Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3769

Adjusted maximum civil Law Penalty description penalty amount

12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(A) ...... Tier 1 penalty ...... $5,953 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(B) ...... Tier 2 penalty ...... 29,764 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(C) ...... Tier 3 penalty ...... 1,190,546 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) ...... Per violation ...... 2,074 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) ...... Annual cap ...... 2,073,133 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) ...... Per failure ...... 97 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) ...... Annual cap ...... 195,047 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(2)(A) ...... Per failure, where intentional ...... 195 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2) ...... Per violation ...... 30,058 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(1) ...... First violation ...... 11,906 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(2) ...... Subsequent violations ...... 23,811

(b) The adjustments in paragraph (a) DATES: This AD is effective February 16, apply to certain Piper Models PA–28– of this section shall apply to civil 2021. 140, PA–28–150, PA–28–151, PA–28– penalties assessed after January 15, The Director of the Federal Register 160, PA–28–161, PA–28–180, PA–28– 2021, whose associated violations approved the incorporation by reference 181, PA–28–235, PA–28R–180, PA– occurred on or after November 2, 2015. of a certain publication listed in this AD 28R–200, PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, Dated: January 12, 2021. as of February 16, 2021. PA–28RT–201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32– 260, and PA–32–300 airplanes. The Grace Feola, ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule, contact NPRM published in the Federal Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Register on December 21, 2018 (83 FR Financial Protection. Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, 65592). The NPRM was prompted by a [FR Doc. 2021–00925 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] Vero Beach, Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567–4361; website: https:// fatal accident involving wing separation BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P www.piper.com. You may view this on a Piper Model PA–28R–201 airplane. service information at the FAA, An investigation revealed a fatigue crack Airworthiness Products Section, in a visually inaccessible area of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, lower main wing spar cap. The NPRM included other model airplanes with Federal Aviation Administration Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this similar wing spar structures as the Model PA–28R–201. Based on airplane 14 CFR Part 39 material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 4148. It is also available at https:// usage history, the FAA determined that [Docket No. FAA–2018–1046; Product www.regulations.gov by searching for only those airplanes with higher risk for Identifier 2018–CE–049–AD; Amendment and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– fatigue cracks (airplanes with a 39–21371; AD 2020–26–16] 1046. significant history of operation in flight training or other high-load RIN 2120–AA64 Examining the AD Docket environments) should be subject to the Airworthiness Directives; Piper You may examine the AD docket at inspection requirements proposed in the Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes https://www.regulations.gov by NPRM. searching for and locating Docket No. Because airplanes used in training AGENCY: Federal Aviation FAA–2018–1046; or in person at Docket and other high-load environments are Administration (FAA), DOT. Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., typically operated for hire and have ACTION: Final rule. Monday through Friday, except Federal inspection programs that require 100- holidays. The AD docket contains this hour inspections, the FAA determined SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new final rule, any comments received, and the number of 100-hour inspections an airworthiness directive (AD) for certain other information. The address for airplane has undergone would be the Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA– Docket Operations is U.S. Department of best indicator of the airplane’s usage 28–151, PA–28–161, PA–28–181, PA– Transportation, Docket Operations, M– history. Accordingly, the FAA 28–235, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200, 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room developed a factored service hours PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT– W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, formula based on the number of 100- 201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA– Washington, DC 20590. hour inspections completed on the 32–300, PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, airplane. and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. This AD FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to was prompted by a report of a wing McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, require a review of the airplane separation caused by fatigue cracking in Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 maintenance records to determine the a visually inaccessible area of the lower Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia number of 100-hour inspections and the main wing spar cap. This AD requires 30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax: (404) application of the factored service hours calculating the factored service hours 474–5605; email: william.mccully@ formula to identify when an airplane for each main wing spar to determine faa.gov. meets the criteria for the proposed eddy when an inspection is required, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: current inspection of the lower main inspecting the lower main wing spar wing spar bolt holes. The FAA also bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any Background proposed to require inspecting the lower cracked main wing spar. The FAA is The FAA issued a notice of proposed main wing spar bolt holes for cracks issuing this AD to address the unsafe rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR once a main wing spar exceeds the condition on these products. part 39 by adding an AD that would specified factored service hours and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

replacing any main wing spar when a included Piper, governmental agencies wing separations at the outboard bolt crack is indicated. The maintenance such as the National Transportation holes of the lower spar cap. The NTSB records review to determine the factored Safety Board (NTSB) and the Civil Metallurgist’s Factual Report in the service hours proposed in the NPRM Aviation Safety Authority of Australia 1987 accident, Materials Laboratory would only apply when an airplane has (CASA), and organizations such as the Report No. 87–89, dated August 17, either accumulated 5,000 or more hours Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 1987, found that fatigue had initiated at time-in-service (TIS); has had either (AOPA), the General Aviation and two locations on the lower surface of the main wing spar replaced with a Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA), left wing spar cap near the forward most serviceable (more than zero hours TIS) the Experimental Aircraft Association outboard, spar to carry through, bolt main wing spar; or has missing and/or (EAA), and the Piper Flying hole. The report further found the incomplete maintenance records. Association. The following presents the fatigue had propagated completely The FAA issued a supplemental comments received on the SNPRM and through the forward flange and partially notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) the FAA’s response to each comment. into the aft flange and spar web.2 The to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an A. Supportive Comments Metallurgist’s Factual Report in the AD that would apply to certain Piper 1993 accident, Report No. 93–34, dated Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, PA– The NTSB and two individual December 15, 1993, found that the lower 28–235, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200, commenters supported the AD without cap was fractured through the most PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28RT– any recommended changes. Three other outboard pair of bolts connecting the 201, PA–28RT–201T, PA–32–260, PA– individual commenters supported the spar and carry-through.3 The FAA notes 32–300, PA–32R–300, PA–32RT–300, AD but requested changes discussed that the NTSB Final Report for the 1993 and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. The below. accident states the investigation could SNPRM published in the Federal B. Requests for Additional Information not determine whether an uncracked Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34121). wing would have failed.4 CASA requested information on The SNPRM was prompted by CASA and an individual commenter whether a bolt hole eddy current comments received on the NPRM and requested information on the inspection inspection would have detected the further analysis by the FAA. The FAA method used to detect cracks on aircraft crack in the 1993 accident airplane. N104ER. CASA asked whether the determined that some additional The FAA agrees to provide the inspection method described in Piper airplane models are likely affected by requested information. Because it was Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March the unsafe condition and should be located slightly beyond the detectable 27, 2020 (Piper SB No. 1345), was used. included in the applicability, while range of a bolt hole eddy current The individual commenter asked other models that are not affected inspection, the crack in the 1993 whether bolt hole eddy current is the should be removed from the accident airplane would not have been most suitable method if it was used on applicability. Consequently, in the detected by an eddy current inspection N104ER and did not reveal the cracks SNPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the of the bolt holes. Although the airplane that caused the wing failure. applicability and the estimated cost had previously undergone dye penetrant associated with the proposed AD The FAA agrees to provide the inspection of the bolt holes, the crack requested information. Aircraft N104ER actions. The SNPRM also clarified the would not have been detectable under language in the applicability and some was used in the investigation of the that method either due to its location 2018 accident due to the similarities in of the proposed actions. In addition, the beyond the bolt hole perimeter and SNPRM no longer allowed replacement 1 structure and operational use to the beneath the web doubler. The 1993 accident aircraft. The initial high of the wing spar with a used part. The accident disclosed evidence of a fatigue FAA determined replacement of the frequency eddy current inspection of crack initiation in a wing spar similar to N104ER was conducted by a local FAA- wing spar with a part of unknown that of the 2018 accident aircraft, operational history would not ensure an approved repair station contracted by N106ER (the accident that prompted the owner. The FAA could not acceptable level of safety. After the this AD). In addition to having high NPRM was published, Piper issued a determine why the inspection hours TIS, the fatigue crack was very conducted by the FAA-approved repair service bulletin that contains near the inspection location addressed procedures for the eddy current station did not detect cracks because by this AD. As such, the FAA included this inspection did not involve the inspection. The SNPRM proposed to the 1993 accident in the risk analysis require using the eddy current investigative team. Also, the inspection process for this AD. occurred prior to the development of the inspection contained in that service CASA and an individual commenter inspection procedures required by this bulletin instead of the inspection requested information comparing the AD. The investigative team conducted a procedure in the appendix to the NPRM. failures in the 1987 and 1993 accidents second high frequency eddy current The FAA developed a flow chart that with the failure of N106ER (the accident inspection, in the development of the may assist operators in complying with that prompted this AD). CASA this AD. The flow chart may be found specifically asked whether these wing 2 Report No. 87–89 is available in the NTSB at https://www.regulations.gov by spars failed at the same outer bolt hole searching for and locating Docket No. Docket for NTSB accident FTW87FA088 at https:// location. dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/ FAA–2018–1046. The FAA agrees to provide additional document.cfm?docID=475398&docketID The FAA is issuing this AD to address information. Both airplanes in question =62694&mkey=96975. the unsafe condition on these products. (N8191V, the 1987 accident; and 3 Report No. 93–34 is available in the NTSB Docket for NTSB accident NYC93FA140 at https:// Discussion of Final AD N2093A, the 1993 accident) experienced dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?doc ID=487590&docketID=4323&mkey=38586. Comments 1 The supporting materials for NTSB accident 4 The NTSB Aviation Accident Final Report for The FAA received comments on the NYC93FA140 are available in the NTSB Docket at NTSB accident NYC93FA140 is available on the https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist NTSB’s website at https://app.ntsb.gov/ SNPRM from 42 commenters. The .cfm?docketID=4323&CFID=1643539&CFTOKEN= pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID majority of the commenters were 74133c21c3cf3d72-C9941D08-5056-942C-92883 =20001211X13212&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType individuals. The remaining commenters A7C17DB9FF3. =FA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3771

inspection procedures required by the FAA’s basis for issuing an AD. These load cases that exceed 94 percent of the AD, with the wings removed, which commenters asserted that, based on the baseline Model PA–28R–201. Several detected a crack. The team conducted NTSB’s findings, the operator’s failure models had individual load cases an additional high frequency eddy to follow existing maintenance exceeding 100 percent of the baseline current inspection after reinstalling the requirements was responsible for the value. wings to validate the inspection process, accident involving N106ER. The FAA partially agrees with the which confirmed the presence of a The FAA disagrees that the NTSB’s comments regarding the similarity crack.5 investigation invalidates the FAA’s between the Model PA–28–151 and the Another commenter requested basis for issuing this AD. The spar Model PA–28–161. In determining information on the methodology used surface is not visually accessible during pertinent load cases, the FAA used by the FAA for identifying specific wing routine inspections required by existing factors such as maximum gross takeoff loads, the applied stress locations, and maintenance requirements, because the weight and maximum cruise speed in their influence on fatigue life, and the lower spar cap is obscured by the combination with structural rationale for selecting those aircraft installation of the web doubler on the considerations. In the SNPRM, the FAA within 95 percent of the baseline load upper surface and the wing skin on the proposed to remove Model PA–28–161 case for the applicability. lower surface. Therefore, a well- from the applicability based on initial The FAA agrees to provide the developed crack may only be visually load calculations based on a maximum requested information. The detected after the spar crack progresses gross takeoff weight of 2,240 lbs. methodology used by the FAA for into the doubler. The claim that an Additional analysis indicated that the identifying specific wing loads for gust, operator may fail to detect a crack that maximum gross takeoff weight is not maneuvering, and landing loads comes had progressed to an extent that caused uniform among all Model PA–28–161 from 14 CFR part 23 (Amdt 63) Subpart cracking in the overlying web doubler variants, and that some variants are C-Structure and Advisory Circular 23– only serves to reinforce the need for certificated to a maximum gross takeoff 13A Fatigue, Fail-Safe, and Damage detecting fatigue cracks in the spar weight that brings the gust damage Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic before they reach a critical nature. factor load case to above 94 percent of Structure for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, the baseline. Accordingly, this AD D. Comments Regarding Applicability and Commuter Category Airplanes. applies to the Model PA–28–161. A subsequent analysis calculated Piper, AOPA, EAA, and several The FAA disagrees with removing the damage factors using variables for each individual commenters requested the Model PA–32R–300 and certain Model of the various PA–28/32 models. The FAA revise the applicability of the AD PA–32–300 airplanes from the variables include maximum design because it is still too broad and includes applicability based on wing weight (Wmax), maximum design models not representative of the construction. cruising speed (Vcmax), spar cross section accident airplane. Although the FAA acknowledges the properties, and spanwise center of EAA requested the FAA ensure that differing wing structures among some pressure location for each loading only the appropriate aircraft, in general, models, that structure was taken into category mentioned above. The results are subject to the AD. Piper and AOPA consideration during loads analysis in for each model/load category are asserted that the AD should not include terms of inertia calculations for the each divided by the PA–28R–201 (accident Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, PA– cross section. aircraft model) results. Any model with 32R–300, and PA–32RT–300T airplanes. E. Comments Regarding the Compliance a damage factor ratio greater than 0.94 In support, Piper stated that the PA–28– Time is included in the effectivity of this AD. 151, PA–28–181, and PA–32R–300 The 0.94 factor cutoff was arrived at models have ‘‘stress per g’’ An individual commenter expressed by observing a natural break in the measurements that do not meet the 95 concern that the FAA’s factored service resulting damage factor numbers and percent threshold established by the hours did not align with the compliance the Palmgren–Miner linear damage FAA for comparison to the accident time in Piper SB No. 1345. The hypothesis or Miner’s Rule. This theory airplane. CASA and eight individual commenter stated that Piper’s shows that a linear decrease in stress commenters questioned why the compliance time of 5,000 hours TIS is (damage factor in this case) results in an proposed AD applies to the Model PA– simpler and a more conservative exponential increase in fatigue life. The 28–151 when that model is structurally approach to safety. FAA believes this level of risk is similar to the Model PA–28–161, which The FAA partially agrees. While using appropriate for the purpose of this one- the FAA proposed to remove from the hours TIS is a simpler approach, it time inspection. The applied stress applicability in the SNPRM. Two would create the possibility of requiring location is at the lower spar cap individual commenters requested the an unnecessary inspection long before attachment to the fuselage carry through AD apply to the Model PA–28–161, any fatigue crack might be expected to channel, outboard row of fasteners. This because of the longer wing structure. form. The FAA established 5,000 is the location of the fatigue failure on Piper and three individual commenters factored service hours as a method of the accident airplane. stated the PA–32R–300 and certain PA– delaying or eliminating inspection 32–300 models do not share the same requirements for many personal use, C. Comments Regarding the FAA’s wing construction and installation lower risk airplanes. This AD will Justification of the Unsafe Condition details as the accident airplane model. require an inspection within 100 hours Piper and GAMA requested the AD be The FAA disagrees with removing TIS after reaching 5,000 factored service withdrawn because the completed Models PA–28–151, PA–28–181, and hours. NTSB investigation invalidates the PA–32R–300 from the applicability of Another commenter requested the the AD. The FAA used the following FAA determine the compliance time 5 The supporting materials for NTSB accident load cases, provided by Piper, for based on an estimate of the number of ERA18FA120 are available in the NTSB Docket at comparison to the accident airplane: airplanes that will need to be inspected https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist .cfm?docketID=62694&CFID=95094&CFTOKEN= Gust damage factor, maneuver damage and the number of qualified eddy b616b3892cb482f1-5B544A63-5056-942C-92C71C2 factor, and landing damage factor. The current inspectors, to allow sufficient E6BFF1D97. included models each had one or more time for all airplanes in the fleet to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3772 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

inspected. The commenter stated it is models in the AD. Another individual The FAA partially agrees. Piper unacceptable for airplanes to be commenter asked why the AD only provided the FAA with cold working grounded for a significant amount of incorporates part of the instructions in data in support of a proposed repair and time because of an insufficient number Piper SB No. 1345. fatigue mitigation process for the wing of eddy current inspectors or The FAA’s regulations specify that spars. Cold working has been equipment. when there is a conflict between an AD considered and may be investigated The FAA disagrees that a change to and a service document incorporated by further should the inspection reports the compliance time is necessary. The reference in the AD, operators must received as a result of this AD indicate FAA anticipates that less than 50 follow the requirements of the AD. See that such action is required. percent of applicable airplanes will 14 CFR 39.27. Since this AD differs from One individual commenter suggested have accumulated the 5,000 TIS Piper SB No. 1345, as described in the using different washers, adjusting the necessary for the logbook review. The Differences Between this AD and the bolt torque to the lowest value of the FAA also anticipates that the majority of Service Information section, the AD acceptable range, and installing a those airplanes will not need an only requires the inspection method doubler plate to alleviate stress inspection after the logbook review. portion of Piper SB No. 1345. concentrations. Calculating the number of qualified and The FAA disagrees. Load transfer into Requests for Different Inspection available eddy current inspectors would the spar cap does not rely on a washer Methods be too speculative, as it is largely based to help evenly transfer the load. A larger on current demand. An individual commenter suggested washer would not lower the stress One commenter requested that the guided wave technology as a better, less concentration as the critical geometry is FAA convert the AD into an emergency intrusive, and less expensive inspection the fastener diameter and the edge AD so that data from the inspections can method. Another individual commenter distance associated with the diameter, be collected as soon as possible. suggested using dye penetrant not the washer size. Staying within the Considering the number of known inspection without bolt removal as a torque values for the bolt will not failures, the severity of the outcome, less aggressive method for early alleviate the loading in the bolt enough and number of cracks detected during detection, even if it meant more to decrease the stress concentration and the investigation, the FAA determined frequent inspections. could lead to further issues such as the that an emergency AD was not The FAA disagrees. The FAA, Piper, bolt being under torqued, which would necessary. The FAA did not change this and the NTSB considered several worsen the fatigue life. A doubler repair AD based on these comments. inspection options. Guided wave is not has been considered and may be a preferred method for this AD due to investigated further should the F. Comments Regarding the accessibility issues and the need to Requirements Proposed in the SNPRM inspection reports received as a result of detect longitudinal, as opposed to this AD indicate that such action is Request To Allow Replacement of the circumferential, cracks. To be detectable Spar With a Used Spar required. using a dye penetrant or fluorescent An additional individual commenter The Piper Flying Association and four penetrant method, a crack that initiated asked if changing the outer holes to the individual commenters requested the at a wing spar attach bolt hole would next smaller size would result in a more FAA change the proposed requirement have had to propagate through the web favorable stress distribution. to install a new (zero hours TIS) spar if doubler and beyond the perimeter of the The FAA disagrees. While a smaller cracks were detected. These washer(s). A crack of that size would hole may decrease the load in the commenters stated that any spar that have already dangerously compromised fastener, the gain is offset by the has passed the eddy current inspection the strength of the spar cap. increase in stress concentration. is an airworthy spar and should be The FAA did not change this AD The FAA has not changed the AD allowed as a replacement spar. Two of based on these comments. based on these comments. the commenters noted that the Requests for Different Repair Options unavailability of new spars would Request for Safe Life effectively ground aircraft that fail the An individual commenter observed An individual commenter suggested eddy current inspection. that if one wing indicates fatigue cracks, establishing a life limit as a solution The FAA agrees and has revised this then replacing both wings may be based on a comparison of any safe life AD to allow the installation of a used warranted, since the opposite wing analysis conducted by Piper with the (more than zero hours TIS) wing spar would have experienced the same usage known fatigue failures. that has passed the eddy current history. The FAA partially agrees. Fatigue safe inspection. The FAA partially agrees. Fatigue life has been considered and may be An individual commenter requested cracking in one wing would warrant an pursued as an option should the the FAA compel Piper to restore increased level of concern for the inspection reports received as a result of availability of replacement parts. opposite wing. However, the FAA this AD indicate that further action is The FAA disagrees. As a federal determined that replacement of both required. Because this AD is interim in agency, the FAA is responsible for all wings is not required when only one nature and intended to gather fleet directives, policies, and mandates wing has failed the inspection. Certain condition data based on these issued under its authority. The FAA factors that can accelerate the initiation comparisons, this AD does not contain does not have the authority to require a of a fatigue crack on one wing may not repetitive or terminating actions. manufacturer to produce new parts. be present on the opposite wing (for The FAA did not make any changes example, prior damage from operations to this AD based on this comment. Requests for Information About the or maintenance). Service Bulletin Another individual commenter Request To Revise the Reporting An individual commenter asked how requested the FAA consider a cold Information operators can record compliance with working process (split sleeve cold Piper requested the FAA revise the the AD when the required service expansion) on the bolt holes to inspection results form to include bulletin does not apply to all of the minimize future fatigue cracking. Piper’s mailing address.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3773

The FAA agrees and has added The FAA determined those airplanes are inspection times based on the aircraft’s Piper’s mailing address to the not subject to the unsafe condition usage and visually inspecting the wing inspection results form. addressed by this AD. The FAA also lower spar caps and the upper wing skin added language to clarify the procedures adjacent to the fuselage and forward of G. Comments Previously Addressed in for when a wing is not installed on the each main spar for cracks. The FAA also the SNPRM airplane and clarified some of the reviewed Piper Service Letter No. 997, AOPA, EAA, and several individuals language in the examples and figures. dated May 14, 1987, which contains submitted comments that were procedures for replacing airplane wings. substantially the same as comments the Conclusion FAA received on the NPRM. These The FAA reviewed the relevant data, Differences Between This AD and the comments pertain to issues such as the considered any comments received, and Service Information FAA’s decision to issue the AD as determined that air safety requires Piper SB No. 1345 specifies doing the interim action, whether the FAA should adopting this AD as proposed. eddy current inspection upon reaching issue a special airworthiness Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD 5,000 hours TIS; however, this AD information bulletin or airworthiness to address the unsafe condition on these requires using the factored service hours concern sheet instead of an AD, how the products. Except for minor editorial to identify the airplanes at the highest FAA determined the AD applicability, changes and the changes described risk of developing fatigue cracks. Piper whether the FAA should issue this AD previously, this AD is adopted as SB No. 1345 also specifies using its considering the cost and risk associated proposed in the SNPRM. None of the feedback form to report the eddy current with the removal and reinstallation of changes will increase the economic inspection results, but this AD requires the airplane wings/bolts, alternatives for burden on any operator. the use of a different form attached as instances where maintenance records Related Service Information Under 1 appendix 1. were missing or incomplete, how to CFR Part 51 count 100-hour inspections, the FAA’s Interim Action hourly labor rate, the estimated number The FAA reviewed Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020 The FAA considers this AD to be an of hours for the eddy current inspection, interim action. The inspection reports and indirect costs. The FAA previously (Piper SB No. 1345). This service bulletin specifies procedures for doing will provide the FAA additional data for addressed each of these comments in determining the number of cracks the SNPRM. an eddy current inspection and instructions to report the results of the present in the fleet. After analyzing the H. Out of Scope Comments inspection to Piper and to replace the data, the FAA may take further The FAA also received and reviewed wing, wing spar, or spar section as rulemaking action. a few comments that stated the necessary. This service information is Costs of Compliance commenter’s viewpoint without a reasonably available because the suggestion specific to the AD or interested parties have access to it The FAA estimates that this AD otherwise did not make a request the through their normal course of business affects 5,440 airplanes of U.S. registry. FAA can act on. These comments are or by the means identified in the There are 10,881 airplanes of U.S. outside the scope of this AD. ADDRESSES section. registry with a model and serial number shown in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this Other Changes to the Final AD Other Related Service Information AD. Based on a sample survey, the FAA The FAA removed two serial- The FAA reviewed Piper Service estimates that 50 percent of those U.S.- numbered airplanes from the Bulletin No. 886, dated June 8, 1988; registered airplanes will have reached applicability that were included in the and Piper Service Bulletin SB 978A, the qualifying 5,000 hours TIS necessary SNPRM because those airplanes were dated August 6, 1999. These service to do the required logbook review. previously inspected using the current bulletins contain procedures for The FAA estimates the following procedures and witnessed by the FAA. determining initial and repetitive costs to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators

Review airplane maintenance records and 3 work-hours × $85 per hour Not applicable ...... $255 $1,387,200 calculate factored service hours. = $255.

The FAA estimates the following non-commercially and will not the FAA has no way of determining the costs to do the eddy current inspection. accumulate the specified factored number of airplanes that might need Because some airplanes are only used service hours in the life of the airplane, this inspection:

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Gain access to the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ...... $20 190 inspection areas. Do eddy current inspections of the LH and RH lower 1 work-hour contracted service × $600 = $600 ...... N/A 600 main wing spar. Restore aircraft ...... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ...... N/A 170

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3774 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

ON-CONDITION COSTS—Continued

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Report inspection results to the FAA and Piper Air- 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... N/A 85 craft, Inc.

The FAA estimates the following results of the inspection. The agency has aircraft that might need this costs to do any necessary replacements no way of determining the number of replacement: that would be required based on the

ON-CONDITION REPLACEMENT COSTS

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Replace main wing spar ...... 80 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,800 per $5,540 $12,340 per wing spar. wing spar.

Paperwork Reduction Act that section, Congress charges the FAA PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS A federal agency may not conduct or with promoting safe flight of civil DIRECTIVES sponsor, and a person is not required to aircraft in air commerce by prescribing respond to, nor shall a person be subject regulations for practices, methods, and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 to a penalty for failure to comply with procedures the Administrator finds continues to read as follows: necessary for safety in air commerce. a collection of information subject to the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. requirements of the Paperwork This regulation is within the scope of Reduction Act unless that collection of that authority because it addresses an § 39.13 [Amended] information displays a currently valid unsafe condition that is likely to exist or OMB Control Number. The OMB develop on products identified in this ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Control Number for this information rulemaking action. the following new airworthiness collection is 2120–0056. Public Regulatory Findings directive: reporting for this collection of This AD will not have federalism 2020–26–16 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: information is estimated to take implications under Executive Order Amendment 39–21371; Docket No. approximately 1 hour per response, 13132. This AD will not have a FAA–2018–1046; Product Identifier including the time for reviewing substantial direct effect on the States, on 2018–CE–049–AD. instructions, searching existing data the relationship between the national sources, gathering and maintaining the (a) Effective Date government and the States, or on the data needed, and completing and This airworthiness directive (AD) is distribution of power and reviewing the collection of information. effective February 16, 2021. responsibilities among the various All responses to this collection of levels of government. (b) Affected ADs information are mandatory. Send For the reasons discussed above, I None. comments regarding this burden certify that this AD: estimate or any other aspect of this (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (c) Applicability collection of information, including action’’ under Executive Order 12866, This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. suggestions for reducing this burden to: (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation (Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category, Information Collection Clearance in Alaska to the extent that it justifies with a model and serial number shown in Officer, Federal Aviation making a regulatory distinction, and table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, and that Administration, 10101 Hillwood (3) Will not have a significant meet at least one of the criteria in paragraphs Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. economic impact, positive or negative, (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking on a substantial number of small entities Note 1 to the introductory text of under the criteria of the Regulatory paragraph (c): An owner/operator with at Title 49 of the United States Code Flexibility Act. least a private pilot certificate may do the specifies the FAA’s authority to issue aircraft maintenance records review to rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 determine the applicability as specified in section 106, describes the authority of Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation paragraph (c) of this AD. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: safety, Incorporation by reference, (1) Has accumulated 5,000 or more hours Aviation Programs, describes in more Safety. time-in-service (TIS); or detail the scope of the Agency’s (2) Has had either main wing spar replaced authority. The Amendment with a serviceable (more than zero hours TIS) The FAA is issuing this rulemaking Accordingly, under the authority main wing spar; or under the authority described in delegated to me by the Administrator, (3) Has missing and/or incomplete Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as maintenance records. 44701: General requirements. Under follows: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3775

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C (g) Definitions as in-flight training environments, even if the inspection was entered in the maintenance (d) Subject (1) ‘‘TIS’’ has the same meaning as the definition of ‘‘time in service’’ in 14 CFR records as an ‘‘annual’’ inspection or as an Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) ‘‘annual/100-hour’’ inspection. If the purpose 1.1. Code 5711, Wing Spar. of an inspection was to comply with (2) For purposes of this AD, ‘‘factored § 91.409(b), then it must be counted. To (e) Unsafe Condition service hours’’ refers to the calculated determine the purpose of an inspection, note quantity of hours using the formula in This AD was prompted by a report of a the repeating intervals between inspections, paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, which accounts i.e., less than 10 months between, and wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in for the usage history of the airplane. a visually inaccessible area of the main wing typically 90–110 flight hours. An inspection entered as a ‘‘100-hour’’ inspection but done lower spar cap. The FAA is issuing this AD (h) Review Airplane Maintenance Records solely for the purpose of meeting the to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the and Calculate Factored Service Hours for Each Main Wing Spar requirement to complete an annual lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The inspection, or those otherwise not required unsafe condition, if not addressed, could (1) Within 30 days after the effective date by § 91.409(b), need not be counted. For result in the wing separating from the of this AD, review the airplane maintenance operators utilizing a progressive inspection fuselage in flight. records and determine the number of 100- program, count the completion of each hour inspections completed on the airplane § 91.409(b) 100-hour interval as one (f) Compliance since new and any record of wing spar inspection. Comply with this AD within the replacement(s). (ii) If a main wing spar has been replaced compliance times specified, unless already (i) For purposes of this review, count any with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar, done. inspection conducted to comply with the count the number of 100-hour inspections 100-hour requirement of 14 CFR 91.409(b) from the time of installation of the new main pertaining to carrying persons for hire, such wing spar.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 ER15JA21.014 3776 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) If a main wing spar has been replaced private pilot certificate and must be entered main wing spar using the formula in figure with a serviceable main wing spar (more than into the aircraft records showing compliance 1 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, zero hours TIS) or the airplane maintenance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR after each annual inspection and 100-hour records are missing or incomplete, the wing 43.9(a)(1) through (4), and 14 CFR inspection, recalculate/update the factored history cannot be determined. Perform the 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be service hours for each main wing spar until eddy current inspection as specified in maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, the main wing spar has accumulated 5,000 or paragraph (i) of this AD. 121.380, or 135.439. (iv) The actions required by paragraph (2) Before further flight after completing more factored service hours. (h)(1) of this AD may be performed by the the action in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a calculate the factored service hours for each

(3) An example of determining factored the annual inspections were done for example in figure 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this service hours for an airplane with no 100- purposes of compliance with § 91.409(b). AD), the eddy current inspection would not hour inspections is as follows: The airplane Both main wing spars are original factory be required because the factored service maintenance records show that the airplane installed. In this case, N = 0 and T = 12,100. hours are less than 5,000 hours. has a total of 12,100 hours TIS, and only Use those values in the formula as shown in annual inspections have been done. None of figure 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. In the

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C airplane has a total of 10,600 hours TIS, and multiplying (N × 100). Next, subtract that (4) An example of determining factored fifty-five 100-hour inspections for purposes time from the total time, and divide that service hours for an airplane with both 100- of compliance with § 91.409(b) have been quantity by 17. Add the two quantities to hour and annual inspections is as follows: done. Both main wing spars are original determine total factored service hours. In the The airplane was originally flown for factory installed. In this case, N = 55 and T example in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(4) of this personal use, then for training for a period of = 10,600. Use those values in the formula AD), the eddy current inspection would be time, then returned to personal use. The shown in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(4) of this required because the factored service hours airplane maintenance records show that the AD. First, calculate commercial use time by are more than 5,000 hours.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 ER15JA21.015 ER15JA21.016 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3777

(i) Eddy Current Inspect (k) Install New Bolts information, including suggestions for Within the compliance time specified in Before further flight after completing the reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this AD, as actions required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, install new bolts by following step 6 of Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood applicable, eddy current inspect the inner Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. surface of the two lower outboard bolt holes Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1345, on the lower main wing spar cap for cracks. dated March 27, 2020. (o) Alternative Methods of Compliance If the wing is installed, use steps 1 through (l) Report Inspection Results (AMOCs) 3 or, if the wing is not installed, use step 3 Within 30 days after completing an (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, in the Instructions of Piper Aircraft, Inc. inspection required by paragraph (i) of this FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, AD, using Appendix 1, ‘‘Inspection Results for this AD, if requested using the procedures 2020 (Piper SB No. 1345). Although Piper SB Form,’’ of this AD, report the inspection found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with No. 1345 specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level results to the FAA at the Atlanta ACO Branch 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards III certification to perform the inspection, and to Piper Aircraft. Submit the report to the District Office, as appropriate. If sending FAA and Piper using the contact information this AD allows Level II or Level III information directly to the manager of the found on the form in appendix 1 of this AD. qualification standards for inspection certification office, send it to the attention of personnel using any inspector criteria (m) Special Flight Permit the person identified in paragraph (p) of this approved by the FAA. AD. A special flight permit may only be issued Note 2 to the introductory text of (2) Before using any approved AMOC, to operate the airplane to a location where paragraph (i): Advisory Circular 65–31B notify your appropriate principal inspector, the inspection requirement of paragraph (i) of or lacking a principal inspector, the manager contains FAA-approved Level II and Level III this AD can be performed. This AD prohibits qualification standards criteria for inspection of the local flight standards district office/ a special flight permit if the inspection certificate holding district office. personnel doing nondestructive test (NDT) reveals a crack in a main wing spar. inspections. (p) Related Information (1) Within 100 hours TIS after complying (n) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement For more information about this AD, with paragraph (h) of this AD or within 100 contact Dan McCully, Aviation Safety hours TIS after a main wing spar accumulates A federal agency may not conduct or Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 5,000 factored service hours, whichever sponsor, and a person is not required to Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia occurs later; or respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax: (404) (2) For airplanes with an unknown number a penalty for failure to comply with a 474–5605; email: [email protected]. of factored service hours on a main wing collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction (q) Material Incorporated by Reference spar, within the next 100 hours TIS after the Act unless that collection of information effective date of this AD or within 60 days (1) The Director of the Federal Register displays a currently valid OMB Control after the effective date of this AD, whichever approved the incorporation by reference of Number. The OMB Control Number for this the service information listed in this occurs later. information collection is 2120–0056. Public paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR (j) Replace the Main Wing Spar reporting for this collection of information is part 51. estimated to be approximately 1 hour per (2) You must use this service information If a crack is found during an inspection response, including the time for reviewing as applicable to do the actions required by required by paragraph (i) of this AD, before instructions, searching existing data sources, this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. further flight, replace the main wing spar gathering and maintaining the data needed, (i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar completing and reviewing the collection of March 27, 2020. or with a serviceable (more than zero hours information. All responses to this collection (ii) [Reserved] TIS) main wing spar that has passed the eddy of information are mandatory. Send (3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service current inspection required by paragraph (i) comments regarding this burden estimate or information identified in this AD, contact of this AD. any other aspect of this collection of Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 ER15JA21.017 3778 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Beach, Florida 32960; phone: (772) 567– on the availability of this material at the the availability of this material at NARA, 4361; website: https://www.piper.com. FAA, call (816) 329–4148. email: [email protected], or go to: (4) You may view this service information (5) You may view this service information https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, that is incorporated by reference at the ibr-locations.html. Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, National Archives and Records Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information Administration (NARA). For information on BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3779

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 ER15JA21.018 3780 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Issued on December 30, 2020. Authority for This Rulemaking This action is due to an airspace Gaetano A. Sciortino, The FAA’s authority to issue rules review caused by the decommissioning Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, regarding aviation safety is found in of the Elkhart NDB which provided Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Title 49 of the United States Code. navigational information to the Aircraft Certification Service. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the instrument procedures at this airport. [FR Doc. 2021–00044 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] authority of the FAA Administrator. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace BILLING CODE 4910–13–C Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Designations and Reporting Points, is describes in more detail the scope of the published yearly and effective on agency’s authority. This rulemaking is September 15. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION promulgated under the authority Regulatory Notices and Analyses described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Federal Aviation Administration Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that The FAA has determined that this section, the FAA is charged with regulation only involves an established 14 CFR Part 71 prescribing regulations to assign the use body of technical regulations for which of airspace necessary to ensure the frequent and routine amendments are [Docket No. FAA–2020–0887; Airspace safety of aircraft and the efficient use of necessary to keep them operationally Docket No. 20–ACE–22] airspace. This regulation is within the current, is non-controversial and scope of that authority as it amends the unlikely to result in adverse or negative RIN 2120–AA66 Class E airspace extending upward from comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 700 feet above the surface at Elkhart- ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Amendment Class E Airspace; Elkhart, Morton County Airport, Elkhart, KS, to Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a KS support instrument flight rule ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT operations at this airport. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) History Administration (FAA), DOT. does not warrant preparation of a ACTION: Final rule. The FAA published a notice of regulatory evaluation as the anticipated proposed rulemaking in the Federal impact is so minimal. Since this is a SUMMARY: This action amends the Class Register (85 FR 67325; October 22, routine matter that only affects air traffic E airspace extending upward from 700 2020) for Docket No. FAA–2020–0887 to procedures and air navigation, it is feet above the surface at Elkhart-Morton amend the Class E airspace extending certified that this rule, when County Airport, Elkhart, KS. This action upward from 700 feet above the surface promulgated, does not have a significant is the result of an airspace review at Elkhart-Morton County Airport, economic impact on a substantial caused by the decommissioning of the Elkhart, KS. Interested parties were number of small entities under the Elkhart non-directional beacon (NDB). invited to participate in this rulemaking criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. effort by submitting written comments DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 22, Environmental Review 2021. The Director of the Federal on the proposal to the FAA. No Register approves this incorporation by comments were received. The FAA has determined that this Class E airspace designations are reference action under Title 1 Code of action qualifies for categorical exclusion published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Federal Regulations part 51, subject to under the National Environmental Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, the annual revision of FAA Order Policy Act in accordance with FAA and effective September 15, 2020, which 7400.11 and publication of conforming Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR amendments. Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 71.1. The Class E airspace designations paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, listed in this document will be is not expected to cause any potentially Airspace Designations and Reporting published subsequently in the Order. Points, and subsequent amendments can significant environmental impacts, and be viewed online at https:// Availability and Summary of no extraordinary circumstances exist www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. Documents for Incorporation by that warrant preparation of an For further information, you can contact Reference environmental assessment. the Airspace Policy Group, Federal This document amends FAA Order Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Aviation Administration, 800 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, Airspace, Incorporation by reference, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Navigation (air). The Order is also available for Order 7400.11E is publicly available as Adoption of the Amendment inspection at the National Archives and listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Records Administration (NARA). For document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists In consideration of the foregoing, the information on the availability of FAA Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: air traffic service routes, and reporting amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: [email protected] or go to https:// points. PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ The Rule B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR ibr-locations.html. This amendment to Title 14 Code of TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 REPORTING POINTS Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation amends the Class E airspace extending Administration, Operations Support upward from 700 feet above the surface ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 Group, Central Service Center, 10101 at Elkhart-Morton County Airport, continues to read as follows: Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX Elkhart, KS, by removing the Elkhart 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, NDB an associated extensions from the 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: airspace legal description. 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1