Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft Corporation Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P Airplanes

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97-CE-60-AD; Amendment 39-10338; AD 98-04-26]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft Corporation

Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to The New Piper Aircraft Corporation Models PA-46-310P and PA-

46-350P airplanes. This action requires revising the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to specify procedures that would prohibit

flight in severe icing conditions (as determined by certain visual

cues), limit or prohibit the use of various flight control devices

while in severe icing conditions, and provide the flight crew with

recognition cues for, and procedures for exiting from, severe icing

conditions. This AD is prompted by the results of a review of the

requirements for certification of these airplanes in icing conditions,

new information on the icing environment, and icing data provided

currently to the flight crew. The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent minimize the potential hazards associated with

operating these airplanes in severe icing conditions by providing more

clearly defined procedures and limitations associated with such

conditions.

DATES: Effective March 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-CE-60-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John P. Dow, Sr., Aerospace

Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, telephone (816)

425-6932, facsimile (816) 426-2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to The New Piper

Aircraft Corporation Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48542).

The action proposed to require revising the Limitations Section of the

FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to specify procedures that

would:

Require flight crews to immediately request priority

handling from Air Traffic Control to exit severe icing conditions (as

determined by certain visual cues);

Prohibit flight in severe icing conditions (as determined

by certain visual cues);

Prohibit use of the autopilot when ice is formed aft of

the protected surfaces of the wing, or when an unusual lateral trim

condition exists; and

Require that all icing wing inspection lights be operative

prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.

That action also proposed to require revising the Normal Procedures

Section of the FAA-approved AFM to specify procedures that would:

Limit the use of the flaps and prohibit the use of the

autopilot when ice is observed forming aft of the protected surfaces of

the wing, or if unusual lateral trim requirements or autopilot trim

warnings are encountered; and

Provide the flight crew with recognition cues for, and

procedures for exiting from, severe icing conditions.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate

in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to

the following comments received.

In addition to the proposed rule described previously, in September

1997, the FAA issued 24 other similar proposals that address the

subject unsafe condition on various airplane models (see below for a

listing of all 24 proposed rules). These 24 proposals also were

published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1997. This final

rule contains the FAA's responses to all public comments received for

each of these proposed rules.

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

Manufacturer/airplane Federal Register

Docket No. model citation

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

97-CE-49-AD............... Aerospace 62 FR 48520

Technologies of

Australia, Models

N22B and N24A.

97-CE-50-AD............... Harbin Aircraft Mfg. 62 FR 48513

Corporation, Model

Y12 IV.

97-CE-51-AD............... Partenavia 62 FR 48524

Costruzioni

Aeronauticas,

S.p.A., Models P68,

AP68TP 300, AP68TP

600.

97-CE-52-AD............... Industrie 62 FR 48502

Aeronautiche

Meccaniche Rinaldo

Piaggio S.p.A.,

Model P-180.

97-CE-53-AD............... Pilatus Aircraft 62 FR 48499

Ltd., Models PC-12

and PC-12/45.

97-CE-54-AD............... Pilatus Britten- 62 FR 48538

Norman Ltd., Models

BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-

2T.

97-CE-55-AD............... SOCATA--Groupe 62 FR 48506

Aerospatiale, Model

TBM-700.

97-CE-56-AD............... Aerostar Aircraft 62 FR 48481

Corporation, Models

PA-60-600, -601, -

601P, -602P, and -

700P.

97-CE-57-AD............... Twin Commander 62 FR 48549

Aircraft

Corporation, Models

500, -500-A, -500-B,

-500-S, -500-U, -

520, -560, -560-A, -

560-E, -560-F, -680,

-680-E, -680FL(P), -

680T, -680V, -680W, -

681, -685, -690, -

690A, -690B, -690C, -

690D, -695, -695A, -

695B, and 720.

97-CE-58-AD............... Raytheon Aircraft 62 FR 48517

Company, Models E55,

E55A, 58, 58A, 58P,

58PA, 58TC, 58TCA,

60 series, 65-B80

series, 65-B90

series, 90 series,

F90 series, 100

series, 300 series,

and B300 series.

97-CE-59-AD............... Raytheon Aircraft 62 FR 48531

Company, Model 2000.

97-CE-60-AD............... The New Piper 62 FR 48542

Aircraft

Corporation, Models

PA-46-310P and PA-46-

350P.

97-CE-61-AD............... The New Piper

Aircraft

Corporation, Models

PA-23, PA-23-160, PA-

23-235, PA-23-250,

PA-E23-250, PA-30,

PA-39, PA-40, PA-31,

PA-31-300, PA-31-

325, PA-31-350, PA-

34-200, PA-34-200T,

PA-34-220T, PA-42,

PA-42-720, PA-42-

1000.

97-CE-62-AD............... Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48535

Company, Models

P210N, T210N, P210R,

and 337 series.

97-CE-63-AD............... Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48528

Company, Models

T303, 310R, T310R,

335, 340A, 402B,

402C, 404, F406,

414, 414A, 421B,

421C, 425, and 441.

97-CE-64-AD............... SIAI-Marchetti 62 FR 48510

S.r.I., (Augusta)

Models SF600 and

SF600A.

[[Page 7653]]

97-NM-170-AD.............. Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48560

Company, Models 500,

501, 550, 551, and

560 series.

97-NM-171-AD.............. Sabreliner 62 FR 48556

Corporation, Models

40, 60, 70, and 80

series.

97-NM-172-AD.............. Gulfstream Aerospace, 62 FR 48563

Model G-159 series.

97-NM-173-AD.............. McDonnell Douglas, 62 FR 48553

Models DC-3 and DC-4

series.

97-NM-174-AD.............. Mitsubishi Heavy 62 FR 48567

Industries, Model YS-

11 and YS-11A series.

97-NM-175-AD.............. Frakes Aviation, 62 FR 48577

Model G-73 (Mallard)

and G-73T series.

97-NM-176-AD.............. Fairchild Models F27 62 FR 48570

and FH227 series.

97-NM-177-AD.............. Lockheed L-14 and L- 62 FR 48574

18 series airplanes.

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

Comment 1. Unsubstantiated Unsafe Condition for This Model

One commenter suggests that the AD's were developed in response to

a suspected contributing factor of an accident involving an airplane

type unrelated to the airplanes specified in the proposal. The

commenter states that these proposals do not justify that an unsafe

condition exists or could develop in a product of the same type design.

Therefore, the commenter asserts that the proposal does not meet the

criteria for the issuance of an AD as specified 14 CFR part 39

(Airworthiness Directives) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

The FAA does not concur. As stated in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA has identified an unsafe condition

associated with operating the airplane in severe icing conditions. As

stated in the preamble to the proposal, the FAA has not required that

airplanes be shown to be capable of operating safely in icing

conditions outside the certification envelope specified in Appendix C

of part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25). This

means that any time an airplane is flown in icing conditions for which

it is not certificated, there is a potential for an unsafe condition to

exist or develop and the flight crew must take steps to exit those

conditions expeditiously. Further, the FAA has determined that flight

crews are not currently provided with adequate information necessary to

determine when an airplane is operating in icing conditions for which

it is not certificated or what action to take when such conditions are

encountered. The absence of this information presents an unsafe

condition because without that information, a pilot may remain in

potentially hazardous icing conditions. This AD addresses the unsafe

condition by requiring AFM revisions that provide the flight crews with

visual cues to determine when icing conditions have been encountered

for which the airplane is not certificated, and by providing procedures

to safely exit those conditions.

Further, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the FAA discussed

the investigation of roll control anomalies to explain that this

investigation was not a complete certification program. The testing was

designed to examine only the roll handling characteristics of the

airplane in certain droplets the size of freezing drizzle. The testing

was not a certification test to approve the airplane for flight into

freezing drizzle. The results of the tests were not used to determine

if this AD is necessary, but rather to determine if design changes were

needed to prevent a catastrophic roll upset. The roll control testing

and the AD are two unrelated actions.

Additionally, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the FAA

acknowledged that the flight crew of any airplane that is certificated

for flight in icing conditions may not have adequate information

concerning flight in icing conditions outside the icing envelope.

However, in 1996, the FAA found that the specified unsafe condition

must be addressed as a higher priority on airplanes equipped with

pneumatic deicing boots and unpowered roll control systems. These

airplanes were addressed first because the flight crew of an airplane

having an unpowered roll control system must rely solely on physical

strength to counteract roll control anomalies, whereas a roll control

anomaly that occurs on an airplane having a powered roll control system

need not be offset directly by the flight crew. The FAA also placed a

priority on airplanes that are used in regularly scheduled passenger

service. The FAA has previously issued AD's to address those airplanes.

Since the issuance of those AD's, the FAA has determined that similar

AD's should be issued for similarly equipped airplanes that are not

used in regularly scheduled passenger service.

Comment 2. AD Is Inappropriate To Address Improper Operation of the

Airplane

One commenter requests that the proposed AD be withdrawn because an

unsafe condition does not exist within the airplane. Rather, the

commenter asserts that the unsafe condition is the improper operation

of the airplane. The commenter further asserts that issuance of an AD

is an inappropriate method to address improper operation of the

airplane.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has determined that an unsafe

condition does exist as explained in the proposed notice and discussed

previously. As specifically addressed in Amendment 39-106 of part 39 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39), the responsibilities

placed on the FAA statute (49 U.S.C. 40101, formerly the Federal

Aviation Act) justify allowing AD's to be issued for unsafe conditions

however and wherever found, regardless of whether the unsafe condition

results from maintenance, design defect, or any other reason.

This same commenter considers part 91 (rather than part 39) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91) the appropriate

regulation to address the problems of icing encounters outside of the

limits for which the airplane is certificated. Therefore, the commenter

requests that the FAA withdraw the proposal.

The FAA does not concur. Service experience demonstrates that

flight in icing conditions that is outside the icing certification

envelope does occur. Apart from the visual cues provided in these final

rules, there is no existing method provided to the flight crews to

identify when the airplane is in a condition that exceeds the icing

certification envelope. Because this lack of awareness may create an

unsafe condition, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to

issue an AD to require a revision of the AFM to provide this

information.

One commenter asserts that while it is prudent to advise and

routinely remind the pilots about the hazards associated with flight

into known or forecast icing conditions, the commenter is opposed to

the use of an AD to accomplish that function. The commenter states that

pilots' initial and bi-annual flight checks are the appropriate

vehicles for advising the pilots of such hazards, and that such

information should be

[[Page 7654]]

integrated into the training syllabus for all pilot training.

The FAA does not concur that substituting advisory material and

mandatory training for issuance of an AD is appropriate. The FAA

acknowledges that, in addition to the issuance of an AD, information

specified in the revision to the AFM should be integrated into the

pilot training syllabus. However, the development and use of such

advisory materials and training alone are not adequate to address the

unsafe condition. The only method of ensuring that certain information

is available to the pilot is through incorporation of the information

into the Limitations Section of the AFM. The appropriate vehicle for

requiring such a revision of the AFM is issuance of an AD. No change is

necessary to the final rule.

Comment 3. Inadequate Visual Cues

One commenter provides qualified support for the AD. The commenter

notes that the recent proposals are identical to the AD's issued about

a year ago. Although the commenter supports the intent of the AD's as

being appropriate and necessary, the commenter states that it is

unfortunate that the flight crew is burdened with recognizing icing

conditions with visual cues that are inadequate to determine certain

icing conditions. The commenter points out that, for instance, side

window icing (a very specific visual cue) was determined to be a valid

visual cue during a series of icing tanker tests on a specific

airplane; however, later testing of other models of turboprop airplanes

revealed that side window icing was invalid as a visual cue for

identifying icing conditions outside the scope of Appendix C.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to provide

more specific visual cues. The FAA finds that the value of visual cues

has been substantiated during in-service experience. Additionally, the

FAA finds that the combined use of the generic cues provided and the

effect of the final rules in increasing the awareness of pilots

concerning the hazard of operating outside of the certification icing

envelope will provide an acceptable level of safety. Although all of

the cues may not be exhibited on a particular model, the FAA considers

that at least some of the cues will be exhibited on all of the models

affected by this AD. For example, some airplanes may not have side

window cues in freezing drizzle, but would exhibit other cues (such as

accumulation of ice aft of the protected area) under those conditions.

For these reasons, the FAA considers that no changes regarding visual

cues are necessary in the final rule. However, for those operators that

elect to identify airplane-specific visual cues, the FAA would consider

a request for approval of an alternative method of compliance, in

accordance with the provisions of this AD.

Comment 4. Request for Research and Use of Wing-Mounted Ice Detectors

One commenter requests that wing-mounted ice detectors, which

provide real-time icing severity information (or immediate feedback) to

flight crews, continue to be researched and used throughout the fleet.

The FAA infers from this commenter's request that the commenter asks

that installation of these ice detectors be mandated by the FAA.

While the FAA supports the development of such ice detectors, the

FAA does not concur that installation of these ice detectors should be

required at this time. Visual cues are adequate to provide an

acceptable level of safety; therefore, mandatory installation of ice

detector systems, in this case, is not necessary to address the unsafe

condition. Nevertheless, because such systems may improve the current

level of safety, the FAA has officially tasked the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC) to develop a recommendation concerning ice

detection. Once the ARAC has submitted its recommendation, the FAA may

consider further rulemaking action to require installation of such

equipment.

Comment 5. Particular Types of Icing

This same commenter also requests that additional information be

included in paragraph (a) of the AD that would specify particular types

of icing or particular accretions that result from operating in

freezing precipitation. The commenter asserts that this information is

of significant value to the flightcrew.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's suggestion to specify

types of icing or accretion. The FAA has determined that supercooled

large droplets (SLD) can result in rime ice, mixed (intermediate) ice,

and ice with glaze or clear appearance. Therefore, the FAA finds that

no type of icing can be excluded from consideration during operations

in freezing precipitation, and considers it unnecessary to cite those

types of icing in the AD.

Comment 6: Specific to Piper Airplanes

Commenter states that the NPRM states that the PA-46-310P aircraft

are manufactured in Australia. The manufacturer states that the

airplanes are manufactured in Vero Beach, which is in Florida, in the

United States, not Australia. The FAA concurs with the commenter and

will correct the error in the address of The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.

Further, the commenter adds that the limitations section of the

current pilot operating handbook (POH) meets the spirit and intent of

the proposed AD and renders the AD superfluous.

The FAA concurs that the POH contains some language that is used in

the proposed AD, but also notes that it does not meet the full intent

of the AD. Specifically, the POH does not address the hazards of

freezing drizzle, does not identify freezing drizzle as being outside

of the certification envelope, does not provide means for the pilot to

determine when the icing conditions are beyond the certification

envelope, nor does it provide information to the pilot of procedures to

employ when exiting the condition. In the case of the accident

precipitating this AD, the airplane was flown in conditions of freezing

drizzle. Thus, while the referenced POH does provide some valuable

information to the pilot, the information is incomplete in several

crucial areas.

If at the next POH revision, the commenter revises the POH to

incorporate all the essential elements of the AD and presents a request

to the FAA for its use as an alternate to the AD, the FAA will evaluate

it as an alternative means of compliance to the AD. This comment will

not result in a change to the final rule.

FAA Determination

After careful review of all available information related to the

subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for

minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor

corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any

additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 399 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 workhour per

airplane to accomplish this action, and that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Since an owner/operator who holds at least a

private pilot's certificate as authorized by sections 43.7 and 43.9 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7 and 43.9) can accomplish

this action, the only cost impact upon the public is the time it will

take the affected airplane

[[Page 7655]]

owners/operators to incorporate this AFM revision.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that

no operator has yet accomplished any of these requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator will accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

In addition, the FAA recognizes that this action may impose

operational costs. However, these costs are incalculable because the

frequency of occurrence of the specified conditions and the associated

additional flight time cannot be determined. Nevertheless, because of

the severity of the unsafe condition, the FAA has determined that

continued operational safety necessitates the imposition of the costs.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final

rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is

not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;

(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained

by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the

caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

98-04-26 The New Piper Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-10338;

Docket No. 97-CE-60-AD.

Applicability: Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes (all

serial numbers), certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of

this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of

the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to

address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless already accomplished.

To minimize the potential hazards associated with operating the

airplane in severe icing conditions by providing more clearly

defined procedures and limitations associated with such conditions,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this

AD.

Note 2: Operators should initiate action to notify and ensure

that flight crewmembers are apprised of this change.

(1) Revise the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by

incorporating the following into the Limitations Section of the AFM.

This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

``WARNING

Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of

those for which the airplane is certificated. Flight in freezing

rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled

liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on

protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection

system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces.

This ice may not be shed using the ice protection systems, and may

seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the

airplane.

During flight, severe icing conditions that exceed

those for which the airplane is certificated shall be determined by

the following visual cues. If one or more of these visual cues

exists, immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic

Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the

icing conditions.

--Unusually extensive ice accumulation on the airframe and

windshield in areas not normally observed to collect ice.

--Accumulation of ice on the upper surface of the wing aft of the

protected area.

Since the autopilot, when installed and operating, may

mask tactile cues that indicate adverse changes in handling

characteristics, use of the autopilot is prohibited when any of the

visual cues specified above exist, or when unusual lateral trim

requirements or autopilot trim warnings are encountered while the

airplane is in icing conditions.

All wing icing inspection lights must be operative

prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.

[NOTE: This supersedes any relief provided by the Master Minimum

Equipment List (MMEL).]''

(2) Revise the FAA-approved AFM by incorporating the following

into the Normal Procedures Section of the AFM. This may be

accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

``THE FOLLOWING WEATHER CONDITIONS MAY BE CONDUCIVE TO SEVERE IN-FLIGHT

ICING

Visible rain at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius

ambient air temperature.

Droplets that splash or splatter on impact at

temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius ambient air temperature.

PROCEDURES FOR EXITING THE SEVERE ICING ENVIRONMENT

These procedures are applicable to all flight phases from

takeoff to landing. Monitor the ambient air temperature. While

severe icing may form at temperatures as cold as -18 degrees

Celsius, increased vigilance is warranted at temperatures around

freezing with visible moisture present. If the visual cues specified

in the Limitations Section of the AFM for identifying severe icing

conditions are observed, accomplish the following:

Immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic

Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the

severe icing conditions in order to avoid extended exposure to

flight conditions more severe than those for which the airplane has

been certificated.

Avoid abrupt and excessive maneuvering that may

exacerbate control difficulties.

Do not engage the autopilot.

If the autopilot is engaged, hold the control wheel

firmly and disengage the autopilot.

If an unusual roll response or uncommanded roll control

movement is observed, reduce the angle-of-attack.

Do not extend flaps when holding in icing conditions.

Operation with flaps extended can result in a reduced wing angle-of-

attack, with the possibility of ice forming on the upper surface

further aft on the wing than normal, possibly aft of the protected

area.

If the flaps are extended, do not retract them until

the airframe is clear of ice.

Report these weather conditions to Air Traffic

Control.''

(b) Incorporating the AFM revisions, as required by this AD, may

be performed by the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot

certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), and must be entered into the aircraft

[[Page 7656]]

records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with section

43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where

the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the

compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate.

Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved

alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane Directorate.

(e) All persons affected by this directive may examine

information related to this AD at the FAA, Central Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment (39-10338) becomes effective on March 13,

1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 6, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98-3648 Filed 2-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-U