Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines, 1008-1013 [2015-00152]
Download as PDF
1008
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 5
Thursday, January 8, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0002; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NE–42–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Continental
Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We are revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp.
(AEC) replacement parts manufacturer
approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies
marketed by Engine Components
International Division (ECi). These
cylinder assemblies are used on all
Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model
520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and
on all other CMI engine models
approved for the use of model 520 and
550 cylinder assemblies, such as the
CMI model 470 when modified by
supplemental type certificate (STC). The
NPRM proposed to require initial and
repetitive inspections, replacement of
cracked cylinder assemblies, and
replacement of cylinder assemblies at
reduced times-in-service. The NPRM
also proposed to prohibit the
installation of affected cylinder
assemblies into any engine. The NPRM
was prompted by reports of multiple
cylinder head-to-barrel separations and
cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder
heads. This supplemental NPRM
(SNPRM) modifies the schedule for
removal of the affected cylinder
assemblies, adds that overhauled
affected cylinder assemblies be removed
within 80 hours, eliminates a reporting
requirement, and removes the
requirement for initial and repetitive
inspections. We are proposing this
SNPRM to prevent failure of the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
cylinder assemblies, which could lead
to failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the
airplane. We are reopening the comment
period to allow the public the chance to
comment on the proposed changes to
the NPRM.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this SNPRM by February 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Engine
Components International Division,
9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX
78217; phone: 210–820–8101; Internet:
https://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_
svcpubs.aspx. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2012–
0002; 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 SNPRM, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. Given the volume of
comments received, we are not
identifying the individual commenters
within this SNPRM. However, we
identify all commenters, other than
individuals, in the docket. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:
800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer,
Special Certification Office, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone:
817–222–5190; fax: 817–222–5785;
email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite your review of the
commenter list provided in Docket No.
FAA–2012–0002. If you submitted a
comment to an organization and do not
see the name of the organization in the
commenter list, please submit your
comment directly to us as provided for
in this SNPRM. If you submitted as an
individual, you will not be listed as a
commenter.
We also invite you to review our
responses to comments, and to resubmit
your comment if you conclude that your
comment was not responded to below.
We also invite you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this SNPRM. Send
your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include
‘‘Docket No. FAA–2012–0002;
Directorate Identifier 2011–NE–42–AD’’
at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
this SNPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend this SNPRM because of
those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this SNPRM.
Discussion
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would
apply to certain AEC replacement PMA
cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi.
These assemblies are used on CMI
model 520 and 550 reciprocating
engines, and all other CMI engine
models approved for the use of models
520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as
the CMI model 470 when modified by
STC. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to
require initial and repetitive
inspections, immediate replacement of
cracked cylinder assemblies, and
replacement of cylinder assemblies at
reduced times-in-service (TIS) since
new. The NPRM also proposed to
prohibit the installation of affected
cylinder assemblies into any engine.
Actions Since Previous NPRM Was
Issued
Since the NPRM published on August
12, 2013 (78 FR 48828), we received
numerous comments on the proposed
rule. We reviewed those comments and
considered their impact to safety. Some
of those comments included additional
failure information that we
subsequently incorporated in our
updated risk analysis.
Following our comment review, we
determined that we needed to review
how we proposed to address the unsafe
condition. So, we formed a multidirectorate/multi-disciplinary team to
review the technical basis of the
proposed rule, as well as the numerous
public comments, and the additional
failure information provided by
commenters, to the NPRM. This team
confirmed that the subject cylinder
assemblies are unsafe.
The team’s review of the new data
provided by commenters supports a
lengthier compliance interval. This team
therefore recommended several changes
to the NPRM, which resulted in this
SNPRM.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
comment on the NPRM (78 FR 48828,
August 12, 2013). The following
presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA’s response to each
comment.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are
Not Unsafe
Many operators, maintenance
organizations, and private citizens asked
that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013). The
commenters claimed that the affected
ECi cylinder assemblies have an
equivalent, or lower, failure rate than
that of cylinder assemblies
manufactured by the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM). We concluded that
these commenters were requesting that
we withdraw the NPRM because they
believe that the ECi cylinder assemblies
are not unsafe.
We disagree. The rate of separation for
the affected ECi cylinder assemblies is
at least 32 times greater than that of
OEM cylinder assemblies over the same
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
period. Although there are
approximately four times as many OEM
cylinder assemblies in service than ECi
cylinder assemblies, the ECi cylinder
assemblies suffered more cylinder head
separations than OEM cylinder
assemblies since 2004. This data is
available for review in Docket No. FAA–
2012–0002. We did not withdraw the
NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because Airplanes Can Operate Safely
With a Separated Cylinder Head
Numerous aircraft operators,
maintenance organizations, and private
citizens commented that we should not
issue the AD because airplanes can
continue to operate safely even after a
cylinder head separation. Several
commenters have also stated that
airplane engines are designed and
certified to safely operate with one
failed cylinder. They cited 14 CFR 33.43
in support of their position.
We disagree. The safety consequences
represented by a cylinder head
separation in flight are significant, and
include multiple secondary effects, like
fire. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
We also disagree that § 33.43,
Vibration Test, supports the
commenter’s position that airplanes are
certified to operate safely after a
cylinder head separation. Section
33.43(d), addressing the engine
vibration survey of § 33.43(a), requires
assessment of crankshaft vibration for
an engine that has one cylinder that ‘‘is
not firing.’’ That paragraph, like the rest
of § 33.43, does not discuss cylinder
head separation. We did not withdraw
the NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because Root Cause of Cylinder Failure
Is Unknown
Numerous aircraft operators,
maintenance organizations, and private
citizens requested that we withdraw the
NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013)
because the FAA failed to identify the
root cause(s) of cylinder head
separations.
We disagree. The root cause of the
cylinder head separation is not the
unsafe condition. We have identified
the unsafe condition—cylinder head
separation. Removal of the cylinder
assembly resolves the unsafe condition.
We did not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because Pilot Error Is Causing Cylinder
Head Separations
Numerous organizations, aircraft
operators, and private citizens
commented that cylinder head
separations involving the ECi cylinder
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1009
assemblies affected by this NPRM (78
FR 48828, August 12, 2013) were caused
by pilot error rather than by design
deficiencies of the cylinder assemblies.
They therefore requested that we not
issue the AD.
We disagree. If pilot error was leading
to cylinder head separation, then we
would expect to see similar damage in
engines with other than ECi cylinder
assemblies installed where the pilots
exceeded the same limitation(s).
However, we do not have any such data.
We did not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Adopt Less Stringent
Compliance Requirements
The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), other organizations,
numerous aircraft operators, and private
citizens commented that the compliance
requirements in the proposed AD are
too severe and that we should adopt less
stringent requirements.
We agree that the requirements for
removal of the cylinder assemblies can
be made less severe. Our updated
analysis indicates that our proposed
reduced compliance interval with the
attendant removal from service of
affected cylinder assemblies and lesser
impact to operators addresses the unsafe
condition and is consistent with our risk
guidelines. We revised the compliance
paragraphs in this SNPRM by changing
the schedule for removal of affected
cylinder assemblies to a phased removal
schedule for all affected cylinder
assemblies based on total time in service
since new.
The NTSB also recommended in
NTSB Safety Recommendation A–12–7
that we impose a repetitive inspection
requirement for certain ECi cylinder
assemblies and their removal once they
reach the manufacturer’s recommended
time between overhaul (TBO).
We disagree. Repetitive inspections
until TBO as suggested by the
commenter, is inconsistent with the
serious hazard represented by cylinder
assembly failures. Therefore, we are
requiring removal of affected cylinder
assemblies from service prior to TBO.
Also, engine overhaul is not a
requirement for all operators. Therefore,
tying the proposed recurrent inspection
to engine overhaul would not resolve
the unsafe condition. We did not change
this proposed AD based on this
comment.
The NTSB also noted that the
proposed rule would affect many more
cylinder assemblies than the NTSB had
included in its safety recommendation
letter A–12–7, dated February 24, 2012,
to the FAA. The NTSB commented that
the NPRM’s proposal to remove Group
A cylinder assemblies (S/Ns 1 through
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1010
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
33696) with fewer than 500 hours TIS
or more than 1,000 hours TIS within 25
hours does not appear to be supported
by existing service information or
discussions between the NTSB and the
FAA.
We disagree. Based on service failure
data and known implementation of
design improvements, this proposed AD
must apply to cylinder assemblies S/Ns
1 through 61176. We did not change this
proposed AD based on this comment.
Request for FAA To Follow Its Own
Risk Assessment Policies
Numerous aviation associations,
aircraft operators, maintenance
organizations, and private citizens
commented that the FAA had not
followed its own risk assessment
policies in issuing the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013).
We disagree. The corrective actions
proposed in the NPRM, and as revised
by this SNPRM, are consistent with
FAA Order 8040.4A, ‘‘Safety Risk
Management Policy,’’ dated April 30,
2012, and the Monitor Safety/Analyze
Data (MSAD) process defined in FAA
Order 8110.107A, ‘‘Monitor Safety/
Analyze Data,’’ dated October 1, 2012.
The requirements of this proposed AD
are also consistent with the guidance of
Engine & Propeller Directorate
memorandum ‘‘Risk Assessment for
Reciprocating Engine Airworthiness
Directives,’’ PS–ANE–100–1999–00006,
dated May 24, 1999. We did not change
this SNPRM as a result of this comment.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because of the Risk of Maintenance
Errors
Numerous aircraft operators,
maintenance organizations, and private
citizens commented that the FAA
should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013) because the
removal and replacement of affected
cylinder assemblies before TBO would
result in maintenance errors that would
adversely affect safety.
We disagree. Our regulatory
framework presumes that maintenance
will be performed correctly by
personnel authorized by the FAA to
return aircraft to service in an airworthy
condition. Further, we have not
observed any negative effects on safety
due to removal of these cylinder
assemblies during maintenance. Also,
cylinder removal and replacement is a
maintenance action addressed in engine
maintenance manuals. We did not
withdraw the NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
Request To Review Repetitive
Compression Test and Leak Check
in the text of this SNPRM. We did not
withdraw the NPRM.
Some aircraft operators commented
that they successfully passed the
compression test with the piston at topdead-center, while still finding the
cylinders cracked. We interpret the
comment to be that the proposed
inspection and test was inadequate to
detect a cracked cylinder assembly.
We agree. The inspection and test
may not detect cracks. Also, we have
received field reports of separated
cylinders that occurred within the
repetitive 50-hour compression test and
leak check inspection intervals
proposed by the NPRM. We therefore
concluded that these tests are not
sufficiently reliable and the cost
associated with such ongoing tests
outweighs the safety benefit. We
changed this SNPRM by removing the
requirement for repetitive compression
and leak inspection tests.
Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM
We received several comments on the
rulemaking process, including several
who supported the NPRM (78 FR 48828,
August 12, 2013) as proposed. Several
commenters stated that hundreds of
failures of the affected cylinder
assemblies had been reported to the
FAA and ECi.
We thank the commenters for their
participation in the rulemaking process.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Because of Excessive Cost
Numerous aviation associations,
aircraft operators, maintenance
organizations, and private citizens
commented that the FAA should
withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828,
August 12, 2013) because the cost of
compliance is excessive to owners and
operators of aircraft with engines that
have affected cylinder assemblies.
We disagree. We find that the safety
benefits of the proposed rule, as
changed by this SNPRM, outweigh its
estimated cost. Further, we recalculated
the cost of the NPRM (78 FR 48828,
August 12, 2013). Our previous estimate
was based on 36,000 cylinder
assemblies. Based on data available to
the FAA, we subsequently reduced the
number affected cylinder assemblies to
28,874.
We also determined that a
replacement cost based on a pro-rated
life of the cylinder assemblies more
accurately reflects the true cost of
replacing the cylinder assemblies. In the
NPRM, we used $1,700 per cylinder
assembly for the entire affected cylinder
assembly population. We recalculated
the total value for loss of the part based
on a pro-rated estimate of usage for the
cylinder assembly population over their
current accumulated time in service.
This recalculated loss is $19,867,882 for
the entire affected cylinder assembly
population.
Finally, since we issued the NPRM,
we eliminated those inspections and
their associated cost from this SNPRM.
For further information on the estimated
cost of this AD, please see our Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Summary of Changes to the NPRM
First, we removed the 50 hour
repetitive inspection requirement in the
NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013).
We did so because we determined that
the inspection, compression test, and
leak check proposed by the NPRM was
not effective in detecting cracked
cylinders. Based on further review of
service information, we determined that
a compression test and leak check will
not identify a crack until the crack has
propagated all the way through the
cylinder wall to some detectable
location. Therefore, we are relying on
the phased removal of the cylinders
along with annual or 100-hour
inspections already required by other
regulations to provide an adequate level
of safety.
We eliminated the requirement to
report details of all cylinder assemblies
removed per the requirements of the AD
to the FAA. This information is no
longer needed since we will rely on our
established reporting channels, e.g.,
Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) and
Malfunction/Defect (M/D) reports, to
report future cylinder head failures.
We reduced the estimated population
of affected cylinder assemblies from
36,000 to 28,874.
We used a pro-rated loss of cylinder
life which more accurately reflects the
cost of replacing the affected cylinder
assemblies.
We removed the cost of inspection
from this SNPRM since the recurrent
visual inspections and compression/
leak tests proposed by the NPRM were
ineffective in detecting the unsafe
condition.
We changed the compliance
paragraphs by removing references to
‘‘Group A’’ (serial numbers (S/Ns)
between 1 and 33696) and ‘‘Group B’’
(S/Ns between 33697 and 61176). We
determined that TIS and serial number
(S/N) are sufficient to identify and
correct the suspect cylinder assembly
population.
We modified the compliance schedule
for removal of affected cylinder
assemblies from 500 or 1,000 operating
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
hours for all affected cylinder
assemblies to a phased removal
schedule based on total hours TIS since
new. We determined that information
submitted by commenters to the
proposed rule justified a phased
drawdown of the assemblies from
service.
Finally, we specified in this SNPRM
that overhauled cylinder assemblies
should be removed within 80 hours
after the effective date of this AD. We
concluded that overhauling of the
cylinder assembly does not diminish the
fatigue damage that has already
accumulated in the cylinder head.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this SNPRM
because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design. Certain changes
described above revise the scope of the
NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013).
As a result, we have determined that it
is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment
on this SNPRM.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM
This SNPRM would require removal
of the affected cylinder assemblies,
including overhauled cylinder
assemblies, according to a phased
removal schedule.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 5,000 CMI models
IO–520, TSIO–520, IO–550, and IOF–
550 reciprocating engines and all other
CMI engine models approved for the use
of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder
assemblies (such as the CMI model 470
when modified by STC), installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. The average
labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate
that about 18 hours would be required
to replace all six cylinder assemblies
during overhaul maintenance. We
estimate the pro-rated value of the cost
of replacement of six cylinder
assemblies to be about $4,202 per
engine. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of this proposed
AD to U.S. operators to change all ECi
cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000.
Our cost estimate is exclusive of
possible warranty coverage.
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective
of the rule and of applicable statutes, to
fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions. The RFA 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 agency determines that it
will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as
described in the Act.
This proposed rule would have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities of part 135
operators and smaller air services
businesses.
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) classifies
businesses as small based on size
standards, typically expressed as
number of employees. The FAA
identified 609 part 135 operators that
meet the SBA definition of a small
entity (entities with 1,500 or fewer
employees) which would be affected by
this proposed rule. Of these 609, the
FAA identified 209 small part 135
operators on which the rule would have
a significant economic impact. We
consider this a substantial number of
small entities. In addition, we estimate
that more than 2,000 smaller air services
businesses would be affected by this
proposed rule. This business segment
also has a substantial number of small
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1011
entities. The FAA is unaware of the
assets or financial resources of these
businesses. The FAA requests
comments from these businesses
regarding their economic impact.
The FAA estimates the compliance
cost from this AD to be the sum of the
replacement cost per aircraft, plus the
loss of use due to earlier replacement,
plus minor paperwork cost. The labor
cost to replace all six cylinder
assemblies is the average labor rate $85
per hour multiplied by the estimated 18
hours to complete the task.
The FAA believes that a pro-rated
value of the replacement cost of the
cylinder assemblies is more accurate
and reflects on the true cost to replacing
the cylinder assemblies. This AD would
result in a loss-of-use as some cylinder
assemblies would be replaced sooner
than current practice. This AD requires
removal of the cylinder assemblies at an
average of 1,000 hours instead of at the
average TBO of 1,700 hours. This means
that the allowable life is only 1,000 of
the original 1,700 hours, or at 58.82% of
the current life. Therefore the life value
that is lost equals 0.4118 (1.0¥0.5882).
We estimate the pro-rated loss of life
value for six cylinder assemblies to be
about $4,200 per engine (1,700 × 6 ×
.4118). The loss-of-use expense
implicitly includes the earlier purchase
of the replacement cylinder assemblies.
Therefore the AD cost per aircraft
equals the labor costs of $1,530 and the
loss-of-service cost of $4,202, or about
$6,000. Based on the number of aircraft
owned by the operators impacted, total
compliance costs range between $6
thousand to $525 thousand per small
entity encompassing one to eighty-eight
aircraft.
To determine whether the compliance
cost would be a significant economic
impact, we measured the annualized
compliance cost relative to the value of
the aircraft. The estimated value of their
aircraft ranges between $22 thousand to
$21 million. Using the preceding
information, the FAA estimates that
their ratio of annualized cost to asset
value is higher than 5 percent for many
of these operators. Based on this
information the FAA decided that the
rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of
entities. Therefore, we have performed a
regulatory flexibility analysis for these
small entities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the
initial analysis must address:
(1) Description of reasons the agency
is considering the action;
(2) Statement of the legal basis and
objectives for the proposed rule;
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1012
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(3) Description of the record keeping
and other compliance requirements of
the proposed rule;
(4) All federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule;
(5) Description and an estimated
number of small entities to which the
proposed rule will apply; and
(6) Describe alternatives considered.
Description of Reasons the Agency is
Considering the Action
This proposed AD was prompted by
failure reports of multiple cylinder
head-to-barrel separations and cracked
and leaking aluminum cylinder heads.
This AD would apply to certain
Airmotive Engineering Corp.
replacement PMA cylinder assemblies
marketed by ECi, used on CMI model
520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and
all other engine models approved for the
use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder
assemblies, such as the CMI model 470
when modified by STC.
Description and an Estimated Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rule Would Apply
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 5,000 Continental
Motors, Inc. models IO–520, TSIO–520,
IO–550, and IOF–550 reciprocating
engines and all other engine models
approved for the use of CMI models 520
and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as
the CMI model 470 when modified by
STC), installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry.
The FAA will affect 609 part 135
operators and more than 2,000 air
service businesses for which the rule
will have an economic impact. The
affected entities fly fixed wing aircraft;
employ less than 1,500 employees; and
conduct a variety of air services such as
fly passengers and cargo for hire. We
estimate that the small part 135
operators have assets valued between
$22 thousand to $21 million (range of 1
to 88 aircraft).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of the Recordkeeping and
Other Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule
Public reporting for this collection of
information is estimated to be
approximately 5 minutes per response
at an hourly wage rate of $85 per hour,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, completing and reviewing
the collection of information. The
paperwork cost for them is between $7
and $616.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
All Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
The FAA is unaware of any Federal
rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with this rule.
Description of Alternatives Considered
The FAA received comments
concerning this AD. Some commenters
requested withdrawal of this NPRM
because of excessive cost with only
negligible safety gains. In response to
comments about problems with
repetitive compression/soap test, the
FAA agrees that these tests are not
reliable and the costs associated with
such ongoing tests outweigh the safety
benefit. This SNPRM has removed the
requirement for repetitive compression/
soap inspection tests. We also
considered these following alternatives:
(1) Do nothing—This option is not
acceptable due to the number of failures
of ECi cylinder assemblies and the
consequences of the failures.
(2) Periodic inspections only (no
forced removals)—Though the NTSB
recommends this option, the service
history has shown that such inspections
may not reliably detect existing cracks
and the rate of crack growth to
separation is unknown and variable.
(3) Forced removal with periodic
inspections—As stated above, such
periodic inspections may not reliably
detect cracks and the rate of crack
growth to separation is unknown and
variable.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will have a significant economic
impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne
Continental Motors, Inc., formerly
Continental): Docket No. FAA–2012–
0002; Directorate Identifier 2011–NE–
42–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by February
23, 2015.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Continental Motors,
Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating
engines, and to all other CMI engine models
approved for the use of model 520 and 550
cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model
470 when modified by supplemental type
certificate (STC), with Airmotive Engineering
Corp. replacement parts manufacturer
approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies,
marketed by Engine Components
International Division (hereinafter referred to
as ECi), part number (P/N) AEC631397, with
ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial number (S/
N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.
(d) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by multiple failure
reports of cylinder head-to-barrel separations
and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder
heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the cylinder assemblies, which
could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.
(e) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(1) Review the engine maintenance records
to determine if any affected cylinder
assemblies are installed.
(2) If you cannot determine based on
review of engine maintenance records if any
affected cylinder assemblies are installed,
comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.
(3) If you do not have any of the affected
ECi cylinder assemblies installed on your
engine, no further action is required.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number
Location
(i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and
Class number. The ECi cylinder assembly,
P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is
stamped on the bottom flange of the cylinder
barrel. Guidance on the P/N and Class
number description and location can be
found in ECi Service Instruction No. 99–8–
1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.
(ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly
P/N when the cylinder assembly is installed
on the engine, you may use the following
alternative method of identification:
(A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker
box cover.
(B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the
cylinder head between the valve stems.
(C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N.
Affected cylinder assemblies have the
cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast
into the cylinder head between the valve
stems.
(D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as
specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv)
of this AD, as applicable.
(iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N
AEC631397, manufactured through 2008,
find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on
the intake port boss two inches down from
the top edge of the head.
(iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N
AEC631397, manufactured on or after
January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly
S/N stamped just below the top edge of the
head on the exhaust port side.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(5) Removal From Service
(i) For any affected cylinder assembly with
680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jan 07, 2015
Jkt 235001
(TIS) since new on the effective date of this
AD, remove the cylinder assembly from
service before reaching 1,000 operating hours
TIS since new.
(ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with
more than 680 operating hours TIS since new
and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS since
new on the effective date of this AD, remove
the cylinder assembly from service within
the next 320 operating hours TIS or within
1,160 operating hours TIS since new,
whichever occurs first.
(iii) For any affected cylinder assembly
with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS
since new on the effective date of this AD,
remove the cylinder assembly from service
within the next 160 operating hours or at
next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.
(iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that
has been overhauled, remove the cylinder
assembly from service within the next 80
operating hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD.
(f) Installation Prohibitions
After the effective date of this AD:
(1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any
engine, any cylinder assembly removed per
this AD.
(2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder
assembly that has been overhauled, into any
engine.
(3) Do not install any engine that has one
or more affected overhauled ECi cylinder
assemblies, onto any aircraft.
(4) Do not return to service any aircraft that
has an engine installed with an ECi cylinder
assembly subject to this AD, if the cylinder
assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours
TIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
1013
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
The Manager, Special Certification Office,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make
your request.
(h) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace
Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76193; phone: 817–222–5190;
fax: 817–222–5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@
faa.gov.
(2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99–8–
1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009,
which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD, contact Engine Components
International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive,
San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210–820–
8101; Internet: https://www.eci.aero/pages/
tech_svcpubs.aspx.
(3) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
December 23, 2014.
Colleen M. D’Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–00152 Filed 1–7–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1008-1013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00152]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1008]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. (AEC) replacement parts
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine
Components International Division (ECi). These cylinder assemblies are
used on all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550
reciprocating engines, and on all other CMI engine models approved for
the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies, such as the CMI model
470 when modified by supplemental type certificate (STC). The NPRM
proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, replacement of
cracked cylinder assemblies, and replacement of cylinder assemblies at
reduced times-in-service. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the
installation of affected cylinder assemblies into any engine. The NPRM
was prompted by reports of multiple cylinder head-to-barrel separations
and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. This supplemental NPRM
(SNPRM) modifies the schedule for removal of the affected cylinder
assemblies, adds that overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be
removed within 80 hours, eliminates a reporting requirement, and
removes the requirement for initial and repetitive inspections. We are
proposing this SNPRM to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies,
which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss
of control of the airplane. We are reopening the comment period to
allow the public the chance to comment on the proposed changes to the
NPRM.
DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by February 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San
Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: https://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0002; 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 SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. Given the volume of comments received, we are
not identifying the individual commenters within this SNPRM. However,
we identify all commenters, other than individuals, in the docket. The
street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace
Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 817-222-5190; fax:
817-222-5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite your review of the commenter list provided in Docket No.
FAA-2012-0002. If you submitted a comment to an organization and do not
see the name of the organization in the commenter list, please submit
your comment directly to us as provided for in this SNPRM. If you
submitted as an individual, you will not be listed as a commenter.
We also invite you to review our responses to comments, and to
resubmit your comment if you conclude that your comment was not
responded to below.
We also invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this SNPRM. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0002;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
SNPRM because of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this SNPRM.
Discussion
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain AEC replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed
by ECi. These assemblies are used on CMI model 520 and 550
reciprocating engines, and all other CMI engine models approved for the
use of models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470
when modified by STC. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 2013 (78
[[Page 1009]]
FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive
inspections, immediate replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and
replacement of cylinder assemblies at reduced times-in-service (TIS)
since new. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of
affected cylinder assemblies into any engine.
Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued
Since the NPRM published on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828), we
received numerous comments on the proposed rule. We reviewed those
comments and considered their impact to safety. Some of those comments
included additional failure information that we subsequently
incorporated in our updated risk analysis.
Following our comment review, we determined that we needed to
review how we proposed to address the unsafe condition. So, we formed a
multi-directorate/multi-disciplinary team to review the technical basis
of the proposed rule, as well as the numerous public comments, and the
additional failure information provided by commenters, to the NPRM.
This team confirmed that the subject cylinder assemblies are unsafe.
The team's review of the new data provided by commenters supports a
lengthier compliance interval. This team therefore recommended several
changes to the NPRM, which resulted in this SNPRM.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013). The following presents the comments received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are Not
Unsafe
Many operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens
asked that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). The
commenters claimed that the affected ECi cylinder assemblies have an
equivalent, or lower, failure rate than that of cylinder assemblies
manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). We concluded
that these commenters were requesting that we withdraw the NPRM because
they believe that the ECi cylinder assemblies are not unsafe.
We disagree. The rate of separation for the affected ECi cylinder
assemblies is at least 32 times greater than that of OEM cylinder
assemblies over the same period. Although there are approximately four
times as many OEM cylinder assemblies in service than ECi cylinder
assemblies, the ECi cylinder assemblies suffered more cylinder head
separations than OEM cylinder assemblies since 2004. This data is
available for review in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002. We did not withdraw
the NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Airplanes Can Operate Safely With
a Separated Cylinder Head
Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private
citizens commented that we should not issue the AD because airplanes
can continue to operate safely even after a cylinder head separation.
Several commenters have also stated that airplane engines are designed
and certified to safely operate with one failed cylinder. They cited 14
CFR 33.43 in support of their position.
We disagree. The safety consequences represented by a cylinder head
separation in flight are significant, and include multiple secondary
effects, like fire. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
We also disagree that Sec. 33.43, Vibration Test, supports the
commenter's position that airplanes are certified to operate safely
after a cylinder head separation. Section 33.43(d), addressing the
engine vibration survey of Sec. 33.43(a), requires assessment of
crankshaft vibration for an engine that has one cylinder that ``is not
firing.'' That paragraph, like the rest of Sec. 33.43, does not
discuss cylinder head separation. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Root Cause of Cylinder Failure Is
Unknown
Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private
citizens requested that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12,
2013) because the FAA failed to identify the root cause(s) of cylinder
head separations.
We disagree. The root cause of the cylinder head separation is not
the unsafe condition. We have identified the unsafe condition--cylinder
head separation. Removal of the cylinder assembly resolves the unsafe
condition. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Pilot Error Is Causing Cylinder
Head Separations
Numerous organizations, aircraft operators, and private citizens
commented that cylinder head separations involving the ECi cylinder
assemblies affected by this NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) were
caused by pilot error rather than by design deficiencies of the
cylinder assemblies. They therefore requested that we not issue the AD.
We disagree. If pilot error was leading to cylinder head
separation, then we would expect to see similar damage in engines with
other than ECi cylinder assemblies installed where the pilots exceeded
the same limitation(s). However, we do not have any such data. We did
not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Adopt Less Stringent Compliance Requirements
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), other
organizations, numerous aircraft operators, and private citizens
commented that the compliance requirements in the proposed AD are too
severe and that we should adopt less stringent requirements.
We agree that the requirements for removal of the cylinder
assemblies can be made less severe. Our updated analysis indicates that
our proposed reduced compliance interval with the attendant removal
from service of affected cylinder assemblies and lesser impact to
operators addresses the unsafe condition and is consistent with our
risk guidelines. We revised the compliance paragraphs in this SNPRM by
changing the schedule for removal of affected cylinder assemblies to a
phased removal schedule for all affected cylinder assemblies based on
total time in service since new.
The NTSB also recommended in NTSB Safety Recommendation A-12-7 that
we impose a repetitive inspection requirement for certain ECi cylinder
assemblies and their removal once they reach the manufacturer's
recommended time between overhaul (TBO).
We disagree. Repetitive inspections until TBO as suggested by the
commenter, is inconsistent with the serious hazard represented by
cylinder assembly failures. Therefore, we are requiring removal of
affected cylinder assemblies from service prior to TBO. Also, engine
overhaul is not a requirement for all operators. Therefore, tying the
proposed recurrent inspection to engine overhaul would not resolve the
unsafe condition. We did not change this proposed AD based on this
comment.
The NTSB also noted that the proposed rule would affect many more
cylinder assemblies than the NTSB had included in its safety
recommendation letter A-12-7, dated February 24, 2012, to the FAA. The
NTSB commented that the NPRM's proposal to remove Group A cylinder
assemblies (S/Ns 1 through
[[Page 1010]]
33696) with fewer than 500 hours TIS or more than 1,000 hours TIS
within 25 hours does not appear to be supported by existing service
information or discussions between the NTSB and the FAA.
We disagree. Based on service failure data and known implementation
of design improvements, this proposed AD must apply to cylinder
assemblies S/Ns 1 through 61176. We did not change this proposed AD
based on this comment.
Request for FAA To Follow Its Own Risk Assessment Policies
Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance
organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA had not
followed its own risk assessment policies in issuing the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013).
We disagree. The corrective actions proposed in the NPRM, and as
revised by this SNPRM, are consistent with FAA Order 8040.4A, ``Safety
Risk Management Policy,'' dated April 30, 2012, and the Monitor Safety/
Analyze Data (MSAD) process defined in FAA Order 8110.107A, ``Monitor
Safety/Analyze Data,'' dated October 1, 2012. The requirements of this
proposed AD are also consistent with the guidance of Engine & Propeller
Directorate memorandum ``Risk Assessment for Reciprocating Engine
Airworthiness Directives,'' PS-ANE-100-1999-00006, dated May 24, 1999.
We did not change this SNPRM as a result of this comment.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of the Risk of Maintenance Errors
Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private
citizens commented that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828,
August 12, 2013) because the removal and replacement of affected
cylinder assemblies before TBO would result in maintenance errors that
would adversely affect safety.
We disagree. Our regulatory framework presumes that maintenance
will be performed correctly by personnel authorized by the FAA to
return aircraft to service in an airworthy condition. Further, we have
not observed any negative effects on safety due to removal of these
cylinder assemblies during maintenance. Also, cylinder removal and
replacement is a maintenance action addressed in engine maintenance
manuals. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
Request To Review Repetitive Compression Test and Leak Check
Some aircraft operators commented that they successfully passed the
compression test with the piston at top-dead-center, while still
finding the cylinders cracked. We interpret the comment to be that the
proposed inspection and test was inadequate to detect a cracked
cylinder assembly.
We agree. The inspection and test may not detect cracks. Also, we
have received field reports of separated cylinders that occurred within
the repetitive 50-hour compression test and leak check inspection
intervals proposed by the NPRM. We therefore concluded that these tests
are not sufficiently reliable and the cost associated with such ongoing
tests outweighs the safety benefit. We changed this SNPRM by removing
the requirement for repetitive compression and leak inspection tests.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of Excessive Cost
Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance
organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA should
withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) because the cost of
compliance is excessive to owners and operators of aircraft with
engines that have affected cylinder assemblies.
We disagree. We find that the safety benefits of the proposed rule,
as changed by this SNPRM, outweigh its estimated cost. Further, we
recalculated the cost of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). Our
previous estimate was based on 36,000 cylinder assemblies. Based on
data available to the FAA, we subsequently reduced the number affected
cylinder assemblies to 28,874.
We also determined that a replacement cost based on a pro-rated
life of the cylinder assemblies more accurately reflects the true cost
of replacing the cylinder assemblies. In the NPRM, we used $1,700 per
cylinder assembly for the entire affected cylinder assembly population.
We recalculated the total value for loss of the part based on a pro-
rated estimate of usage for the cylinder assembly population over their
current accumulated time in service. This recalculated loss is
$19,867,882 for the entire affected cylinder assembly population.
Finally, since we issued the NPRM, we eliminated those inspections
and their associated cost from this SNPRM. For further information on
the estimated cost of this AD, please see our Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the text of this SNPRM. We did not
withdraw the NPRM.
Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM
We received several comments on the rulemaking process, including
several who supported the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) as
proposed. Several commenters stated that hundreds of failures of the
affected cylinder assemblies had been reported to the FAA and ECi.
We thank the commenters for their participation in the rulemaking
process.
Summary of Changes to the NPRM
First, we removed the 50 hour repetitive inspection requirement in
the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). We did so because we
determined that the inspection, compression test, and leak check
proposed by the NPRM was not effective in detecting cracked cylinders.
Based on further review of service information, we determined that a
compression test and leak check will not identify a crack until the
crack has propagated all the way through the cylinder wall to some
detectable location. Therefore, we are relying on the phased removal of
the cylinders along with annual or 100-hour inspections already
required by other regulations to provide an adequate level of safety.
We eliminated the requirement to report details of all cylinder
assemblies removed per the requirements of the AD to the FAA. This
information is no longer needed since we will rely on our established
reporting channels, e.g., Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) and
Malfunction/Defect (M/D) reports, to report future cylinder head
failures.
We reduced the estimated population of affected cylinder assemblies
from 36,000 to 28,874.
We used a pro-rated loss of cylinder life which more accurately
reflects the cost of replacing the affected cylinder assemblies.
We removed the cost of inspection from this SNPRM since the
recurrent visual inspections and compression/leak tests proposed by the
NPRM were ineffective in detecting the unsafe condition.
We changed the compliance paragraphs by removing references to
``Group A'' (serial numbers (S/Ns) between 1 and 33696) and ``Group B''
(S/Ns between 33697 and 61176). We determined that TIS and serial
number (S/N) are sufficient to identify and correct the suspect
cylinder assembly population.
We modified the compliance schedule for removal of affected
cylinder assemblies from 500 or 1,000 operating
[[Page 1011]]
hours for all affected cylinder assemblies to a phased removal schedule
based on total hours TIS since new. We determined that information
submitted by commenters to the proposed rule justified a phased
drawdown of the assemblies from service.
Finally, we specified in this SNPRM that overhauled cylinder
assemblies should be removed within 80 hours after the effective date
of this AD. We concluded that overhauling of the cylinder assembly does
not diminish the fatigue damage that has already accumulated in the
cylinder head.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above revise the scope of the NPRM (78 FR
48828, August 12, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM
This SNPRM would require removal of the affected cylinder
assemblies, including overhauled cylinder assemblies, according to a
phased removal schedule.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 CMI
models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and
all other CMI engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and
550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by
STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate
is $85 per hour. We estimate that about 18 hours would be required to
replace all six cylinder assemblies during overhaul maintenance. We
estimate the pro-rated value of the cost of replacement of six cylinder
assemblies to be about $4,202 per engine. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to change
all ECi cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. Our cost estimate is
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
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 Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA 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 agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
This proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities of part 135 operators and smaller air services
businesses.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies businesses
as small based on size standards, typically expressed as number of
employees. The FAA identified 609 part 135 operators that meet the SBA
definition of a small entity (entities with 1,500 or fewer employees)
which would be affected by this proposed rule. Of these 609, the FAA
identified 209 small part 135 operators on which the rule would have a
significant economic impact. We consider this a substantial number of
small entities. In addition, we estimate that more than 2,000 smaller
air services businesses would be affected by this proposed rule. This
business segment also has a substantial number of small entities. The
FAA is unaware of the assets or financial resources of these
businesses. The FAA requests comments from these businesses regarding
their economic impact.
The FAA estimates the compliance cost from this AD to be the sum of
the replacement cost per aircraft, plus the loss of use due to earlier
replacement, plus minor paperwork cost. The labor cost to replace all
six cylinder assemblies is the average labor rate $85 per hour
multiplied by the estimated 18 hours to complete the task.
The FAA believes that a pro-rated value of the replacement cost of
the cylinder assemblies is more accurate and reflects on the true cost
to replacing the cylinder assemblies. This AD would result in a loss-
of-use as some cylinder assemblies would be replaced sooner than
current practice. This AD requires removal of the cylinder assemblies
at an average of 1,000 hours instead of at the average TBO of 1,700
hours. This means that the allowable life is only 1,000 of the original
1,700 hours, or at 58.82% of the current life. Therefore the life value
that is lost equals 0.4118 (1.0-0.5882). We estimate the pro-rated loss
of life value for six cylinder assemblies to be about $4,200 per engine
(1,700 x 6 x .4118). The loss-of-use expense implicitly includes the
earlier purchase of the replacement cylinder assemblies.
Therefore the AD cost per aircraft equals the labor costs of $1,530
and the loss-of-service cost of $4,202, or about $6,000. Based on the
number of aircraft owned by the operators impacted, total compliance
costs range between $6 thousand to $525 thousand per small entity
encompassing one to eighty-eight aircraft.
To determine whether the compliance cost would be a significant
economic impact, we measured the annualized compliance cost relative to
the value of the aircraft. The estimated value of their aircraft ranges
between $22 thousand to $21 million. Using the preceding information,
the FAA estimates that their ratio of annualized cost to asset value is
higher than 5 percent for many of these operators. Based on this
information the FAA decided that the rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of entities. Therefore, we have
performed a regulatory flexibility analysis for these small entities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the initial analysis must address:
(1) Description of reasons the agency is considering the action;
(2) Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed
rule;
[[Page 1012]]
(3) Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule;
(4) All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule;
(5) Description and an estimated number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply; and
(6) Describe alternatives considered.
Description of Reasons the Agency is Considering the Action
This proposed AD was prompted by failure reports of multiple
cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum
cylinder heads. This AD would apply to certain Airmotive Engineering
Corp. replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi, used on CMI
model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and all other engine models
approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies,
such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC.
Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rule Would Apply
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000
Continental Motors, Inc. models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550
reciprocating engines and all other engine models approved for the use
of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model
470 when modified by STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA will affect 609 part 135 operators and more than 2,000 air
service businesses for which the rule will have an economic impact. The
affected entities fly fixed wing aircraft; employ less than 1,500
employees; and conduct a variety of air services such as fly passengers
and cargo for hire. We estimate that the small part 135 operators have
assets valued between $22 thousand to $21 million (range of 1 to 88
aircraft).
Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of
the Proposed Rule
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to
be approximately 5 minutes per response at an hourly wage rate of $85
per hour, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and
reviewing the collection of information. The paperwork cost for them is
between $7 and $616.
All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
Description of Alternatives Considered
The FAA received comments concerning this AD. Some commenters
requested withdrawal of this NPRM because of excessive cost with only
negligible safety gains. In response to comments about problems with
repetitive compression/soap test, the FAA agrees that these tests are
not reliable and the costs associated with such ongoing tests outweigh
the safety benefit. This SNPRM has removed the requirement for
repetitive compression/soap inspection tests. We also considered these
following alternatives:
(1) Do nothing--This option is not acceptable due to the number of
failures of ECi cylinder assemblies and the consequences of the
failures.
(2) Periodic inspections only (no forced removals)--Though the NTSB
recommends this option, the service history has shown that such
inspections may not reliably detect existing cracks and the rate of
crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.
(3) Forced removal with periodic inspections--As stated above, such
periodic inspections may not reliably detect cracks and the rate of
crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will 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.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors,
Inc., formerly Continental): Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by February 23, 2015.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520
and 550 reciprocating engines, and to all other CMI engine models
approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such
as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate
(STC), with Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, marketed by Engine
Components International Division (hereinafter referred to as ECi),
part number (P/N) AEC631397, with ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial
number (S/N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.
(d) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by multiple failure reports of cylinder
head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder
heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cylinder
assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.
(e) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(1) Review the engine maintenance records to determine if any
affected cylinder assemblies are installed.
(2) If you cannot determine based on review of engine
maintenance records if any affected cylinder assemblies are
installed, comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.
(3) If you do not have any of the affected ECi cylinder
assemblies installed on your engine, no further action is required.
[[Page 1013]]
(4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number Location
(i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and Class number. The ECi
cylinder assembly, P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is stamped
on the bottom flange of the cylinder barrel. Guidance on the P/N and
Class number description and location can be found in ECi Service
Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.
(ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly P/N when the
cylinder assembly is installed on the engine, you may use the
following alternative method of identification:
(A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker box cover.
(B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the cylinder head between
the valve stems.
(C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. Affected cylinder
assemblies have the cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast into
the cylinder head between the valve stems.
(D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as specified in paragraph
(e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
(iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured
through 2008, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on the intake
port boss two inches down from the top edge of the head.
(iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured on
or after January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped
just below the top edge of the head on the exhaust port side.
(5) Removal From Service
(i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer
operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new on the effective
date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service before
reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new.
(ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 680
operating hours TIS since new and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS
since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder
assembly from service within the next 320 operating hours TIS or
within 1,160 operating hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first.
(iii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 1,000
operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD,
remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 160
operating hours or at next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.
(iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that has been
overhauled, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the
next 80 operating hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
(f) Installation Prohibitions
After the effective date of this AD:
(1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any engine, any cylinder
assembly removed per this AD.
(2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder assembly that has
been overhauled, into any engine.
(3) Do not install any engine that has one or more affected
overhauled ECi cylinder assemblies, onto any aircraft.
(4) Do not return to service any aircraft that has an engine
installed with an ECi cylinder assembly subject to this AD, if the
cylinder assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours TIS.
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
The Manager, Special Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.
(h) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jurgen E.
Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193;
phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email:
jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.
(2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated
February 23, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex
Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: https://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx.
(3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call 781-238-7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 23, 2014.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00152 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P