[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72091-72095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30495]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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