[Federal Register: December 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 233)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72091-72095]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de02-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 99-CE-86-AD; Amendment 39-12972; AD 2002-24-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Models
PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P
(Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain Aerostar Aircraft Corporation (Aerostar) Models PA-
60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar
602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P). This AD requires you to replace
Roto-Master and Rajay scavenge pumps with improved design Aerostar
scavenge pumps. This AD is the result of failures of the existing Roto-
Master and Rajay scavenge pumps found during regular maintenance
inspections. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
in-flight failure of the oil scavenge pumps, which could result in loss
of engine oil and possible loss of engine power.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on January 17, 2003.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of
January 17, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may get the service information referenced in this AD
from Aerostar Aircraft Corporation, 10555 Airport Drive, Coeur d'Alene
Airport, Hayden Lake, Idaho 83835-8742; telephone: (208) 762-0338;
facsimile: (208) 762-8349. You may view this information at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-CE-86-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Simonson, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055; telephone: (425) 687-4247; facsimile: (425)
687-4248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
What Events Have Caused This AD?
The FAA has received several reports of excessive internal pump
wear found during normal maintenance inspections on Aerostar Models PA-
60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar
602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P) airplanes. Analysis of these
incidents reveals that inadequate retention of the existing left-hand
(LH) oil scavenge pump rotor allows the rotor to machine its way
through the LH end plate.
Also, through the buildup of the right-hand (RH) scavenge pump/
hydraulic pump stack, axial migration of the RH pump rotor causes
damage to the washers and seals. This then causes hydraulic and engine
oil to be mixed along with metal shavings being released into the
engine oil system.
For these reasons, the FAA determined that both the LH and RH
scavenge pumps should be replaced.
[[Page 72092]]
What Is the Potential Impact if FAA Took No Action?
This condition, if not corrected, could result in an in-flight
failure of the oil scavenge pumps with consequent loss of engine oil
and possible loss of engine power.
Has FAA Taken Any Action to This Point?
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to
certain Aerostar Models PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar
601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P)
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 24, 2001 (66 FR 53741).
The NPRM proposed to require you to replace the Roto-Master or Rajay
scavenge pumps with Aerostar scavenge pumps.
Was the Public Invited To Comment?
The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making
of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the
proposal and FAA's response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: The Airworthiness Concerns Process Was Not
Utilized for This Project
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that FAA did not use the Small Airplane
Directorate Airworthiness Concerns Process for this subject. This
process is the way the Small Airplane Directorate and industry work
together to identify potential airworthiness concerns and share
technical information prior to FAA's decision on how to proceed. We
infer that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn because this process
was not utilized.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA concurs that the formal Small Airplane Directorate
Airworthiness Concerns Process was not utilized. This subject
originated before the formal implementation of this process. The FAA
used all resources and made all reasonable efforts to obtain the
necessary technical information and to coordinate this subject.
Although we did not implement the formal process, we did utilize the
basic concept.
While it is the Small Airplane Directorate's policy to use the
Airworthiness Concerns Process, there is no regulation that mandates
its use. If, at any time, we choose not to use this process, we still
have the regulatory authority to issue an airwothiness directive.
No changes have been made to the final rule AD action as a result
of this comment.
Comment Issue No. 2: No Supporting Data Exists; Provide Details of
Failures
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that FAA does not have sufficient data to
justify the unsafe condition described in the NPRM. The commenters
believe that we have not adequately documented the problem and request
more details on the failures.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA does not concur that the unsafe condition is not justified.
As stated in the NPRM, ``the FAA has received several reports of
excessive internal pump wear found during normal maintenance
inspections on Aerostar Models 601, 601P, 602P, and 700P airplanes.
Analysis of these incidents reveals that inadequate retention of the
existing oil scavenge pump rotor allows the rotor to machine its way
through the end plate.''
The following is additional information on these incidents:
--In January 1996, one of the affected airplanes experienced complete
engine oil loss and an in-flight engine shutdown. Inspection of the
engine revealed that the shaft of the LH oil scavenge pump had machined
its way through the LH pump's end plate. The scavenge pump was replaced
with a new unit, and a short time later an inspection of the new unit
revealed that the shaft had once again started to bore through the LH
end plate. The RH scavenge pump was then inspected and showed
significant wear at the retaining ring and washer.
--Another affected airplane experienced two separate instances of
complete engine oil loss and in-flight shutdown caused by the LH
scavenge pump machining through the LH end plate. Inspections revealed
numerous occurrences of broken retaining rings and washers and some
reports of shafts boring through the LH end plates.
The FAA has determined that the information presented above
justifies the AD action of replacing the scavenge pumps with pumps of
improved design that are less susceptible to these failures.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 3: No Service Reports From RAJAY, the Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters point out that the OEM, RAJAY, has submitted no
reports of the scavenge pumps boring through the LH end plates. The
commenters state that if RAJAY does not have service data, then there
is obviously not a safety issue. The commenters suggest that FAA
withdraw the NPRM.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur. Aerostar, as the type certificate (TC) holder,
has the regulatory responsibility to submit failures, malfunctions, and
defects under 14 CFR 21.3. Aerostar obtains these parts from RAJAY and
Roto-Master. However, RAJAY and Roto-Master are the parts suppliers and
do not have the regulatory responsibility that Aerostar has. Because of
these regulatory responsibilities, we have determined that the reports
that Aerostar has submitted under 14 CFR 21.3 are valid and are not
undermined by the absence of service information from RAJAY or Roto-
Master.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 4: Why Are the Pumps Unsafe When Installed on
Aerostar Airplanes and Not Unsafe When Installed on Other Type Design
Airplanes
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that these scavenge pumps are installed on
numerous other type design airplanes. The commenters question why the
scavenge pumps are only unsafe on the affected Aerostar airplanes and
not on other type design airplanes. We infer that the commenters either
want the NPRM withdrawn or expanded to include other type design
airplanes.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA does not concur that we should either withdraw the NPRM or
include other type design airplanes. We have extensively searched our
databases and only have reports on the scavenge pumps that are
installed in the Aerostar Models PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P
(Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar
700P) airplanes. We have determined that the condition is based on the
design configuration of the pump installation in the Aerostar
airplanes.
Currently, there is nothing restraining these scavenge pumps in the
Aerostar airplane configuration. Engine vibration and other variables
within the
[[Page 72093]]
installation allow the shafts of the LH oil scavenge pumps to bore
through the LH end plates.
We will continue to monitor the continuing airworthiness of these
scavenge pumps as installed on other type design airplanes, and we will
take appropriate regulatory action, as necessary.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 5: This Is a Maintenance Issue and Is Not Justified
as an AD
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that properly maintained scavenge pumps do
not have the failure problems that FAA defines. These commenters
question why FAA is issuing this AD to punish those who have adequately
maintained their airplanes. They further state that this is an
incorrect use of an AD and request that FAA withdraw or give them an
exemption from the AD.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur. The service history shows that the unsafe
condition is a design problem and not a maintenance issue. As discussed
earlier, the condition is based on the design configuration of the pump
installation in the Aerostar airplanes. Currently, there is nothing
restraining these scavenge pumps in the Aerostar airplane
configuration. Engine vibration and other variables within the
installation allow the shafts of the LH oil scavenge pumps to bore
through the LH end plates. Based on the service history received on
this subject, we have determined that this AD is justified.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 6: The Improved Design Pumps Are More Unsafe Than the
Existing Pumps
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters question whether the unsafe condition will be
addressed through the installation of the improved design scavenge
pumps. The commenters state that these improved design pumps are more
unsafe than the scavenge pumps currently installed. No evidence or
details were submitted to substantiate these claims. We infer that the
commenters want the NPRM withdrawn.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur that the improved design scavenge pumps are more
unsafe than the ones currently installed. We have received no reports
of the unsafe condition occurring on these improved design scavenge
pumps.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 7: Allow the Option of Repetitive Inspections or
Mandatory Pump Replacement
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters believe that FAA should provide the option to
repetitively inspect the scavenge pumps for wear and only require
mandatory replacement if wear is found. A few of these commenters
suggest a repetitive inspection interval of 50 hours time-in-service
(TIS).
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA does not concur. The only way to properly inspect the
scavenge pump for wear is to remove the pump and disassemble it.
Repetitively removing, disassembling, reassembling, and reinstalling
the scavenge pumps presents a greater chance of damage to the scavenge
pumps than replacing them. Also, the labor of repetitively removing and
reinstalling (8 workhours at $60 an hour = $480 per installation) would
eventually exceed the one-time replacement cost.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 8: Only Require Replacement of the LH Pump; RH Pump
Replacement Is Not Necessary
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that the RH scavenge pump should not be
replaced because it does not have an end plate, and it is the middle
member of a ``stack'' that includes the airplane hydraulic pump. This
commenter requests that FAA revise the proposed AD to reflect
replacement of only the LH scavenge pump.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA concurs that the RH scavenge pump does not have an end
plate and that it is the middle member of a ``stack'' that includes the
airplane hydraulic pump. However, through the buildup of the scavenge
pump/hydraulic pump stack, axial migration of the pump rotor would
cause damage to the washers and seals. This could cause the hydraulic
oil and engine oil to be mixed along with metal shavings being released
into the engine oil system. For these reasons, FAA has determined that
both the LH and RH scavenge pumps should be replaced as proposed in the
NPRM.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.
FAA's Determination
What Is FAA's Final Determination on This Issue?
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor
corrections:
--Provide the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the
unsafe condition; and
--Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
What Are the Differences Between the Service Bulletin and This AD?
Aerostar specifies (in the service information) replacing the
scavenge pumps within the next 50 hours TIS or at the next annual
inspection, whichever occurs first. We require that you replace the
scavenge pumps within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD. We cannot enforce a compliance time of ``at the next annual
inspection.'' We believe that 50 hours TIS will give the owners/
operators of the affected airplanes enough time to have the actions
required by this AD done without compromising the safety of the
airplanes. This will allow the owners/operators to work this
replacement into regularly scheduled maintenance.
Cost Impact
How Many Airplanes Does This AD Impact?
We estimate that this AD affects 650 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
What Is the Cost Impact of This AD on Owners/Operators of the Affected
Airplanes?
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:
[[Page 72094]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost per
Labor cost Parts cost airplane Total cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 workhours for both the left and $4,750 $5,230 $5,230 x 650 = $3,399, 500
right engine scavenge pumps x $60
per hour = $480.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexibility Determination and Analysis
What Are the Requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress to
assure that small entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately
burdened by government regulations. This Act establishes ``as principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit
regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve this principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that the rule will,
the Agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described
in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
What Is FAA's Determination?
The FAA has determined that this AD could have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
have determined that we should continue with this action in order to
address the unsafe condition and ensure aviation safety.
You may obtain a copy of the complete Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (entitled ``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'') that
was prepared for this AD from the Docket file at the location listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Regulatory Impact
Does This AD Impact Various Entities?
The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
Does This AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) could have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:
2002-24-07 Aerostar Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-12972; Docket
No. 99-CE-86-AD.
(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects
Models PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-
602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P) airplanes, all
serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate
any of the airplanes identified in paragraph (a) of this AD must
comply with this AD.
(c) What problem does this AD address? The actions specified by
this AD are intended to prevent in-flight failure of the oil
scavenge pumps, which could result in loss of engine oil and
possible loss of engine power.
(d) What actions must I accomplish to address this problem? To
address this problem, you must accomplish the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Replace any scavenge Within the next 50 Do this replacement
pump specified in hours time-in- following the
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and service after INSTRUCTIONS
(d)(1)(ii) of this AD with January 17, 2003 paragraph of
an Aerostar scavenge pump, (the effective date Aerostar Mandatory
part number 300110-001 or of this AD), unless Service Bulletin
300110-002 or FAA-approved already SB600-131A, January
equivalent part number. accomplished. 10, 1998, and the
(i) Any Roto-Master scavenge Aerostar
pump, part number 101633-01 Maintenance Manual.
or 101633-02 or FAA-
approved equivalent part
number; and.
(ii) Any Rajay scavenge
pump, part number RJ1025-1
or RJ1025-2 or FAA-approved
equivalent part number..
[[Page 72095]]
(2) Do not install, on an As of January 17, Not applicable.
affected airplane, any Roto- 2003 (the effective
Master or Rajay scavenge date of this AD).
pump specified in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and
(d)(1)(ii) of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? You may use an
alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time if:
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent
level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph
(a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered,
or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific
actions you propose to address it.
(f) Where can I get information about any already-approved
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Richard Simonson,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4065; telephone: (425)
227-2597; facsimile: (425) 227-1181.
(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where
you can accomplish the requirements of this AD.
(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated into this AD by
reference? Actions required by this AD must be done in accordance
with Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin SB600-
131A, January 10, 1998. The Director of the Federal Register
approved this incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. You can get copies from Aerostar Aircraft Corporation,
10555 Airport Drive, Coeur d'Alene Airport, Hayden Lake, Idaho
83835-8742. You can look at copies at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,
Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
(i) When does this amendment become effective? This amendment
becomes effective on January 17, 2003.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 25, 2002.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 02-30495 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P