modification or Replacement
Main wing spars must be replaced prior to
14,000 Total CSH
Unmodified Wing or
Spars
Main wing spars must be modified with Piper
Reinforcement Kit to extend spar life beyond
14,000 Total CSH
Wing Spars
Modified main wing spars must be replaced prior to
modified with Piper
25,000 Total CSH
Reinforcement Kit
Unmodified Wing Main wing spars must be replaced prior to
12,000 Total CSH
Spars
If any cracks are found during any
inspection required by paragraph (i) of this
AD: After completing that inspection, using
Appendix 1, ‘‘Inspection Results Form,’’ of
this AD, report the inspection results to the
FAA, East Certification Branch, and to Piper
Aircraft, Inc. Submit the report at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1)
or (2) of this AD.
(1) If the action was done on or after the
effective date of this AD, submit the report
within 30 days after the action was done.
(2) If the action was done before the
effective date of this AD, submit the report
within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
(l) Special Flight Permit
A special flight permit may be issued in
accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199
to permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight
to a location where the airplane can be
inspected. This ferry flight must be
performed with only essential flight crew.
This AD prohibits a special flight permit if
any inspection reveals a crack in the main
wing spar.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, East Certification Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with
14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the
East Certification Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in
paragraph (n) of this AD and email to:
AMOC@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2020–26–16
are not approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
(n) Additional Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, East Certification Branch,
FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5507; email: 9ASO-ATLACO-ADs@faa.gov.
(2) Piper material identified in this AD that
is not incorporated by reference is available
at the address specified in paragraph (o)(3) of
this AD.
(3) FAA Advisory Circular 65–31B,
‘‘Training, Qualification, and Certification of
Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,’’ dated
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
February 24, 2014, maybe found at
drs.faa.gov.
(o) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as
applicable to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1372, dated
April 3, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) For Piper material identified in this AD,
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive,
Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 567–
4361; email: customerservice@piper.com;
website: piper.com.
(4) You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO
64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this material at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA,
visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locationsoremailfr.inspection@nara.gov.
Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA–2024–2142
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE24.005</GPH>
Group2
77466
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Inspediou Results Form
Federal Aviation Administration
East Certification Branch
Or mail to:
Email completed fomi to:
9-ASO-AU.COS-~gov
ad
1701 Columbia Avenue
College Park,. GA 30337
customer.sen-ice@piper*com
SUBJECT line: Dodcet No~ FAA-2024-2142
AitttaftModelN<>.: P..4...
Sera1 Number:
Aitttaft Total Boun Time,.Ia-Serrice rrIS\:
Re
~ServiceliouR Left~Ha:mt a.m W'tU:
.
Number:
Rimt,..lfmldtRHl Wm:
fffboth winn are fadorviadalled
..
• these D.l'IDlben.shouldbethe same) .
Date ofnff'riou:sin-do
lamttdonRmdu
LH W'sn•Snar Fwd
.
LH Wm Soar Aft
A
,.___
.
·□
•□
-. .
-
•□
RHWmo-~Fwd
•□
RH Vma Soar Aft
•□
"
Acceoted
0
-. .
·□
-.
*O
r Comments
...
Inspector Information
Name(print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.Signa.ture: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE24.006</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Certificate No.: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Issued on September 10, 2024.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–21652 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 74
DSM Biomedical; Filing of Color
Additive Petition
Notification of petition.
Kalle L. Wardlow,
Federal Register Liaison, Publications &
Regulations Section, Associate Chief Counsel,
(Procedure and Administration).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
announcing that we have filed a
petition, submitted by DSM Biomedical,
proposing that the color additive
regulations be amended to provide for
the safe use of phthalocyanine green to
color surgical sutures made of ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE) for use in general surgery, at
a concentration of no more than 0.5
percent by weight of the suture.
DATES: The color additive petition was
filed on August 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts,
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and
Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–2710.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C.
379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice that
we have filed a color additive petition
(CAP 4C0335), submitted by DSM
Biomedical, 735 Pennsylvania Dr.,
Exton, PA 19341. The petition proposes
to amend the color additive regulations
in 21 CFR part 74, ‘‘Listing of Color
Additives Subject to Certification,’’ to
provide for the safe use of
phthalocyanine green to color surgical
sutures made of UHMWPE for use in
general surgery, at a concentration of no
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Sep 20, 2024
Jkt 262001
Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction.
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
HHS.
ACTION:
The notice of proposed rulemaking
(REG–108920–24) that is the subject of
this correction is under section 48E of
the Internal Revenue Code.
Guidance on Clean Electricity LowIncome Communities Bonus Credit
Amount Program; Correction
[FR Doc. 2024–21684 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am]
Food and Drug Administration,
Background
Accordingly, FR Doc. 2024–19617
(REG–108920–24), appearing on page
71193 in the Federal Register on
Tuesday, September 3, 2024, is
corrected as follows:
1. On page 71195, in the third
column, in the first full paragraph, by
correcting the fourth line from the top
of the paragraph to read, ‘‘most recently
released by American Community
Survey (ACS) low-income’’.
2. On page 71196, in the second
column, in the sixth bullet point from
the top of the page, by correcting the
first line of the bullet point to read,
‘‘Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Section 515 Rural Rental’’.
3. On page 71204, in the third
column, in the fourth full paragraph, by
correcting the fifth sentence from the
top of the paragraph to read, ‘‘records
are required for the IRS to validate’’.
4. On page 71206, in the second
column, in the third full paragraph, by
correcting the twelve line from the top
of the paragraph to read ‘‘The proposed
regulations do not have substantial’’.
Dated: September 18, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[Docket No. FDA–2024–C–4339]
AGENCY:
more than 0.5 percent by weight of the
suture.
The petitioner claims that this action
is categorically excluded under 21 CFR
25.32(l) because the substance is used in
sutures. If FDA determines a categorical
exclusion applies, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required. If FDA determines a
categorical exclusion does not apply, we
will request an environmental
assessment and make it available for
public inspection.
77467
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–108920–24]
RIN 1545–BR26
AGENCY:
This document contains
corrections to REG–108920–24, which
was published in the Federal Register
on Tuesday, September 3, 2024. REG–
108920–24 contained proposed
regulations concerning the program to
allocate clean electricity low-income
communities bonus credit amounts
established pursuant to the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 for calendar
years 2025 and succeeding years.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
and requests for a public hearing must
be received by October 3, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Commenters were strongly
encouraged to submit public comments
electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed rules, Office of
Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs
& Special Industries) at (202) 317–6853
(not a toll-free number); concerning
submissions of comments or the public
hearing, the Publications and
Regulations Section at (202) 317–6901
(not a toll-free number) or by email at
publichearings@irs.gov (preferred).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2024–21639 Filed 9–20–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0418; FRL–12225–
01–R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; San
Diego County Air Pollution Control
District and Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)
and Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD)
portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern negative declarations
for the Control Techniques Guidelines
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77457-77467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21652]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 77457]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2024-2142; Project Identifier AD-2024-00033-A]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020-26-16, which applies to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model
PA-28-151, PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-
28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, PA-32-300,
PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T airplanes. AD 2020-26-16
requires calculating the factored service hours (FSH) for each main
wing spar to determine when an inspection is required, inspecting the
lower main wing spar bolt holes for crack(s), and replacing any cracked
main wing spar. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-26-16, the FAA evaluated
the reports required by AD 2020-26-16 and determined that repetitive
inspections of the lower main wing spar bolt holes for crack(s) and
non-crack damage (including deep scratches, gouges, and thread marks)
and replacement or modification of the main wing spar should be
required, calculated service hours (CSH) should be used instead of FSH
to determine times for required actions for each main wing spar, and
that certain airplanes should be removed from the applicability and a
new airplane model added to the applicability. This proposed AD would
require calculating the CSH for each main wing spar; repetitively
inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for crack(s) and non-
crack damage and taking corrective actions as needed; and replacing or
modifying main wing spars at a specified time. This proposed AD would
also revise the applicability by removing certain airplanes and adding
a new airplane model. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7,
2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2024-2142; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
For Piper material identified in this proposed AD, contact
Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
phone: (772) 567-4361; email: piper.com">customerservice@piper.com; website:
piper.com.
You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-
5507; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2024-2142; Project Identifier
AD-2024-00033-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fred
Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
Background
The FAA issued AD 2020-26-16, Amendment 39-21371 (86 FR 3769,
January 15, 2021) (AD 2020-26-16), for certain Piper Model PA-28-151,
PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201,
PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, PA-32-300, PA-32R-
300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-
[[Page 77458]]
32RT-300T airplanes. AD 2020-26-16 was prompted by an accident
involving wing separation on a Piper Model PA-28R-201 airplane. An
investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
revealed a fatigue crack in a visually inaccessible area of the lower
main wing spar cap. The applicability of the NPRM for AD 2020-26-16
included additional Piper model airplanes with similar main wing spar
structures as the Model PA-28R-201. Based on airplane usage history,
the FAA determined that only those airplanes with a higher risk for
fatigue cracks (airplanes with a significant history of operation in
flight training or other high-load environments) should be subject to
the inspection requirements proposed in that NPRM.
AD 2020-26-16 requires calculating the FSH for each main wing spar
to determine when an inspection is required, inspecting the lower main
wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any cracked main wing
spar. The agency issued AD 2020-26-16 to detect and correct fatigue
cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes.
Actions Since AD 2020-26-16 Was Issued
The preamble to AD 2020-26-16 explains that the FAA considers the
requirements ``interim action'' and was considering further rulemaking.
The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and
this proposed AD follows from that determination. The FAA evaluated the
inspection reports submitted by operators as required by AD 2020-26-16
and determined that additional action is needed, including requiring
repetitive inspections of the lower main wing spar bolt holes for
crack(s) and non-crack damage and replacement or modification of the
main wing spar, using CSH instead of FSH to determine times for
required actions, and revising the applicability by removing certain
serial-numbered Piper Model PA-32-300 airplanes and all Model PA-32R-
300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T airplanes because those airplanes
would be included in the applicability of a proposed separate
rulemaking action. The FAA also determined that Piper Model PA-32S-300
airplanes should be added to the applicability.
Since the FAA issued AD 2020-26-16, the FAA has analyzed the
accident history of the airplanes affected by AD 2020-26-16 and other
Piper airplanes operated in a similar fashion. The following paragraphs
communicate the FAA's findings on this subject.
Accident History
Fatigue cracking was present in the main wing spars of Piper Model
PA-28-181, Model PA-28R-201, and Model PA-28-161 airplanes involved in
the following accidents. The following NTSB reports are related to this
issue and can be found on ntsb.gov.
NTSB Accident Number FTW87FA088: March 30, 1987--Marlin,
TX--Piper Model PA-28-181--7,490 hours time-in-service (TIS). This
accident was determined to have been caused by fatigue cracking in the
outboard bolt holes of the main wing spar. This airplane's primary
usage was a ``Pipeline Patrol'' mission.
NTSB Accident Number NYC93FA140: August 2, 1993--
Provincetown, MA--Piper Model PA-28-181--11,683 hours TIS. This
accident was determined to have been caused by structural overloading
related to weather, but fatigue cracks were present near the outboard
bolt holes. This airplane's usage history included personal use, flight
instruction, and charter flights.
NTSB Accident Number ERA18FA120: April 4, 2018--Daytona
Beach, FL--Piper Model PA-28R-201--7,691 hours TIS. This accident was
determined to have been caused by fatigue cracking in the outboard bolt
holes of the main wing spar. This airplane's primary usage was flight
instruction.
Bolt Hole Cracks and Other Findings
Following the release of AD 2020-26-16, the FAA and Piper received
over 2,800 bolt-hole eddy current inspection reports. The inspections
performed in the field revealed a mix of observations that warrant
further discussion. Of the total inspections, over 100 reported a
positive eddy current indication, with several including pictures of
the bolt hole showing the source of the indication.
Piper later conducted more detailed inspections in a study of 24
main wing spars with 20 having positive eddy current indications. Out
of the 20 positive indications, 3 were identified as fatigue cracks,
where 1 was confirmed by Piper, and 2 were confirmed by the NTSB. The
remaining were determined to be features not consistent with a crack,
and 1 overstress crack as confirmed by the NTSB.
Though not all are confirmed, many of the indications are likely
not fatigue cracks but are a variety of anomalies in the hole. These
can include corrosion pitting, scratches, gouges, and threading marks
possibly caused by forceful insertion and removal of the close-fit
bolts without proper unloading of the wing or other reasons. While
these may not present as fatigue cracks at the time of inspection,
anomalies in the hole create a stress concentration where cracks can
begin to grow. Therefore, it is still crucial to inspect the critical
bolt holes for these issues and take corrective action to prevent the
formation of fatigue cracks. Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, Revision
A, dated September 17, 2021 (Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A); and Piper
Service Bulletin No. 1372, dated April 3, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1372),
include procedures for distinguishing between indications caused by
hole damage or other anomalies from those caused by cracks.
In addition to the various forms of non-crack hole damage, the
inspections revealed several cracks in and around the bolt holes. As
part of the AD 2020-26-16 inspection reports, 6 cracks were found,
including 2 later verified by NTSB lab examination and 1 verified by
Piper (from the Piper study referenced above), and 3 visible cracks in
photos. Other known cracks include those found in an airplane of the
same operator fleet as the 2018 accident airplane, a separately
submitted crack finding confirmed with dye penetrant, and a crack
located on the lower spar cap surface running alongside the inspection
bolt holes. Given these findings, additional cracks may be present
among the other unconfirmed reported indications.
Other cracks have been discovered that may be caused by overload
rather than by fatigue. While use of the airplane within its limits
should not cause an overload crack, some crack findings have revealed
that airplanes have been operated outside their limits. Though cracks
due to overload are not the primary source of this corrective action,
this emphasizes the need for and importance of inspecting the spar bolt
holes for evidence of any cracking.
Long-Term Continued Operational Safety
The AD 2020-26-16 inspection report results indicated that
additional inspections are needed to manage the safety of the fleet.
While AD 2020-26-16 addressed the immediate safety concern, data
indicates that more airplanes will need to be inspected and, due to
aging, the airplanes already inspected will need additional
inspections. This includes the need to expand inspections to include
Piper Model PA-32S-300 airplanes in the applicability of this proposed
AD because these airplanes share a similar structural design of the
main wing spar
[[Page 77459]]
with the airplane models addressed in AD 2020-26-16
Crack development is a function of many factors, including the
design of the structure, how severely the aircraft is flown, and
manufacturing processes. Small imperfections may exist in any aircraft
structure from an early age; however, through operation, these
imperfections may slowly grow into fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracks have
the effect of weakening the structure and its ability to support the
stresses the aircraft was originally designed to handle.
The 2018 accident, along with other accidents in this fleet
attributed to fatigue cracking, and the AD 2020-26-16 inspection
reports, indicate an aging fleet that requires intervention to ensure
any fatigue cracking does not reach a critical state prior to being
detected. This often takes the form of repetitive inspections to be
able to capture the formation of a detectable crack, requiring repair
or replacement. The FAA has also determined that inspections alone are
not sufficient to keep the fleet risk acceptably low long-term. Cracks
are more likely to develop with aging of the main wing spar, so over
time it becomes more likely that cracks will exist throughout the fleet
and could be missed by inspection, due in part to the inherent
imperfections of the inspection method; therefore, replacement or
modification of the spars is needed. Both the FAA and Piper attempted
to determine an inspection program that would manage risk to an
acceptable level using inspection alone; however, no method could be
found that did not eventually require spar replacement.
Ensuring further damage is not caused by the inspection itself is
important, especially with repetitive inspections; however, inspecting
for fatigue cracks as well as other hole anomalies is critical and
outweighs the risk associated with repetitive inspections.
Additionally, repeated inspections inherently allow for continued
direct observation of the bolt holes over time and correcting non-crack
damage if necessary. Piper has developed service actions, most recently
in Piper SB No. 1345, Revision A, and Piper SB No. 1372, that mitigate
inspection-induced damage by emphasizing proper unloading of the wing
for both bolt and wing removal and replacement, if necessary, along
with other instructions for ensuring care of the bolt holes.
Corrective Action Development
Each requirement outlined in this proposed AD has been developed to
both address the unsafe condition and limit the number of required
inspections, reducing the burden on operators where possible. A brief
discussion of each aspect of the requirements continues below.
Airplane Model Grouping
The inspection data received via the reporting requirement in AD
2020-26-16, along with testing of the baseline spar common to all Piper
Model PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes has shown that inspections should be
extended to include all models that share a similar structural design
by utilizing the same baseline spar. It is likely that a significant
contributing factor in the formation of cracks found in the main wing
spar bolt attachment area is the cold bending of the spar to achieve
the wing's dihedral. This method of forming the spar dihedral combined
with the proximity to the wing attachment bolt holes leads to high
residual stress in that area. The potential for fatigue cracking in and
around the bolt holes, as well as higher variability in crack location
and severity, is higher under this constant additional stress.
In an attempt to support less onerous inspections and to understand
the causal factors, Piper investigated the residual stresses in the
critical bolt-hole area. That investigation showed that the residual
stress due to the spar cold bending process is a significant
contributing factor in reducing the fatigue life of the spar bolt
holes. An additional outcome of this investigation is a change to all
new manufactured spars having machined dihedral bends to eliminate the
residual stresses in the critical area.
Though there are differences between all Model PA-28 and PA-32
airplanes, such as additional reinforcing structure and lower
operational loads, all airplane models share this same baseline spar
with the cold bent dihedral. Differing characteristics allow for a
grouping and tailoring of the requirements for each airplane model, but
all airplane models need to be inspected. The current proposed
requirements separate models into two groups, each requiring its own
actions with a separate action for a third group under a separate
proposed rulemaking action. The airplane models discussed share similar
spar structure, while one group experiences higher operational loads
than the other, due mostly to differences in gross weight and maximum
airspeed. The remaining Piper Model PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes that
would not be included in the applicability of this proposed AD either
experience lower operational loads or have additional structure, both
effectively lowering the stress experienced in the subject bolt holes
of the baseline spar.
Hours Calculation
The potential for fatigue cracking of the main wing spar bolt holes
is highly influenced by the usage profile of the spar and airplane. For
airplanes included in the applicability of this proposed AD, the
primary usage is either flight instruction or personal use. Flight
instruction consists of more hours spent flying at lower altitudes
where the airplane is exposed to gusts and more takeoffs and landings
than is typical for personal usage. These characteristics lead to
reaching the fatigue life of the spar more quickly than personal usage,
which generally involves a large time spent in cruise and fewer
takeoffs and landings. As a result of the usage differences, the same
TIS for an airplane used in flight instruction is not equivalent to the
same time for a personal-use airplane.
An FSH equation was established in AD 2020-26-16 to account for the
differences in usage and reduce the burden on personal use airplanes.
This equation is still the best method available to account for
different usage when determining when inspections should occur. In the
United States, airplanes used in flight instruction for hire are
required by FAA regulation to receive 100-hour inspections. Because
instructional usage is unable to be tracked directly, a count of these
inspections is used as a method for determining instructional usage to
differentiate it from personal usage.
When AD 2020-26-16 was issued, available analysis indicated
instructional usage was approximately 17 times more severe than
personal usage, leading to this factor appearing in the FSH equation.
After AD 2020-26-16 was published, further analysis completed by Piper
estimated this factor was significantly lower. This has resulted in a
new equation, now referred to as CSH in Piper SB No. 1372. The CSH
calculation has the same instructions and intent as the FSH from AD
2020-26-16, but the value in the equation has been updated based on
improved analysis and data. For Group 1 airplanes this proposed AD
would require using a value of 3 instead of the value of 2 that is
specified in Piper SB No. 1372, and a value of 2 would be used for
Group 2 airplanes, as specified in Piper SB No. 1372.
Determination of Inspection and Spar Retirement or Modification Timing
The fleet corrective actions analyzed consist of an initial
inspection, followed by repetitive inspections until a time is
[[Page 77460]]
reached when the spar should be modified or replaced. The FAA has
worked with Piper to develop the specific timing for these actions
using actual service data to determine current and future risk of
fatigue cracks developing, and analysis using the physical properties
of the structure to estimate formation and growth of cracks in the
critical area of the spar. These efforts have resulted in inspection
timing estimates that provide opportunities to locate cracks before
reaching a critical size.
The proposed initial inspection time requirements for Group 1 and
Group 2 airplanes have been determined using data from AD 2020-26-16
inspection reports and prior inspections consisting of known crack
findings and known inspections that did not find an anomaly that
exceeds the eddy current size threshold, to estimate times when a crack
will exist in each group's fleet. An initial inspection time is then
set just prior to when cracks would be expected in the fleet. This
proposed initial inspection serves as a baseline inspection and will be
followed by repetitive inspections to ensure a crack is not missed.
The proposed repetitive inspection programs have been set
differently for each airplane group. For Group 1 airplanes, a tiered
approach of inspecting more often with increasing age has been proposed
as a method of reducing the burden on lower TIS airplanes. It is
possible to inspect less used airplanes less often because these carry
the least risk of developing a fatigue crack within the population. As
age increases, and therefore risk increases, the proposed inspections
are set to be more frequent. A similar approach would be possible for
Group 2 airplanes, but the inspection intervals are estimated to be
much shorter based on inspection data, structural design, and airplane
performance, so stepping down with age would not be practical.
As an airplane ages, the likelihood or risk of a crack developing
increases. A potential solution to this would be to continue to
increase the frequency of inspections to ensure a crack is found before
reaching a critical length; however, frequent and increased inspections
are not a practical or safe approach due to the inherent risk in
repeated bolt removal and reinsertion. At the fleet level, an ever-
increasing age of the fleet means a higher risk that cracks are present
in the fleet and may be missed, even with frequent inspections. This
leaves a solution of removing or modifying the highest age spars to
reduce and maintain the fleet risk, therefore spar retirement or
modification where possible is proposed.
These proposed fleet inspection requirements must be adjusted as
needed to ensure cracks are found before they reach a critical size. A
recent inspection of a Model PA-28-181 airplane main wing spar was
performed at a time earlier than required by AD 2020-26-16 and revealed
cracks at a TIS earlier than anticipated. A section of the main wing
spar was sent to an independent materials lab, and under high
magnification normally spaced fatigue striations were found, confirming
this crack was caused by fatigue. This new finding required the FAA to
adjust the Group 1 inspection schedules to earlier times to ensure a
similar crack would be found in time.
Although this airplane was used almost exclusively for flight
instruction, reducing the inspection times resulted in additional
burden on all airplanes, including those for personal usage. Therefore,
for this proposed AD, the FAA determined that for Group 1 airplanes a
value of 3 should be used in the CSH instead of the value of 2 that is
specified in Piper SB No. 1372. An increase in this value from 2 to 3
serves to mitigate the increased burden on Group 1 airplanes resulting
from the reduced inspection times and provides relief for operators of
personal-use airplanes.
Spar Modification and Replacement Options
Piper has developed a reinforcement kit as an option and
alternative to retirement of the main wing spar, applicable to certain
Group 1 airplanes. There is currently no spar modification developed
for Piper Model PA-28R-180 and PA-28R-200 airplanes that are included
in Group 1 or any airplanes designated as Group 2 airplanes, as
specified in Piper SB No. 1372. The proposed inspection times after
installing a reinforcement kit would provide an extended life of the
main wing spar and longer intervals between the proposed repetitive
inspections. The reinforcement kit provides additional structure that
lowers and distributes the stress in the critical areas, allowing for
slower crack growth. Piper used damage tolerance analysis when
developing the inspection times after a reinforcement kit is installed.
Finally, new wing spars are available from Piper that have machined
the spar dihedral bend instead of the cold bending process, eliminating
the residual stress factor in these spars. These new wing spars have a
different life limit and will not require any inspections.
Wing spars on the affected Piper airplanes could develop cracks
that, if not addressed, would result in a wing separating from the
fuselage in flight.
FAA's Determination
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.
Material Incorporated by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Piper SB No. 1372. This material specifies
procedures for reviewing airplane maintenance records to determine the
number of 100-hour inspections completed on the airplane since new and
any record of main wing spar replacement; calculating the service
hours; doing eddy current inspections of the main wing spar bolt holes
for crack(s) and non-crack damage; repairing bolt holes with non-
cracking damage; for certain airplanes installing a main wing spar
reinforcement kit; and replacing a main wing spar.
This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.
Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2020-
26-16. This proposed AD would revise the applicability by removing
certain serial-numbered Model PA-32-300 airplanes and all Piper Model
PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T airplanes because those
airplanes will be included in a separate proposed rulemaking action.
This proposed AD would add serial-numbered Model PA-28R-200 and PA-28R-
201 airplanes to the applicability to include all serial numbers and
would also add Piper Model PA-32S-300 airplanes to the applicability.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the material already described, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this AD and the Referenced Material.'' This proposed AD would
also require reporting inspection results to Piper and the FAA if any
cracks are found during any inspection.
Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Referenced Material
For Group 1 airplanes, to determine the CSH, instead of using the
value of 2 provided in the simplified formula in Part 1, paragraph 2.b
of the Instructions
[[Page 77461]]
in Piper SB No. 1372, this proposed AD would require using a value of
3.
In addition, for Group 1 airplanes, the compliance times for the
initial and repetitive inspections and the replacement or modification
of the main wing spars specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this
proposed AD are different from what is in Table 1 of Piper SB No. 1372.
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 10,665 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review airplane maintenance 3 work-hours x $85 $0 $255, per records $2,719,575, per
records and determine CSH for per hour = $255, review. records review.
each main wing spar. per records review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions
that would be required based on the results of the proposed airplane
maintenance records review and CSH calculation. The agency has no way
of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:
On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy current inspections of the left- 1 work-hour contracted $20 $960 per inspection.
hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) service x $600 per hour =
inspection areas LH and RH lower main $600 for the eddy current
wing spar (including access and inspection.
restoring the airplane). 4 work-hours x $85 per
hour for access and
restoring = $340.
Report inspection results to the FAA and 1 work-hour x $85 per hour 0 85 per report.
Piper Aircraft, Inc. = $85 per report.
Repair holes with non-crack damage...... 2 work-hours x $85 per 20 190.
hour = $170.
Replace main wing spar.................. 40 work-hours x $85 per 10,983 14,383 per main wing spar.
hour = $3,400 per main
wing spar.
Install modification (reinforcement) kit 190 work-hours x $85 per 4,000 20,150 per wing spar.
hour = $16,150 per main
wing spar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 77462]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-26-16, Amendment 39-21371 (86
FR 3769, January 15, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:
Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2024-2142; Project Identifier
AD-2024-00033-A.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 7, 2024.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 2020-26-16, Amendment 39-21371 (86 FR 3769,
January 15, 2021) (AD 2020-26-16).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) airplanes,
certificated in any category, with a model and serial number shown
in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--Applicability and Airplane Group
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.000
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5711, Wing Spar.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by a report of a wing separation caused by
fatigue cracking in a visually inaccessible area of the main wing
lower spar cap. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a wing
separating from the fuselage in flight.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Definitions
For the purpose of this AD the following definitions apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes: Airplanes identified as Group 1 in Piper
Service Bulletin No. 1372, dated April 3, 2024 (Piper SB No. 1372)
and Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
(2) Group 2 airplanes: Airplanes identified as Group 2 in Piper
SB No. 1372 and Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
(h) Review Airplane Maintenance Records and Determine Calculated
Service Hours for Each Main Wing Spar
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) or 12 months, whichever occurs first, review the airplane
maintenance records and determine the number of 100-hour inspections
completed on the airplane since new and any record of wing spar
replacement(s) in accordance with Part I, paragraph 1, of the
Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. The owner/operator (pilot)
holding at least a private pilot certificate may accomplish this and
must enter compliance with this paragraph of the AD into the
airplane
[[Page 77463]]
maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) Before further flight after doing the action required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, determine the calculated service hours
(CSH) for each main wing spar using the applicable formula for your
airplane group specified in Figure 1 or Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2)
of this AD and in accordance with Part I, paragraphs 2.a. through
b., of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. Thereafter, after each
100-hour or annual inspection, re-calculate the CSH for each main
wing spar to determine the compliance time for the actions required
by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. If a factored service hour
(FSH) inspection required by AD 2020-26-16 was done using Piper
Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020; or Piper Service
Bulletin No. 1345A, dated September 17, 2021, you may use that data,
including the TIS and number of 100-hour inspections at the time of
the last inspection, to calculate the CSH for that inspection using
the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD and Part I, paragraph
2.c. of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372 to determine the next
required actions, including if an action is now due according to the
requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(2)--Group 1 Airplanes CSH Calculation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.001
Note 1 to Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(2): This calculation is not
the same as the simplified calculation specified in Piper SB No.
1372 because this calculation uses a value of 3, for Group 1
airplanes only, and Piper SB No. 1372 uses a value of 2.
Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2)--Group 2 Airplanes CSH Calculation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.002
Note 2 to Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2): This calculation is the
same as the simplified calculation specified in Piper SB No. 1372,
but with a different form, and is for Group 2 airplanes only.
(i) Bolt Hole Inspections and Corrective Actions
(1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current inspections of the
inner surface of each bolt hole in the lower wing spar cap for
cracks and for non-crack damage (including deep scratches, gouges,
and thread marks), at the times in Table 2 and Table 3 to paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD and in accordance with Part II, paragraph 4.a. of
the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372. Although Piper SB No. 1372
specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level III certification to perform
eddy current and fluorescent penetrant inspections, this AD allows
Level II or Level III qualification standards for inspection
personnel using any inspector criteria approved by the FAA.
Note 3 to paragraph (i)(1): FAA Advisory Circular 65-31B,
``Training, Qualification, and Certification of Nondestructive
Inspection Personnel,'' dated February 24, 2014, contains FAA-
approved Level II and Level III qualification standards criteria for
personnel doing nondestructive test inspections.
Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1)--Compliance Times for Group 1 Airplane
Inspections
[[Page 77464]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.003
Note 4 to Table 2 to Paragraph (i)(1):
The compliance times are not the same as the times specified in
Piper SB No. 1372 for Group 1 airplanes.
Table 3 to Paragraph (i)(1)--Compliance Times for Group 2 Airplane
Inspections
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.004
Note 5 to Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1): The compliance times are
the same as the times specified in Piper SB No. 1372 for Group 2
airplanes.
(2) For any Group 1 or Group 2 airplane where the initial CSH
cannot be calculated due to missing or incomplete airplane
maintenance records: Do the initial inspection within 100 hours TIS
or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(3) If an eddy current inspection does not identify any
indications, then continue the repetitive eddy current inspections
required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD at the applicable times
specified in Table 2 and Table 3 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
(4) If any eddy current inspection identifies any indications or
noisy signal, before further flight, do the applicable actions
specified in Part II, paragraphs 4.b. through i., and if applicable
the bolt hole oversize repair specified in Part III, paragraphs 1.
through 7. and paragraph 9., of the Instructions in Piper SB No.
1372.
(5) If any eddy current inspection identifies any crack(s),
before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in Part
II, paragraph 4.k., of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372, and
replace the affected main wing spar in accordance with Part IV,
paragraphs 2.a. through d., of the Instructions in Piper SB No.
1372.
(j) Replace or Modify Main Wing Spar
For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes:
(1) At the applicable time specified in Table 4 to paragraph (j)
of this AD replace the affected main wing spars in accordance with
Part IV, paragraphs 2.a. through d., of the Instructions in Piper SB
No. 1372 or modify the main wing spars by installing the Piper
reinforcement kit, in accordance with Part IV, paragraphs 1.a.
through c., of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372.
(2) As required by paragraph (i)(5) of this AD, replace the
affected main wing spars in
[[Page 77465]]
accordance with Part IV, paragraphs 2.a. through d., of the
Instructions in Piper SB No. 1372.
Table 4 to Paragraph (j)--Compliance Times for Main Wing Spar
Modification or Replacement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.005
If any cracks are found during any inspection required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: After completing that inspection, using
Appendix 1, ``Inspection Results Form,'' of this AD, report the
inspection results to the FAA, East Certification Branch, and to
Piper Aircraft, Inc. Submit the report at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD.
(1) If the action was done on or after the effective date of
this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the action was done.
(2) If the action was done before the effective date of this AD,
submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
(l) Special Flight Permit
A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight to
a location where the airplane can be inspected. This ferry flight
must be performed with only essential flight crew. This AD prohibits
a special flight permit if any inspection reveals a crack in the
main wing spar.
(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, East Certification Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the East Certification Branch, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2020-26-16 are not approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(n) Additional Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Fred Caplan,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, East Certification Branch, FAA, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5507;
email: [email protected].
(2) Piper material identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in
paragraph (o)(3) of this AD.
(3) FAA Advisory Circular 65-31B, ``Training, Qualification, and
Certification of Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,'' dated
February 24, 2014, maybe found at drs.faa.gov.
(o) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1372, dated April 3, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) For Piper material identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772)
567-4361; email: piper.com">customerservice@piper.com; website: piper.com.
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/[email protected]">www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/[email protected].
Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2024-2142
[[Page 77466]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE24.006
[[Page 77467]]
Issued on September 10, 2024.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-21652 Filed 9-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
