[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35110-35114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13666]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0983; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-001-AD; 
Amendment 39-17457; AD 2013-10-04]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) 
for all Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-31, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 
airplanes. That AD currently requires a detailed repetitive inspection 
of the exhaust system downstream of the turbochargers and repair or 
replacement of parts as necessary. This new AD requires visual 
repetitive inspections, expanding the inspection scope to include the 
entirety of each airplane exhaust system. This AD was prompted by 
reports of exhaust system failures upstream of aircraft turbochargers 
and between recurring detailed inspections. We are issuing this AD to 
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 17, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper 
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: 
(772) 567-4361; fax: (772) 978-6573; Internet: www.piper.com/home/pages/Publications.cfm. You may review copies of the referenced service 
information at the FAA, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of 
this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, 
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email: gary.wechsler@faa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to supersede AD 82-16-05 R1, amendment 39-5278 (51 FR 11707, 
April 7, 1986). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM 
published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57534). 
The NPRM included a detailed inspection that involved disassembling the 
v-band couplings. We removed that detailed inspection, and we added a 
table listing specific parts and inspection criteria to clarify the 
visual inspection. We also identified that airplanes with the STC 
SA240CH heat exchanger installed may not have all of the parts 
requiring the visual inspection. (Information on STC SA240CH may be 
found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE421D86257297005B6822?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa240ch.) We 
determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on 
any operator or increase the scope of the AD over what was originally 
proposed in the NPRM.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Revise Cost of Compliance

    Douglas Deering and Terry Mangione stated the compliance costs are 
too high and could lead to cost saving attempts in other places. 
Douglas Deering added the cost does not include clamps and gaskets.
    We partially agree. We agree that the cost of compliance per 
airplane may vary depending on the location in which compliance is made 
because the cost of labor and parts varies throughout the United States 
of America. We disagree with the claim that the cost of compliance is 
too great because of the safety risk the current design poses. 
Additionally, the cost of replacing clamps and gaskets is part of the 
on-condition costs, which cannot be predicted because of the multitude 
and manner of environments in which these airplanes operate result in 
widely varying exhaust system conditions over time.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Eliminate or Change Visual Inspection Compliance Requirement

    Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, and Lycoming Engines suggested 
eliminating the visual inspection compliance requirement and instead 
visually inspecting the entire exhaust system at 100 hours time-in-
service (TIS) or every other engine inspection event if maintained by 
an FAA-approved aircraft inspection program (AAIP). Visual inspections 
are already required under AAIP, 100-hour, and annual inspections; and 
Lycoming engine operations manuals currently recommend 50-hour visual 
inspections of the entire exhaust manifold for leaks.
    We agree that manufacturer's maintenance instructions include 
visual inspection requirements for exhaust and turbocharger systems. 
However, these manufacturer's maintenance instructions are only 
recommendations from which operators may base individual, FAA approved, 
maintenance programs on. Thus, AAIP, 100-hour, and annual inspection 
programs may or may not include the inspections proposed by this AD. 
The only way to ensure that a level of maintenance is performed to 
mitigate the safety risk the current design poses is through mandating 
these inspections, hence the need for the AD.
    We disagree with the request to eliminate the recurring 50-hour 
visual inspection compliance requirement because a visual inspection to 
look for specific signs of imminent failure at intervals less than 100 
hours was determined necessary to mitigate the safety risk the current 
design poses. The inspections required by AAIP, 100-hour and annual 
inspections, and Lycoming engine manual requirements do not mitigate 
the unsafe condition identified in this AD.
    We changed this final rule AD action to clarify the visual 
inspection process. We added a table of part numbers requiring 
inspection and the signs of

[[Page 35111]]

imminent failure to inspect for on these parts (and referenced a source 
of pertinent methods). Also, we expanded the visual inspection interval 
from 50 hours to 60 hours TIS in an attempt to encompass operators with 
FAA-approved inspection plans without an adverse effect to inspection 
effectiveness.

Eliminate Calendar Time Limited Inspection Intervals

    Douglas Deering, Allen M. Bower, and AMBO Ltd. stated we should 
eliminate the calendar time inspection interval limits for the 
compliance requirements because they do not believe calendar time 
outside of usage could adversely affect exhaust system integrity. Allen 
M. Bower, and AMBO Ltd. cited Special Airworthiness Information 
Bulletin (SAIB) CE-00-16, dated February 4, 2000, dealing with the twin 
Cessna exhaust system, as an example of a safety action that does not 
require calendar time inspection limits, ``You do not have to 
accomplish any action toward the AD until 2,500 hours TIS have 
accumulated on the exhaust system or exhaust system components.''
    We do not agree because the 6-month inspection requirement is 
necessary to check for the effects of corrosion that can occur while an 
aircraft is not in service. The level of exhaust system corrosion that 
can occur over a 6-month period is largely dependent on environmental 
conditions (higher moisture, temperature, and salinity lead to higher 
corrosion rates), exhaust material surface condition (higher levels of 
oxidation and scratches lead to higher corrosion rates,) and material 
geometry and assembly (crevices created by mating part surfaces and 
tight cracks corrode faster than open surfaces.)
    The AD, 2000-01-16 (65 FR 2844, January 19, 2000), cited by the 
SAIB referenced above, clearly requires actions before 2,500 hours TIS 
via the statements listed within that AD's figure 1, Compliance Table, 
of which several are paraphrased here: Visually inspect exhaust systems 
within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD or within the 
next 30 calendar days, whichever occurs later; remove tailpipes and 
visually inspect for any crack, corrosion, holes, or distortion upon 
the accumulation of 5 years since installing a new or overhauled 
exhaust system or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective 
date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and, inspect and pressure test 
exhaust systems upon the accumulation of 5 years since installing a new 
or overhauled exhaust system or within the next 100 hours TIS after the 
effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later. In summary, AD 2000-
01-06 (65 FR 2844, January 19, 2000) requires exhaust inspections with 
a calendar time limit for their intervals, before 2,500 hours TIS.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Limit Compliance to One Manufacturer

    Douglas Deering stated that we should limit compliance requirements 
to a single exhaust system manufacturer because recent exhaust pipe 
flange failures were due to a single manufacturer.
    We do not agree because the FAA has not concluded the root cause of 
recent exhaust pipe flange failures is due to a single exhaust pipe 
manufacturer.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Discuss Exhaust System Misalignment, Its Effect on Exhaust System 
Failures, and Pertinent Company Service Information

    Douglas Deering and Acorn Welding stated that we should mention 
exhaust parts fail at flanges due to exhaust assembly misalignment 
created by improper assembly, mis-manufactured parts, and/or slip joint 
seizing. They state exhaust system installation should be in accordance 
with Lycoming Service Instruction 1320, dated March 7, 1975, and 
Lycoming Service Instruction 1391, dated October 5, 1979; v-band 
coupling installation should be in accordance with Lycoming Service 
Instruction 1238B, dated January 6, 2010, and exhaust system 
improvements should be required per Lycoming Service Instruction 1410, 
dated June 19, 1981. They recommended Lycoming service instructions 
that address practices and assemblies meant to address the 
aforementioned problems.
    We agree that exhaust assembly misalignment due to improper exhaust 
system assembly, mis-manufacturing, and/or slip joint seizures can 
contribute to and/or cause the cracking of exhaust pipe flanges because 
of excessive eccentric loading. We disagree with requiring exhaust 
system improvements per Lycoming Service Instruction 1410, dated June 
19, 1981, because the events that prompted this AD were not documented 
as due to the absence of the slip joint introduced by this service 
instruction. Also, Lycoming Service Instruction 1238B, dated January 6, 
2010, is referenced elsewhere in the proposed AD with regards to v-band 
coupling installation.
    We changed this final rule AD action to clarify the repair/
replacement process. We changed paragraph (i)(1)(ii) (which is now 
(h)(1)(ii)) to read: ``Repair or replace exhaust system parts 
exhibiting bulges, cracks and/or exhaust leak stains with airworthy 
parts in accordance with Lycoming Service Information 1320, dated March 
7, 1975, and Lycoming Service Information 1391, dated October 5, 1979, 
as applicable.''

Reduce/Eliminate Recurring V-Band Clamp Disassembly for Inspections

    Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, Terry Mangione, Lycoming Engines, 
Allen M. Bower, and AMBO Ltd. stated we should reduce/eliminate the 
frequency of inspections requiring v-band clamp disassembly because the 
v-band clamp disassembly subjects the v-band clamp to a high degree of 
stress.
    We agree because v-band clamp disassembly can cause damage. 
Therefore, a decrease in recurrent inspection intervals requiring v-
band clamp disassembly may increase the rate at which v-band clamps 
and/or locking nuts accumulate damage.
    We changed paragraph (h) of this AD to eliminate the recurring 100-
hour disassembly of v-band clamps.

Remove the Corrective Actions of Paragraph (i)

    Douglas Deering stated we should remove the corrective actions 
contained in paragraph (i) of this AD (which has now been merged into 
paragraph (h)). The paragraph (i) (which is now merged into paragraph 
(h)) corrective actions only reinforce what any technician would be 
required to do upon finding defects during an exhaust system 
inspection.
    We do not agree because we determined the corrective actions of 
paragraph (i) (which is now merged into paragraph (h)) were necessary 
to mitigate the safety risk the current design poses.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Eliminate V-Band Clamp Replacement at 1,000 TIS

    Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, Acorn Welding, Allen H. Bower, and 
AMBO Ltd. stated we should specify which v-band clamp numbers need to 
be replaced at 1,000 hours TIS and delete the requirement to replace v-
band clamp part numbers (P/N) 557-584 and 557-369 at 1,000 hours TIS. 
The installation of v-band clamps P/N 557-584 and P/N 557-369 exempts 
one from the detailed inspections of Part II of Piper Service Bulletin 
644E, dated May 9, 2012. They state Piper Service Bulletin

[[Page 35112]]

644E, dated May 9, 2012, should be a template for the proposed AD. 
Piper Service Bulletin 644E does not require a life limit for v-band 
coupling P/N 557-584 and P/N 557-369 (only replacement on condition) 
and requires 100-hour TIS recurring inspections and 1,000-hour TIS 
replacement for v-band coupling P/N 555-511 and P/N 555-366. Anecdotal 
experience substantiates longevity of v-band coupling P/N 557-584 and 
P/N 557-369.
    We agree because initial data indicated that the Piper v-band 
clamps (P/N 557-584 and P/N 557-369) connecting the turbocharger 
exhaust outlet flange with the tailpipe were failing with fewer hours 
TIS than engine time between overhaul (TBO). Further data and feedback 
indicates that the cases where the clamps may have failed in service, 
the clamps were not recovered (they were lost during the event). The 
clamps found cracked were found cracked during inspections.
    We changed this AD to not require mandatory replacement of Piper 
clamps P/N 557-584 and P/N 557-369 at 1,000 hours TIS.

Remove Exhaust System Installation Steps Already Contained in Company 
Service Information

    Douglas Deering stated that we should delete paragraphs (k)(2) and 
(k)(3) of this AD and make paragraph (k)(4) a note to paragraph (k). 
The v-band coupling installation steps defined by paragraphs (k)(2) and 
(k)(3) are already stated in Piper Service Bulletin 644E, dated May 9, 
2012, and Lycoming Service Instruction 1238B, dated January 6, 2010, 
and the text of paragraph (k)(4) is not required by the AD, but might 
help the operator to comply with the AD.
    We agree because the v-band coupling installation steps defined by 
paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) (now (h)(2) and (h)(3)) are already stated 
in Piper Service Bulletin 644E, dated May 9, 2012, and Lycoming Service 
Instruction 1238B, dated January 6, 2010. The text of paragraph (k)(4) 
(now (h)(4)) is not required by the AD itself but might help the 
operator to comply with the AD.
    We will change this AD to eliminate paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) 
and make the text of paragraph (k)(4) part of a Note to paragraph (k) 
(now referred to as paragraph (h).

Change Inspection Process for Airplanes With Supplemental Type 
Certificate (STC) SA240CH Installations

    Douglas Deering stated heat exchanger installations in accordance 
with STC SA240CH are not uncommon and would require an alternative 
method of compliance (AMOC) to the NPRM's inspection procedure. 
(Information on STC SA240CH may be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE421D86257297005B6822?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa240ch.) The 
commenter requests the NPRM inspection procedure be revised in a manner 
that airplanes modified per STC SA240CH will not require an AMOC.
    We agree with this comment. A high percentage of airplanes have STC 
SA240CH installed, approximately 310 out of 508 airplanes (61 percent), 
and would require an AMOC to comply with the AD as written because 
those airplanes will not have all of the exhaust parts requiring 
inspection.
    We added a subparagraph to paragraph (g) of this AD that eliminates 
the inspection for the exhaust system parts referenced above regarding 
the STC SA240CH heat exchanger. This allows airplanes with STC SA240CH 
heat exchanger installed to comply with the AD without applying for an 
AMOC.

Limit Exhaust System Life to Time-Between-Overhauls

    Douglas Deering, Terry Mangione, and Acorn Welding stated that we 
should limit exhaust system life to engine TBO. Exhaust system failure 
rates increase quickly once exhaust life surpasses engine TBO.
    We do not agree because the intent of the proposed AD is not to 
designate a life limit for exhaust systems. Instead, the intent of the 
proposed AD is to implement a 60-hour TIS recurring visual inspection 
to identify and correct v-band coupling and exhaust flange issues 
before they lead to a safety event.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Change Product Applicability

    Douglas Deering and Acorn Welding stated we should change the AD 
applicability from Piper aircraft to include Lycoming engines TI0-540-
A2C, LFFI0-540-F2BD, -J2B, -J2BD, -N2BD, and -R2BD.
    We do not agree because the previous AD and this superseding AD are 
based on the configuration and installation of the engine on the 
aircraft and not the type design of the engine.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Issue an SAIB in Lieu of This AD

    Lycoming Engines stated an SAIB alerting operators to the 
importance of the manufacturer's recommendations would be more 
appropriate than an AD. One clamp in data analyzed was mis-installed 
and should not have been included and two service difficulty reports 
(SDRs), by themselves, used in the FAA's analysis do not represent an 
increasing trend of failures substantiating the AD.
    We do not agree because over the last 11 years there have been 6 
exhaust system related incidents that occurred either during cruise, 
approach, takeoff, or climb. One incident resulted in substantial 
airplane damage. Risk analysis concluded the risk of an exhaust system 
related incident resulting in a hazard greater than substantial 
airplane damage for the future warranted the publication of an AD.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action as a 
result of this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial 
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (77 FR 57534, September 18, 2012) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 57534, September 18, 2012).
    We determined that these changes will not increase the economic 
burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,016 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

[[Page 35113]]



                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Cost per       Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost          product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual inspection...............  2 work-hours x $85 per    Not applicable....            $170         $172,720
                                   hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each 
airplane during the required inspection. The scope of damage on the 
exhaust system could vary from airplane to airplane due to the manner 
and environments airplane may operate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 
AD 82-16-05 R1, Amendment 39-5278 (51 FR 11707, April 7, 1986) and 
adding the following new AD:

2013-10-04 Piper Aircraft, Ltd.: Amendment 39-17457; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0983; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-001-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 17, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 82-16-05 R1, Amendment 39-5278 (51 FR 
11707, April 7, 1986).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to turbocharged Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-
31, PA-31-325, and PA-31-350 airplanes, all serial numbers, 
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the forced landings of aircraft due to 
exhaust system failures between recurring detailed inspections. We 
are issuing this AD to prevent the possibility of an in-flight 
powerplant fire due to an exhaust system failure.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Visual Inspection

    (1) Within the next 60 hours time-in-service (TIS) after July 
17, 2013 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months 
after July 17, 2013 (the effective date of this AD), whichever 
occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 
60 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, perform the 
inspections listed in table 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD upon the 
parts listed in the same table.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD:  Inspection procedure 
references can be found in Section 2, Visual Inspection, Chapter 5, 
Nondestructive Inspection (NDI), FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1 B, 
Change 1, dated September 27, 2001, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, 
And Practices--Aircraft Inspection and Repair (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac43.13-1b).

    (2) Aircraft equipped with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 
SA240CH heat exchanger will not have all of the parts referenced in 
table 1 of paragraph (g). (Information on STC SA240CH may be found 
at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE421D86257297005B6822?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa240ch.) 
The heat exchanger replaces some of those parts; therefore, this AD 
requires the visual inspection on only the remaining parts listed in 
table 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD after installation of STC 
SA240CH. Airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA240CH will not 
require an Alternative Method of Compliance if the corrective 
actions in this AD are complied with.

[[Page 35114]]



                           Table 1 of Paragraph (g)--Recurring 60-Hour Inspections for Lycoming and Piper Exhaust System Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product/part nomenclature            Make..................                            Model/part number                           Inspect with light
                                                                                                                                    and mirror or other
                                                                                                                                    method capable of
                                                                                                                                    achieving an
                                                                                                                                   equivalent visual
                                                                                                                                   resolution:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane...........................  Piper.................  PA-31.................  PA-31-325............  PA-31-350............  .....................
Engine.............................  Lycoming..............  TIO-540-A1A, -A1B, -    TIO-540-A2C (wide      TIO-540-J2B and -J2BD  .....................
                                                              A2A, -A2B and -A2C      cylinder flange;       and LTIO-540-J2B and
                                                              (standard cylinder      aka, wide deck) and -  -J2BD.
                                                              flange; aka, narrow     F2BD, and LTIO-540-
                                                              deck).                  F2BD.
Pipe, exhaust, right intermediate..  Lycoming..............  LW-15850..............  LW-15850.............  LW-15849.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
Pipe, exhaust, right rear,           Lycoming..............  LW-16792..............  LW-16792.............  LW-16621.............  bulges, cracks and
 intermediate.                                                                                                                      exhaust leak stains.
Pipe, exhaust, right rear..........  Lycoming..............  LW-16793..............  LW-16793.............  LW-16620.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
Pipe, exhaust, left, intermediate..  Lycoming..............  LW-15849..............  LW-15849.............  LW-15849.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
Pipe, exhaust, left rear,            Lycoming..............  LW-16789..............  LW-16789.............  LW-16696.............  bulges, cracks and
 intermediate.                                                                                                                      exhaust leak stains.
Pipe, exhaust, left rear...........  Lycoming..............  LW-16790..............  LW-16790.............  LW-16697.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
Tail pipe assembly, bottom.........  Piper.................  40310-09..............  40310-09.............  40310-09.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
Tail pipe assembly, top............  Piper.................  40310-08 or 40310-10..  40310-08 or 40310-10.  40319-10.............  bulges, cracks and
                                                                                                                                    exhaust leak stains.
v-band coupling....................  Lycoming..............  LW-12093-5............  LW-12093-5...........  LW12093-5............  cracks and exhaust
                                                                                                                                    leak stains.
v-band coupling....................  Piper.................  555-511 or 557-584....  555-511 or 557-584...  555-366 or 557-369...  cracks and exhaust
                                                                                                                                    leak stains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Corrective Actions

    (1) If any damage is found as a result of the inspections 
required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the 
following corrective actions:
    (i) Replace v-band couplings exhibiting cracks and/or exhaust 
leak stains with airworthy and replacement v-band couplings 
following the applicable instructions contained in Piper Aircraft 
Corporation Service Bulletin No. 644E, dated May 9, 2012, and/or 
Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1238B, dated January 6, 2010.
    (ii) Replace exhaust system parts exhibiting bulges, cracks and/
or exhaust leak stains with airworthy parts in accordance with 
Lycoming Service Information 1320, dated March 7, 1975, and Lycoming 
Service Information 1391, dated October 5, 1979, as applicable.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  During installation, we 
recommend not opening the v-band coupling more than the MINIMUM 
diameter necessary to clear coupled flanges. It is recommended to 
replace any locknuts and/or mating couplings with airworthy parts 
when locknuts do not exhibit a prevailing torque when installed.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gary Wechsler, 
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College 
Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5575; fax: (404) 474-5606; 
email: [email protected].
    (2) Section 2, Visual Inspection, Chapter 5, Nondestructive 
Inspection (NDI), FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1 B, Change 1, dated 
September 27, 2001, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, And Practices--
Aircraft Inspection and Repair may be found at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac43.13-1b.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise:
    (i) Piper Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. 644E, dated 
May 9, 2012;
    (ii) Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1238B, dated January 6, 
2010;
    (iii) Lycoming Service Instruction 1320, dated March 7, 1975; 
and
    (iv) Lycoming Service Instruction 1391, dated October 5, 1979.
    (3) For obtaining service information identified in this AD, 
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 
32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; fax: (772) 978-6573; Internet: 
www.piper.com/home/pages/Publications.cfm.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane 
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 16, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13666 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P