DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0049; Product Identifier 2017-CE-031-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposal for certain Textron
Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 172N, 172P, 172Q, 172RG, F172N, F172P,
FR172K, R172K, 182E, 182F, 182G, 182H, 182J, 182K, 182L, 182M, 182N,
182P, 182Q, 182R, T182, F182P, F182Q, F182RG, R182, TR182, 206, P206/
TP206, U206/TU206, 207/T207, 210-5 (205), 210-5A (205A), 210B, 210C,
210D, 210E, 210F, and T210F airplanes. This action revises the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by modifying the estimated costs
of the proposed AD, the repetitive inspection intervals, and the credit
allowed for previous actions; clarifying the inspection instructions
for airplanes with the service kit installed; correcting the contact
information for obtaining the service information; and adding a
reporting requirement to collect the inspection results. The FAA is
proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an
additional burden over those in the NPRM based on comments from
commenters, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public
the chance to comment on these changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2018 (83 FR 4605), is reopened.
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 13, 2020.

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 https://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Textron
Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna Blvd.,
Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone: (316) 517-5800; email:
customercare@txtav.com; internet: https://support.cessna.com. You may
review this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.
gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0049;
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 SNPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209;
telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
bobbie.kroetch@faa.gov or Wichita-COS@faa.gov.

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 the ADDRESSES section. Include "Docket No. FAA-2018-0049;
Product Identifier 2017-CE-031-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
SNPRM because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations
.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.

Discussion

The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain Textron (type certificate previously held by
Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 172N, 172P, 172Q, 172RG, F172N, F172P,
FR172K, R172K, 182E, 182F, 182G, 182H, 182J, 182K, 182L, 182M, 182N,
182P, 182Q, 182R, T182, F182P, F182Q, F182RG, R182, TR182, 206, P206/
TP206, U206/TU206, 207/T207, 210-5 (205), 210-5A (205A), 210B, 210C,
210D, 210E, 210F, and T210F airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 1, 2018 (83 FR 4605). The NPRM was
prompted by a report from an operator of one of the affected Textron
airplanes that cracks were found in the lower area of the forward cabin
doorpost bulkhead. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting
the lower area of the forward cabin doorposts at the strut attach
fitting for cracks and repairing any cracks found by modifying the area
with the applicable service kit.

Comments

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

Matt Gunsch stated that cracking at the location identified in the
NPRM was not observed while performing annual inspections on hundreds
of Cessna airplanes as a mechanic with an Inspection Authorization. The
commenter explained that these inspections were on airplanes from the
Model 172A to the newest restart airplane, with some flown as little as
25 hours a year to others that were flown l,000 hours a year, all with
no evidence of cracking at this location. The FAA infers the commenter
would like to see the NPRM withdrawn.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA's investigation revealed more than four
dozen similar cracks on Textron Model 100- and 200-series airplanes.
The FAA has not changed this proposed AD based on this comment.

Requests To Change the Repetitive Inspection Compliance Intervals

Mark Stephenson, Ronald Welch, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), Kermit Bunde, Matt Gunsch, Howard Nelson, and an
anonymous commenter requested the FAA change the compliance time for
the repetitive inspection intervals to hours TIS only and remove the
12-month calendar time inspection requirement. Neal Bachman suggested
the compliance time be based on take off and landing cycles. Most of
these commenters stated the cracking identified in the proposed AD was
attributed to metal fatigue, which is driven by usage, not calendar
time. Several commenters noted that an annual repetitive inspection
adds an unnecessary burden for operators of low-use airplanes that may
accumulate less than 1,000 hours TIS per year. The anonymous commenter
stated that a repetitive inspection every 12 months was unjustified and
unsupported because the FAA did not include in the AD docket crack-
propagation math models or show raw data indicating the number of
airplanes with cracks, their associated TIS, or the crack lengths.

Craig Morton requested the FAA change the multiple compliance time
interval from "whichever occurs first" to "whichever occurs later."

David Scott requested that the FAA increase the repetitive interval
depending on airplane configuration.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA did not provide the data requested
by the anonymous commenter because the raw data relied upon by the FAA in
its risk analysis did not include crack lengths. The FAA agrees to
revise the calendar time requirement because a repetitive inspection
annually does not account for low use airplanes. The FAA has adjusted
the proposed repetitive inspection interval from 12 months or 1,000
hours TIS to 36 calendar months or 1,000 hours TIS. The FAA has
determined this extended compliance time adequately addresses the
identified unsafe condition. In addition, this compliance time
corresponds with the manufacturer's guidance, for certain airplanes,
that is published in supplemental inspection documents (SIDs) and is
supported by the fleet history. The FAA disagrees with providing an
allowance for takeoff and landing cycles because there is insufficient
data to support inspection intervals based on this aspect of an
airplane's usage. Also, FAA regulations do not require all operators to
maintain records of landing and takeoff cycles. The FAA also disagrees
with the requests to base the inspection solely on flight hours and to
increase the inspection interval. In developing appropriate compliance
times for this proposed AD, the FAA considered the urgency associated
with the subject unsafe condition, the manufacturer's recommended
compliance times, the availability of parts, and the practical aspect
of accomplishing the required inspection and any on-condition actions.
In light of these factors, the FAA determined the proposed compliance
times are appropriate and address the identified unsafe condition.

Request To Decrease the Initial Inspection Compliance Time

An anonymous commenter suggested the FAA require the initial
inspection before 4,000 hours TIS. The commenter stated that cracking
might occur in airplanes before the 4,000 hours TIS identified in the
proposed AD.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that unverified reports
indicate cracking may occur before an airplane accumulates 4,000 hours
TIS. However, the FAA disagrees with reducing the compliance time for
the initial inspection at this time because the data available from the
manufacturer and from the FAA service difficulty reporting system does
not contain sufficient information to justify it. The FAA has added a
reporting requirement to the proposed AD to help the FAA collect more
data to determine if the cracking is occurring at an earlier period.
The FAA will analyze the reporting results and may take further
rulemaking action.

Requests To Clarify the Repetitive Inspection Instructions

Two commenters requested the FAA clarify the repetitive inspection
instructions for airplanes that have a service kit installed. Adam
Ondrajka noted it is more difficult to do the inspection after
installation of the service kit because it covers some of the area
susceptible to cracking. Hageland Aviation Services, Inc. (Hageland
Aviation) requested the proposed AD be revised to include verbiage that
allows the inspection to be performed with the service kit remaining in
place, and inspecting for any cracking that has propagated past the
boundaries of the kit. This commenter also stated that the term "to
the fullest extent" in the repetitive inspection instructions for
airplanes with a service kit installed is unclear and could be
interpreted to require removal of the kit to complete the inspection.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has changed the proposed inspection
language to clarify the service kit should not be removed during the
inspections and to inspect for cracks extending beyond the modified
parts.

Requests Regarding the Service Kits

AOPA requested the FAA allow the installation of the service kit to
terminate the repetitive inspection requirements of the proposed AD.
AOPA and Adam Ondrajka noted that installation of the kit is
terminating action in Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletins SEB 93-5R1 and
SEB 95-19, and the FAA did not provide justification or reasoning in
the NPRM for continuing the repetitive inspections after installation
of the kit.

Neal Bachman requested the FAA encourage the installation of the
service kit preemptively to prevent future cracking, and stated that if
ongoing inspections are required after the service kit is installed
then the kit is inadequate.

The FAA partially agrees. Owners may voluntarily install the
service kit, as neither the NPRM nor this SNPRM would prohibit the
installation of the service kit prior to observed cracking. The
structure added by the service kit reinforces the critical area on
which cracking has been found. However, the manufacturer did not
provide sufficient evidence that installation of the service kits
corrects the unsafe condition and therefore warrants discontinuing the
inspections. In addition, the FAA has received unconfirmed reports of
cracking extending beyond the repair doubler that is installed as part
of the kit. At this time, sufficient information is not available to
determine the cause of the continued cracking. Therefore, the FAA has
added a reporting requirement to this SNPRM to evaluate the crack
development.

Comment Regarding Variable Time Limit for Kit Installation

Mark Stephenson requested the FAA change the compliance time for
installing the service kit after crack detection to a variable
compliance time based on the size, number, or severity of the
identified cracking. The commenter noted that the proposed AD specifies
installing the service kit before further flight if cracks are found,
while at the same time specifying a 1,000-hour repeat inspection of the
area if no cracks are found. The commenter stated that therefore the
FAA is accepting that flight with cracks is acceptable for periods
approaching 1,000 hours and concluded the logic for the requirement to
incorporate the service kit before further flight is flawed.

The FAA disagrees. There is insufficient data on crack growth rate
to support flight with known cracks without installation of the service
kit. Therefore, this proposed AD would not allow variable compliance
times based on the size, number, or severity of the identified
cracking. The installation of the service kit reinforces the cracked
area. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM based on this comment.

Concern for Parts Availability

Urban Moore, Hageland Aviation, Bruce Thomas, and Paul Gryko
expressed concern that the proposed AD may ground airplanes after
cracks are identified because of the unavailability of parts. The
commenters indicated that waiting times for some of the service kits
were several months.

The FAA recognizes the demand for the service kits following the
issuance of the proposed AD is likely to increase. However, the FAA has
determined that the proposed actions and compliance times are necessary
to address the identified unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed
this proposed AD based on this comment. However, operators may request
approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to extend the
compliance times under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this proposed
AD. The operator must justify in the request that an extension of the
compliance time will provide an adequate level of safety.

Request for Specific Part Numbers

Urban Moore noted that Textron would not provide the specific part
numbers for each item included in the service kits.

The FAA disagrees. The applicable service kits identify the part
numbers required for the kit installation. The FAA will post in the AD
docket all service documents incorporated by reference when the FAA
issues the final rule. Until then, and as specified in the ADDRESSES
section of the NPRM and this SNPRM, interested parties may contact
Textron for a copy of the service information identified in this SNPRM.
A party may also view the service information in person at the FAA's
offices in Kansas City, Missouri.

Request To Include the Possibility of Extended Cracks

Textron suggested the FAA change the language in the proposed AD to
reflect that cracks could extend beyond the doublers installed in
accordance with the service kits, if an operator installed a service
kit before the AD was released.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has added language to paragraphs (g) and
(h)(2) of this proposed AD to address potential cracking on airplanes
with the service kits installed.

Request To Make Service Information Available

Matt Gunsch commented about the difficulty obtaining the service
bulletins that are the basis of the proposed AD and requested the FAA
include the referenced service documents in the AD Docket.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA will post in the AD docket all
service documents incorporated by reference when the FAA issues the
final rule. Until then, and as specified in the ADDRESSES section of
the NPRM and this SNPRM, interested parties may contact Textron for a
copy of the service information identified in this SNPRM. A party may
also view the service information in person at the FAA's offices in
Kansas City, Missouri.

Request To Update Service Information

Textron requested the FAA update references to the service bulletin
and service kit information in the proposed AD to reflect the latest
revision levels.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has updated the service information in this
proposed AD accordingly.

Request To Provide Credit for Airplanes With SK206-42 or SK206-42A
Installed

Textron requested the FAA clarify the credit in paragraph (k)(3) of
the proposed AD for Model 207 and T207 airplanes that have installed a
service kit in accordance with Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin
SEB 93-5, dated March 26, 1993. Specifically, Textron asked whether
owners/operators are expected to remove the kit and install a new kit.

The FAA agrees to clarify the credit for Model 207 and T207
airplanes. The FAA has revised paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM and
redesignated it as paragraph (k)(2)(i) in this SNPRM. As now proposed,
paragraph (k)(2)(i) specifies that the reinforcement detailed in Cessna
Single Engine Service Kit SK207-19A, dated May 29, 2019, must be done
to receive credit for previous installations. As specified in Cessna
Single Engine Service Kit SK207-19A, dated May 29, 2019, the
reinforcement can be done on airplanes with a previously installed
SK206-42() kit.

Request To Allow Credit for Previous Actions

Hageland Aviation, Jason Vink, Stephen Greenwood, Adam Ondrajka,
AOPA, Textron, and an anonymous commenter requested the FAA allow
credit for initial inspections and service kit installations in
accordance with Cessna Service Bulletins SEB 93-5, SEB 93-5 Revision l,
and SEB 95-19. Hageland Aviation stated that failing to give credit
could affect intrastate aviation within the state of Alaska. Adam
Ondrajka stated that paragraphs (k)(1)(v) and (k)(3) of the proposed AD
include contradictory language for previous repairs completed on Model
207 and T207 airplanes. Textron and an anonymous commenter requested
credit for inspections that have been previously completed.

The FAA partially agrees. Paragraph (f), "Compliance," of both
the NPRM and this SNPRM states compliance is required "unless already
done," which allows credit for any AD action completed before the
effective date of the AD.

The FAA has revised paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this SNPRM to
provide credit for most airplane models that have installed the service
kit using Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB 93-5, dated March
26, 1993; or Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB 93-5, Revision
1, dated September 8, 1995. The FAA has also revised paragraph (k)(3)
(redesignated as paragraph (k)(2)(i) in this SNPRM) to allow credit for
Model 207, T207, 207A, and T207A airplanes that have installed the
service kit if additional reinforcement has also been done.

The FAA disagrees that the language in paragraphs (k)(1)(v) and
(k)(3) of the NPRM is contradictory. Paragraph (k)(1)(v) of the NPRM
applies only to the inspection, while paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM
applies to the repair. Similarly, paragraph (k)(1) of this SNPRM
applies only to the inspection, while paragraph (k)(2) of this SNPRM
applies to the repair.

The FAA acknowledges Hageland Aviation's comment that intrastate
aviation within the state of Alaska will be affected if credit is not
given. The FAA has revised paragraph (k) of this SNPRM to provide
credit for most airplane models that have installed the service kit.
Additionally, paragraph (f), "Compliance," of both the NPRM and the
SNPRM states compliance is required "unless already done," which
allows credit for any AD action completed before the effective date of
the AD. Therefore, the FAA is giving credit for previous actions.

Requests To Change the Costs of Compliance

AOPA, Urban Moore, Duane Taylor, Ely Cyrus, Hageland Aviation,
Stephen Greenwood, Neal Bachman, Howard Nelson, an anonymous commenter,
Paul Gryko, and Richard James requested the FAA update the costs of the
service kits. These commenters stated the estimated costs in the NPRM
for the installation of the service kits did not represent the current
costs of the kits. The commenters also expressed concern that Textron
was increasing the prices of the service kits.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has revised the estimated cost of the
service kits to account for the known costs.

Urban Moore requested the FAA increase the number of labor hours
estimated to complete the repair.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has increased the estimated work-hours to
install the service kits from 24 work-hours to 36 work-hours.

An anonymous commenter stated the labor rate of $85 per work-hour
is out of date.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans
provides the labor rate of $85 per work-hour to use when estimating the
labor costs of complying with AD requirements.

An anonymous commenter stated the estimated cost in the NPRM should
be doubled to account for the cost to repair the doorposts for both
wing struts.

The FAA disagrees. The estimated costs in both the NPRM and this
SNPRM already account for repairs on both sides of the airplane.

Request To Correct the Language in the Cost of Compliance for Affected
Products

An anonymous commenter noted an error in the estimated costs and
stated that the Cost of Compliance section incorrectly refers to 2,928
engines instead of the correct number of airplanes.

The FAA disagrees. The Cost of Compliance section in the NPRM
estimates that the proposed AD would affect 14,653 airplanes of U.S.
registry; it does not refer to the number of affected engines. The FAA
has not changed this proposed AD based on this comment.

Request To Change the Manufacturer Contact Information

Textron requested the FAA change the internet contact information
for contacting the manufacturer to https://support.cessna.com.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has updated the contact information
accordingly.

Request for Docket Correction

Stephen Greenwood noted that in the NPRM the docket number is
incorrectly listed as FAA-2017-0049 instead of FAA-2018-0049. The FAA
infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA correct the docket
number.

The FAA agrees. The FAA published a proposed rule; correction
because of the docket number error in the NPRM on February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6136). This SNPRM references the correct docket number.

Request To Extend the Comment Period

Howard Nelson stated that after the proposed AD is updated with the
correct costs for the repair kit, the FAA should extend the comment
period.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has updated the estimated cost of the
repair service kit and has made other changes that increase the burden
on the operators. Therefore, the FAA is issuing this SNPRM to allow
further comment on these changes.

Other Differences Between the NPRM and This SNPRM

Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this SNPRM contains changes to some of
the model designations listed in the applicability in order to match
the models as they are listed in the type certificate data sheet. Where
the NPRM referred to "P206/TP206," "U206/TU206," and "207/T207,"
series of airplanes, this SNPRM identifies the following model
designations: P206, P206A, P206B, P206C, P206D, P206E, TP206A, TP206B,
TP206C, TP206D, TP206E, U206, U206A, U206B, U206C, U206D, U206E, U206F,
U206G, TU206A, TU206B, TU206C, TU206D, TU206E, TU206F, TU206G, 207,
207A, T207, and T207A.

The Model "F182RG" listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM
was based on the model designation specified in the service
information. Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this SNPRM lists "Model
FR182," which is the correct model designation as it is listed in the
type certificate data sheet for that model.

This SNPRM also clarifies the affected serial numbers listed in
table 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM. Where the table to paragraph (c)
of this SNPRM identifies an affected serial number range that includes
all eligible serial numbers for a given model, the FAA has instead
specified "All serial numbers" in this SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

The FAA reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB 95-19,
dated December 29, 1995 (SEB 95-19); and Cessna Single Engine Service
Bulletin SEB 93-5, Revision 2, dated May 29, 2019 (SEB 93-5R2). For the
applicable model airplanes, the service information contains procedures
for repetitively inspecting the lower area of the forward cabin
doorposts for cracks and repairing any cracks found by modifying the
area with an applicable Cessna service kit.

The FAA also reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Kit SK207-19A,
dated May 29, 2019. The service information contains procedures to
reinforce the lower forward doorpost bulkhead and wing strut fitting by
adding a doubler and a channel to each forward cabin doorpost bulkhead.

This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

The FAA reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Kit SK172-147, dated
December 29, 1995. This service kit provides instructions to add a
channel to each forward cabin doorpost bulkhead. The FAA also reviewed
Cessna Single Engine Service Kit SK182-115, dated December 29, 1995;
Cessna Single Engine Service Kit SK206-42D, dated May 29, 2019; and
Cessna Single Engine Service Kit SK210-156, dated December 29, 1995.
For the applicable model airplanes, these service kits provide
instructions to add a doubler and a channel to each forward cabin
doorpost bulkhead.

FAA's Determination

The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
NPRM. As a result, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

This SNPRM would require repetitively inspecting the lower area of
the forward cabin doorposts for cracks and repairing any cracks found
by modifying the area with the applicable Cessna service kit.

Costs of Compliance

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 14,653
airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

Estimated Costs

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
Reference the applicable Cessna single engine service bulletin for kit
applicability. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need this repair:

On-Condition Costs

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, 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 airplanes 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 this proposed
regulation:

(1) Is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive
Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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:

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

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):