Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King Corporation Emergency Locator Transmitters, 43677-43682 [2017-16048]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2016–6673; Directorate
Identifier 2015–NM–092–AD; Amendment
39–18978; AD 2017–16–01]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King
Corporation Emergency Locator
Transmitters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Ameri-King Corporation emergency
locator transmitters (ELTs) as installed
on various aircraft. This AD was
prompted by multiple reports of ELT
failure and a report of noncompliance to
quality standards and manufacturer
processes related to Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs. This AD requires
repetitive inspections of the ELT for
discrepancies; repetitive checks, tests,
and verifications, as applicable, to
ensure the ELT is functioning; and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD
also allows for optional replacement of
affected ELTs and, for certain aircraft,
optional removal of affected ELTs. We
are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective October 24,
2017.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of October 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this final rule, contact
Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5372; fax:
562–627–5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@
faa.gov. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
It is also available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
6673.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
6673; 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
Docket 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.
Jkt 241001
Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5372; fax:
562–627–5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would
apply to certain Ameri-King Corporation
ELTs as installed on various aircraft.
The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35657)
(‘‘the NPRM’’). The NPRM was
prompted by multiple reports of ELT
failure. The NPRM was also prompted
by a report of noncompliance to quality
standards and manufacturer processes
related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs.
Failure to adhere to these standards and
processes could result in ELTs that do
not function. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections of the ELT
for discrepancies; repetitive checks,
tests, and verifications, as applicable, to
ensure the ELT is functioning; and
corrective actions if necessary. The
NPRM also proposed to allow optional
replacement of affected ELTs and, for
aircraft on which an ELT is not required
by operating regulations, optional
removal of affected ELTs. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct
nonfunctioning ELTs, which could
delay or impede the rescue of the
flightcrew and passengers after an
emergency landing.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. The
following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA’s
response to each comment. Alaska
Seaplanes supported the NPRM. Alaska
Seaplanes stated that, based on its
experience with Ameri-King
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43677
Corporation ELTs, ‘‘this is a good and
needed AD.’’
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Richard Koehler, an FAA-certificated
mechanic and pilot, requested we
withdraw the NPRM. The commenter
stated he is strongly opposed to
issuance of the NPRM for the following
reasons:
• The commenter stated the
‘‘Discussion’’ paragraph of the NPRM
specifies that there have been 73
reported ELT failures and questioned if
all were Ameri-King units or a mix of
the older technical standard order
(TSO)–C91 units and the newer TSO–
C91a units. The commenter stated the
TSO–C91a ELT was a huge
technological advance over the old
TSO–C91 units. The commenter noted
that he replaced four defective units
(TSO–C91) with AK–450 units (TSO–
C91a), which, in his experience, have
never had a failure. The commenter
questioned how the failure rate of the
AK–450 compares to other
manufacturers’ units.
• The commenter stated that the
NPRM appears to be part of ‘‘the
ongoing vendetta against Ameri-King by
the 406 ELT mafia,’’ which is trying to
force all general aviation aircraft to
adopt 406 ELTs. The commenter stated
that the performance of the AK–450 is
at least ten times better than the old C91
units. The commenter recommended
that the NPRM should ‘‘get rid of poor
ELTs’’ by forcing the replacement of the
tens of thousands of C91 units that are
still available.
• The commenter stated that the
inspection called out in the proposed
AD is redundant to the tests required in
14 CFR 91.207(d), which requires a 12calendar-month inspection cycle on all
installed ELTs.
We do not agree to withdraw the
NPRM. We find that sufficient data exist
to demonstrate that Ameri-King
Corporation Model AK–450–( ) and
AK–451–( ) series ELTs could fail. We
consider this an unsafe condition since
nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or
impede the rescue of the flightcrew and
passengers after an emergency landing.
The reported ELT failures were not a
mix of TSO–C91 units and TSO–C91a
units. As stated in the NPRM, we
received 73 reports of ELT failures for
Ameri-King Corporation Model AK–
450–( ) series ELTs, which are approved
under TSO–C91a, and AK–451–( )
series ELTs, which are approved under
TSO–C91a and TSO–C126.
We are also aware of the
noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes for Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs, which could result in
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
43678
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
the failure rate of Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs being higher than
other manufacturers’ failure rates. When
comparing the data between Ameri-King
Corporation and one other ELT
manufacturer, the failure rate for AmeriKing Corporation ELTs is significantly
higher than for the other manufacturer’s
ELTs. We acknowledge that 14 CFR
91.207(d) specifies compliance times for
inspecting ELTs that overlap with the
compliance times in this AD; however
14 CFR 91.207(d) does not specify
corrective actions if any discrepancies
are found. In addition, 14 CFR 91.207(d)
only applies to aircraft on which ELTs
are required. This AD applies to all
Ameri-King Corporation Model AK–
450–( ) and AK–451–( ) series ELTs,
regardless of installation. Consequently,
we have determined that this AD is
necessary in order to address the
identified unsafe condition in all
affected ELTs. This AD, in conjunction
with the emergency cease and desist
order, dated December 28, 2015, to
Ameri-King Corporation that terminated
their technical standard order
authorization (TSOA) and parts
manufacturer approval (PMA), will
ensure nonfunctioning Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs are identified so that
they may be eliminated from the U.S.
fleet.
We might also consider further
rulemaking to address other ELTs if we
receive data that substantiate an unsafe
condition exists for those ELTs. We
have not changed this final rule in this
regard.
Request To Amend Facts Regarding the
Basis for the NPRM
Michael L. Dworkin, legal
representative for Ameri-King
Corporation (Ameri-King), submitted
comments intended to serve as AmeriKing’s public comments on the NPRM.
Ameri-King requested that, if we go
forward with the final rule, we amend
the facts regarding the basis for the
NPRM. Ameri-King stated it objects to
the FAA’s stated basis for the NPRM for
the following reasons:
• Ameri-King stated that the alleged
73 reported ELT failures were never
communicated to Ameri-King and
Ameri-King has never been afforded the
opportunity to investigate the cause(s)
of such alleged failures. The commenter
questioned whether they were due to
design or production defects, or
improper installation, maintenance, and
use.
• Ameri-King stated that the number
of allegedly reported failures does not
comport with the FAA’s service
difficulty report (SDR) database, which
shows only 64 reports related to service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
difficulties with Ameri-King ELTs.
Ameri-King stated that many of these 64
reports clearly indicate failures due to
factors other than design or
manufacturing, and outside of AmeriKing’s activities, such as improper
installation, improper and inadequate
maintenance, and dead batteries.
• Ameri-King noted that whether
there were 64 or 73 reports, these
numbers are relatively inconsequential
considering that there are over 14,500
Ameri-King ELTs in the field. AmeriKing added that utilizing the FAA’s
number of 73 failures would evidence a
failure rate of approximately one-half of
one percent (0.5%). Ameri-King stated
that the number of reports confined to
Ameri-King’s ELTs pales in comparison
to the FAA’s SDR database for all ELT
manufacturers (799 SDRs), further
bolstering Ameri-King’s quality control
and performance accomplishments.
• Ameri-King also pointed out that
the NPRM states that for service
information, affected persons should
contact Ameri-King directly. However,
by the terms of the cease and desist
order, dated December 28, 2015, the
FAA has prevented Ameri-King from
providing any assistance. Ameri-King
noted that, to the extent functional tests
reveal that the failures are due to dead
batteries, the aircraft owner may not be
able to purchase replacements.
Although these batteries are ‘‘off the
shelf’’ generic batteries that are not of
Ameri-King’s design or manufacture,
under the terms of the cease and desist
order, Ameri-King cannot sell other
manufacturers’ replacement batteries.
• Ameri-King stated that FAA
certification guidelines classify ELTs as
non-essential equipment, and that under
TSO–C126a and TSO–C126b, ELT
failures have been considered by the
FAA to be ‘‘minor failures.’’
In response to the commenter’s
request to amend the facts regarding the
basis for the NPRM, we note that the 73
ELT failures are from reports that
Ameri-King Quality Control (QC)
provided to the FAA. Regarding the
failure rate, SDR source data comes from
operator reports and varies in
completion and information detail
provided. In addition, the SDR database
is not a comprehensive database. It is
only one of the tools used to investigate
potential safety issues (e.g., Hotline
reports, National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) safety investigations,
etc.). There is no basis (i.e., data
substantiation) for Ameri-King’s
assertion that Ameri-King’s failure rate
is lower than other manufacturers.
As stated previously, Ameri-King’s
failure rate is significantly higher than
at least one other manufacturer. The
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ameri-King failures include occurrences
of inadvertent G-switch activation and
premature battery replacement due to
repeated inadvertent ELT self-test
initialization.
We found Ameri-King’s quality
control records to be insufficient as they
only included data covering one year. In
addition, we discovered that AmeriKing would receive failed ELTs from
operators, repair them, and reissue them
with a new serial number, which affects
quality and configuration control. Since
there were noncompliance findings with
quality standards and manufacturer
processes, it is unknown how many
future failures there may be due to
manufacturing factors at Ameri-King.
We acknowledge that the NPRM
should not have referred to Ameri-King
for contact information for the service
information. We have revised the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule to
specify contacting the FAA for service
information. We have also specified
contacting the FAA for service
information in paragraph (m)(3) of this
AD.
We have also revised paragraph (g) of
this AD to clarify that operators are not
required to get replacement batteries
from Ameri-King Corporation. AmeriKing AK–450–( ) series ELTs use
alkaline batteries. Ameri-King AK–451–
( ) series ELTs use lithium batteries.
Regarding lithium battery replacement,
operators should note that replacement
batteries should follow the battery
standards requirements specified in
TSO–C142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium
Cells and Batteries. TSO–C142a states
that non-rechargeable lithium cells and
batteries must meet minimum
performance standards in RTCA, Inc.,
document RTCA DO–227, ‘‘Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for
Lithium Batteries,’’ dated June 23, 1995
(‘‘DO–227’’). As specified in DO–227, if
any lithium battery replacement is
necessary, all batteries should be
replaced, i.e., there should not be a
mixture of new and old batteries
installed in an ELT. If operators have
questions on lithium battery
replacement, they may contact the
person identified under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph of this
AD.
Regarding Ameri-King’s comment
about non-essential equipment and
minor failures, we acknowledge that
ELTs are considered non-essential
equipment for certain aircraft. However,
the majority of Ameri-King ELTs
(approximately 10,500 units) were sold
to operators of small airplanes,
certificated under 14 CFR part 23. In
assessing this issue, we followed
Section 4–12, ‘‘Other Structure—
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Occupant Protection,’’ of the Small
Airplane Risk Analysis (SARA)
Handbook, dated September 30, 2010,
which contains the following statement:
‘‘An ASE [aviation safety engineer]
should consider corrective action for
any defect or failure in a design feature
intended to improve survivability in
accidents.’’ As noted in Section 1–2,
‘‘Use of Risk Methods,’’ of the SARA
handbook:
Also, airplane components intended to
provide occupant protection must function as
intended in a survivable incident or accident.
Using a probabilistic approach in these types
of situations is not appropriate for making
decisions on whether airworthiness action is
necessary. However, probabilistic methods
can help us determine how quickly we
should take an airworthiness action and how
effective a proposed airworthiness action
may be in reducing the risk associated with
an airworthiness concern.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Thus, we find that Ameri-King ELT
failures must be addressed because
nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or
impede the rescue of the flightcrew and
passengers after an emergency landing.
Request To Remove Requirement To
Repair Discrepancies
Three commenters requested that we
remove repair requirements from the
proposed AD. One of these commenters,
Neal Dillman, noted that the existing
manual does not specify that repairs be
accomplished. The commenter
indicated that doing a repair in order to
maintain airworthiness is supported by
existing advisory circulars, as well as
other FAA documentation. The
commenter also noted that other ELT
manufacturers have documentation that
does not include repairs and, therefore,
requiring a repair for Ameri-King is
superfluous.
Another commenter, Richard Koehler,
questioned why the proposed AD
specifies to repair discrepancies when
14 CFR 91.207(d) calls for an inspection
of the ELT, but leaves the repair to the
mechanic with an inspection
authorization. The commenter
questioned why we have to add overt
words to repair discrepancies in the
proposed AD, but not in the regulations.
We infer the commenter is requesting
that we not include repair requirements.
Another commenter, Michael L.
Dworkin, legal representative for AmeriKing, stated that to the extent that the
proposed AD requires accomplishing
the actions already specified in AmeriKing’s Installation & Operations
Manuals, ‘‘Documents IM–450 and IM–
451,’’ which include yearly inspections
and performance of functional and
operations tests, no objection is offered.
However, Ameri-King stated that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
requirements of the proposed AD differ
from Ameri-King’s Installation &
Operations Manuals where it specifies
corrective actions that would be
required in repairing or replacing
inoperative ELTs.
Ameri-King noted that corrective
action is already required under the
applicable Federal Aviation Regulations
and established industry practices.
Ameri-King considered that it should be
intuitive and axiomatic that any
personnel performing inspections and
functional or operations tests would
take appropriate corrective actions to
ensure that any faults are corrected so
the equipment meets and performs in
accordance with specifications. As such,
Ameri-King concluded that there is
little, if any, need to mandate corrective
action by AD.
Ameri-King also noted that AmeriKing’s Installation & Operations
Manuals were approved by the FAA in
conjunction with the FAA having issued
TSOAs and PMAs to Ameri-King, and at
that time, the FAA saw no need to
specify corrective actions in the event
that inspection or testing revealed any
problems—most likely because
corrective action is already required by
the Federal Aviation Regulations and
standard industry practices.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request to remove the requirement to
repair discrepancies. When we issue an
AD, we must include actions that are
necessary to address the unsafe
condition. We acknowledge that the
existing regulations provide acceptable
requirements to ensure proper
maintenance inspection and operation.
However, we also typically include
actions in ADs to ensure that operators
do not overlook (unintentionally or
otherwise) the necessity of
accomplishing on-condition repairs or
replacements related to actions that are
necessary to address unsafe conditions.
We have not found a similar unsafe
condition on ELTs from other
manufacturers. For the ELTs identified
in this AD, repairs or replacements must
be done if discrepancies are found,
except as provided by paragraph (j) of
this AD. We have not changed this AD
in this regard.
However, we have revised paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that
either a repair or replacement may be
done if any of the conditions identified
in those paragraphs is found. Paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD had
only specified that a replacement must
be done. An ELT may be repaired using
approved maintenance practices and
following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR
91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as
applicable, and other applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43679
operating rules under subchapters F and
G of 14 CFR chapter I. Repairs must be
done at an authorized repair station. For
clarity, we added a reference to 14 CFR
135.168 to specify the applicable
regulation for rotorcraft that affects
ELTs.
We have also revised paragraph (h)(3)
of this AD to clarify that all
discrepancies must be repaired using
approved maintenance practices and to
add a reference to 14 CFR 135.168. In
addition, we revised paragraph (g) of
this AD to include a reference to 14 CFR
135.168.
Request To Require the Use of Specific
Equipment
Michael L. Dworkin, legal
representative for Ameri-King,
requested that we revise the
requirements of the proposed AD to
include requiring the use of Ameri-King
compatible equipment, as currently
specified in Ameri-King’s Installation &
Operations Manuals, for the functional
and operations tests. Ameri-King stated
that non-compatible equipment will
damage the ELT and may produce
erroneous test results.
We agree with the commenter that
operators should use Ameri-King
compatible equipment as identified in
Ameri-King’s Installation & Operations
Manuals. However, this AD requires
operators to do actions in accordance
with section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic
Maintenance,’’ of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM–450,
‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October
18, 1995; or section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness),’’ Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM–451,
‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated
July 5, 2014. The steps in those sections
either do not specify test equipment that
must be used or specify a type of
equipment ‘‘or equivalent’’ that must be
used. Therefore, we have determined it
is not necessary to revise this AD in this
regard.
Request To Allow Operators To
Determine if the ELT Is Functional
Michael Dunn requested that we
allow operators to determine if the ELT
is functional. The commenter noted his
AK–451 ELT was inadvertently set off
and it worked.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request. The service information
specified in this AD provides
instructions for testing the ELT, and we
have determined this test is necessary to
address the identified unsafe condition.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
43680
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
We have not changed this AD in this
regard.
paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD in
the regulatory text of this AD.
Request To Revise Work-Hour Estimate
Request To Correct the Number of
Replacement Batteries
Leon Rinke stated that paragraph
(h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD specifies to
use four ‘‘D’’ cell batteries, but the AK–
450 ELT uses six ‘‘D’’ cell batteries, as
specified in the maintenance manual.
We infer the commenter is requesting
that we revise paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD to correct the number of
replacement batteries.
We agree with the commenter’s
statement for the reasons provided.
However, we have not revised this AD
because paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD is not included in the
regulatory text of this AD.
Richard Koehler stated the number of
work-hours specified in the NPRM for
the inspection is high. The commenter
stated the inspection should be done in
about 20 minutes, particularly when
done in concert with an annual
inspection. We infer the commenter is
requesting that we revise the 2 workhours specified in the ‘‘Costs of
Compliance’’ paragraph in the preamble
of the NPRM.
We disagree with the request to revise
the work hours. The specified number
of work hours is only an estimate. The
estimate does not assume operators will
do the required inspection concurrently
with other actions that are not mandated
by this AD. Operators may accomplish
required actions concurrently with other
actions, provided the AD actions are
done within the specified compliance
time. We have not revised this AD in
this regard.
Explanation of Removal of Paragraph
(h)(4) of the Proposed AD
Paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD
is an exception to the service
information and provides specific
instructions to replace non-functioning
batteries. We have determined that this
AD does not need to specify those
instructions as an exception to
paragraph (g) of this AD. Replacing
affected batteries as required by
paragraph (g) of this AD addresses the
identified unsafe condition for ELTs
with non-functioning batteries.
Therefore we have not included
Explanation of Change to Table 1 to
Paragraph (c) of This AD
We have confirmed with Ameri-King
that Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited rotorcraft did not receive
Ameri-King ELTs. Therefore, we have
removed Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited rotorcraft from table 1
to paragraph (c) of this AD, which lists
known aircraft that might have the
affected ELTs installed. However, if an
affected ELT is installed on any Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
rotorcraft, this AD applies to that
rotorcraft.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comments received, and
determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting this 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 for
correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden
upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these
changes will not increase the economic
burden on any operator or increase the
scope of this AD.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
We reviewed section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic
Maintenance,’’ Ameri-King Corporation
Document IM–450, ‘‘INSTALLATION &
OPERATION MANUAL,’’ Revision A,
dated October 18, 1995; and section 3.4,
‘‘Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness),’’ Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM–451,
‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated
July 5, 2014. The service information
describes procedures for inspections of
the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests,
and verifications to ensure the ELT is
functioning; and corrective actions.
Corrective actions include replacing
affected parts. These documents are
distinct because they apply to different
Ameri-King Corporation ELT models.
This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects
14,500 ELTs installed on various aircraft
of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this AD:
ESTIMATED COSTS
Labor cost
Cost per
product
2 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$170 per inspection cycle.
$170 per inspection cycle ............
Action
Inspections, checks,
verifications.
tests,
and
We estimate the following costs to do
any necessary replacements that would
be required based on the results of the
inspections, checks, tests, and
verifications. We have no way of
Cost on U.S.
operators
$2,465,000 per inspection cycle.
determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
ON-CONDITION COSTS
Cost per
product
Action
Labor cost
Parts cost
Replacement ...................................
4 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$340.
Between $600 and $1,500 ...........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
Between $940 and $1,840.
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
Adoption of the Amendment
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
43681
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):
■
2017–16–01 Ameri-King Corporation:
Amendment 39–18978; Docket No.
FAA–2016–6673; Directorate Identifier
2015–NM–092–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Ameri-King
Corporation Model AK–450–( ) and AK–
451–( ) series emergency locator transmitters
(ELTs). This appliance is installed on, but not
limited to, aircraft identified in table 1 to
paragraph (c) of this AD.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) OF THIS AD—CERTAIN AIRCRAFT THAT MIGHT HAVE AFFECTED ELTS INSTALLED
Aircraft
ELT model
Airbus rotorcraft ................................................................................................................................................................
American Champion Aircraft Corp. airplanes ...................................................................................................................
Aviat Aircraft Inc. airplanes ..............................................................................................................................................
Beechcraft Corporation airplanes .....................................................................................................................................
Bombardier Inc. airplanes ................................................................................................................................................
Cessna Aircraft Company airplanes .................................................................................................................................
Cirrus Design Corporation airplanes ................................................................................................................................
Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. airplanes .......................................................................................................................
Eclipse Aerospace Inc. airplanes .....................................................................................................................................
Embraer S.A. airplanes ....................................................................................................................................................
KitFox Aircraft LLC (formerly SkyStar Aircraft Corporation and also Denney Aerocraft Company) airplanes ...............
Luscombe Aircraft Corporation airplanes .........................................................................................................................
Mooney Aircraft Corporation airplanes .............................................................................................................................
Piper Aircraft Inc. airplanes ..............................................................................................................................................
Robinson Helicopter Company rotorcraft .........................................................................................................................
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation rotorcraft ............................................................................................................................
SOCATA, S.A., Socata Groupe Aerospatiale airplanes ..................................................................................................
Twin Commander Aircraft LLC airplanes .........................................................................................................................
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America
Code 2562, Emergency Locator Beacon.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by multiple reports
of ELT failure. This AD was also prompted
by a report of noncompliance to quality
standards and manufacturer processes related
to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. Failure to
adhere to these standards and processes
could result in ELTs that do not function. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct
nonfunctioning ELTs, which, if not corrected,
could delay or impede the rescue of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
flightcrew and passengers after an emergency
landing.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Repetitive Actions and Corrective Actions
Within 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, do general visual inspections of
the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests, and
verifications, as applicable, to ensure the ELT
is functioning; and all applicable corrective
actions; in accordance with section 3.4,
‘‘Periodic Maintenance,’’ of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM–450,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
AK–451.
AK–450 and AK–451.
AK–450.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–450 and AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–450.
AK–450 and AK–451.
AK–450.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–451.
AK–450.
AK–451.
‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October 18,
1995; or section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance
(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’
Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–451,
‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5,
2014; as applicable; and as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions following 14 CFR
91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR
135.168, as applicable, and other applicable
operating rules under subchapters F and G of
14 CFR chapter I (hereafter referred to as
‘‘other applicable operating rules’’) after
accomplishing the inspections, checks, tests,
and verifications. Repeat the inspections and
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
43682
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
applicable checks, tests, and verifications
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12
months until the terminating action specified
in paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Operators
are not required to get replacement batteries
from Ameri-King Corporation.
(h) Additional Corrective Actions
(1) If, during any action required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails the
functional test specified in step 6., the
verification specified in step 7., or the
activation check specified in step 8., of
section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance,’’ of
Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–450,
‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October 18,
1995, do the actions specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Replace the affected Model AK–450–( )
ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD
(‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved
ELT’’), following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR
91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable,
and other applicable operating rules.
(ii) Repair the ELT using approved
maintenance practices and following 14 CFR
91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR
135.168, as applicable, and other applicable
operating rules.
(2) If, during any action required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails any
of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
through (h)(2)(v) of this AD: Replace the
affected Model AK–451–( ) ELT with a
serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD (‘‘Definition of
Serviceable FAA-approved ELT’’), following
14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14
CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules; or repair the ELT
using approved maintenance practices and
following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f),
and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules.
(i) The operational test specified in step
3.4.6 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance
(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’
of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–
451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5,
2014.
(ii) Any check specified in step 3.4.7 of
section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance
(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’
of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–
451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5,
2014.
(iii) The digital message verification
specified in step 3.4.8 of section 3.4,
‘‘Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM–451,
‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5,
2014.
(iv) The registration verification specified
in step 3.4.9 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King Corporation
Document IM–451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h,
dated July 5, 2014.
(v) The verification of the ELT and global
positioning system (GPS) interface specified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Sep 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
in step 3.4.10 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King Corporation
Document IM–451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h,
dated July 5, 2014.
(3) If, during any action required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any of the
discrepancies specified in paragraphs
(h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(vi) of this AD are
found, repair all discrepancies using
approved maintenance practices and
following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f),
and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules.
(i) Any unsecured fastener or mechanical
assembly.
(ii) Any cuts or abrasions on the coaxial
cable outer jacket.
(iii) Any corrosion on the ‘‘BNC’’
connectors and mating plug on the antenna
and the ELT main unit.
(iv) Any wear or abrasion on the modular
cable outer jacket.
(v) Any corrosion on the jack and plug of
the modular connecting cable.
(vi) Any corrosion on the battery
compartment.
(i) Definition of Serviceable FAA-Approved
ELT
For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable
FAA-approved ELT is any FAA-approved
ELT other than a Model AK–450–( ) and AK–
451–( ) series ELT produced by Ameri-King
Corporation.
(j) Optional Terminating Action
Doing the applicable action specified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD terminates
the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD.
(1) For aircraft required by operating
regulations to be equipped with an ELT:
Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAAapproved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’).
(2) For aircraft not required by operating
regulations to be equipped with an ELT:
Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAAapproved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’). The ELT may be removed
as an alternative to the ELT replacement; if
an ELT is re-installed, it must be a
serviceable ELT as specified in paragraph (i)
of this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’).
(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 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
paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(l) Related Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L,
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–
5372; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.
(m) 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) Section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance,’’
Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–450,
‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October 18,
1995.
(ii) Section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance
(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’
Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–451,
‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5,
2014.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch,
ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137;
phone: 562–627–5372; fax: 562–627–5210;
email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(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: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19,
2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–16048 Filed 9–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 259
Guide Concerning Fuel Economy
Advertising for New Automobiles
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule; adoption of revised
AGENCY:
ACTION:
guides.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43677-43682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16048]
[[Page 43677]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2016-6673; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-092-AD;
Amendment 39-18978; AD 2017-16-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King Corporation Emergency
Locator Transmitters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Ameri-King Corporation emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) as
installed on various aircraft. This AD was prompted by multiple reports
of ELT failure and a report of noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. This AD
requires repetitive inspections of the ELT for discrepancies;
repetitive checks, tests, and verifications, as applicable, to ensure
the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
also allows for optional replacement of affected ELTs and, for certain
aircraft, optional removal of affected ELTs. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 24,
2017.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372;
fax: 562-627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6673.
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-2016-
6673; 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 Docket 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: Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax:
562-627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs as installed on various aircraft. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35657) (``the NPRM'').
The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of ELT failure. The NPRM was
also prompted by a report of noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. Failure
to adhere to these standards and processes could result in ELTs that do
not function. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of
the ELT for discrepancies; repetitive checks, tests, and verifications,
as applicable, to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions
if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to allow optional replacement of
affected ELTs and, for aircraft on which an ELT is not required by
operating regulations, optional removal of affected ELTs. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct nonfunctioning ELTs, which could
delay or impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an
emergency landing.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment. Alaska Seaplanes supported the
NPRM. Alaska Seaplanes stated that, based on its experience with Ameri-
King Corporation ELTs, ``this is a good and needed AD.''
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
Richard Koehler, an FAA-certificated mechanic and pilot, requested
we withdraw the NPRM. The commenter stated he is strongly opposed to
issuance of the NPRM for the following reasons:
The commenter stated the ``Discussion'' paragraph of the
NPRM specifies that there have been 73 reported ELT failures and
questioned if all were Ameri-King units or a mix of the older technical
standard order (TSO)-C91 units and the newer TSO-C91a units. The
commenter stated the TSO-C91a ELT was a huge technological advance over
the old TSO-C91 units. The commenter noted that he replaced four
defective units (TSO-C91) with AK-450 units (TSO-C91a), which, in his
experience, have never had a failure. The commenter questioned how the
failure rate of the AK-450 compares to other manufacturers' units.
The commenter stated that the NPRM appears to be part of
``the ongoing vendetta against Ameri-King by the 406 ELT mafia,'' which
is trying to force all general aviation aircraft to adopt 406 ELTs. The
commenter stated that the performance of the AK-450 is at least ten
times better than the old C91 units. The commenter recommended that the
NPRM should ``get rid of poor ELTs'' by forcing the replacement of the
tens of thousands of C91 units that are still available.
The commenter stated that the inspection called out in the
proposed AD is redundant to the tests required in 14 CFR 91.207(d),
which requires a 12-calendar-month inspection cycle on all installed
ELTs.
We do not agree to withdraw the NPRM. We find that sufficient data
exist to demonstrate that Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and
AK-451-( ) series ELTs could fail. We consider this an unsafe condition
since nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the
flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing. The reported ELT
failures were not a mix of TSO-C91 units and TSO-C91a units. As stated
in the NPRM, we received 73 reports of ELT failures for Ameri-King
Corporation Model AK-450-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-
C91a, and AK-451-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-C91a and
TSO-C126.
We are also aware of the noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes for Ameri-King Corporation ELTs, which could
result in
[[Page 43678]]
the failure rate of Ameri-King Corporation ELTs being higher than other
manufacturers' failure rates. When comparing the data between Ameri-
King Corporation and one other ELT manufacturer, the failure rate for
Ameri-King Corporation ELTs is significantly higher than for the other
manufacturer's ELTs. We acknowledge that 14 CFR 91.207(d) specifies
compliance times for inspecting ELTs that overlap with the compliance
times in this AD; however 14 CFR 91.207(d) does not specify corrective
actions if any discrepancies are found. In addition, 14 CFR 91.207(d)
only applies to aircraft on which ELTs are required. This AD applies to
all Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( ) series ELTs,
regardless of installation. Consequently, we have determined that this
AD is necessary in order to address the identified unsafe condition in
all affected ELTs. This AD, in conjunction with the emergency cease and
desist order, dated December 28, 2015, to Ameri-King Corporation that
terminated their technical standard order authorization (TSOA) and
parts manufacturer approval (PMA), will ensure nonfunctioning Ameri-
King Corporation ELTs are identified so that they may be eliminated
from the U.S. fleet.
We might also consider further rulemaking to address other ELTs if
we receive data that substantiate an unsafe condition exists for those
ELTs. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Request To Amend Facts Regarding the Basis for the NPRM
Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King Corporation
(Ameri-King), submitted comments intended to serve as Ameri-King's
public comments on the NPRM. Ameri-King requested that, if we go
forward with the final rule, we amend the facts regarding the basis for
the NPRM. Ameri-King stated it objects to the FAA's stated basis for
the NPRM for the following reasons:
Ameri-King stated that the alleged 73 reported ELT
failures were never communicated to Ameri-King and Ameri-King has never
been afforded the opportunity to investigate the cause(s) of such
alleged failures. The commenter questioned whether they were due to
design or production defects, or improper installation, maintenance,
and use.
Ameri-King stated that the number of allegedly reported
failures does not comport with the FAA's service difficulty report
(SDR) database, which shows only 64 reports related to service
difficulties with Ameri-King ELTs. Ameri-King stated that many of these
64 reports clearly indicate failures due to factors other than design
or manufacturing, and outside of Ameri-King's activities, such as
improper installation, improper and inadequate maintenance, and dead
batteries.
Ameri-King noted that whether there were 64 or 73 reports,
these numbers are relatively inconsequential considering that there are
over 14,500 Ameri-King ELTs in the field. Ameri-King added that
utilizing the FAA's number of 73 failures would evidence a failure rate
of approximately one-half of one percent (0.5%). Ameri-King stated that
the number of reports confined to Ameri-King's ELTs pales in comparison
to the FAA's SDR database for all ELT manufacturers (799 SDRs), further
bolstering Ameri-King's quality control and performance
accomplishments.
Ameri-King also pointed out that the NPRM states that for
service information, affected persons should contact Ameri-King
directly. However, by the terms of the cease and desist order, dated
December 28, 2015, the FAA has prevented Ameri-King from providing any
assistance. Ameri-King noted that, to the extent functional tests
reveal that the failures are due to dead batteries, the aircraft owner
may not be able to purchase replacements. Although these batteries are
``off the shelf'' generic batteries that are not of Ameri-King's design
or manufacture, under the terms of the cease and desist order, Ameri-
King cannot sell other manufacturers' replacement batteries.
Ameri-King stated that FAA certification guidelines
classify ELTs as non-essential equipment, and that under TSO-C126a and
TSO-C126b, ELT failures have been considered by the FAA to be ``minor
failures.''
In response to the commenter's request to amend the facts regarding
the basis for the NPRM, we note that the 73 ELT failures are from
reports that Ameri-King Quality Control (QC) provided to the FAA.
Regarding the failure rate, SDR source data comes from operator reports
and varies in completion and information detail provided. In addition,
the SDR database is not a comprehensive database. It is only one of the
tools used to investigate potential safety issues (e.g., Hotline
reports, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety
investigations, etc.). There is no basis (i.e., data substantiation)
for Ameri-King's assertion that Ameri-King's failure rate is lower than
other manufacturers.
As stated previously, Ameri-King's failure rate is significantly
higher than at least one other manufacturer. The Ameri-King failures
include occurrences of inadvertent G-switch activation and premature
battery replacement due to repeated inadvertent ELT self-test
initialization.
We found Ameri-King's quality control records to be insufficient as
they only included data covering one year. In addition, we discovered
that Ameri-King would receive failed ELTs from operators, repair them,
and reissue them with a new serial number, which affects quality and
configuration control. Since there were noncompliance findings with
quality standards and manufacturer processes, it is unknown how many
future failures there may be due to manufacturing factors at Ameri-
King.
We acknowledge that the NPRM should not have referred to Ameri-King
for contact information for the service information. We have revised
the ADDRESSES section of this final rule to specify contacting the FAA
for service information. We have also specified contacting the FAA for
service information in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that
operators are not required to get replacement batteries from Ameri-King
Corporation. Ameri-King AK-450-( ) series ELTs use alkaline batteries.
Ameri-King AK-451-( ) series ELTs use lithium batteries. Regarding
lithium battery replacement, operators should note that replacement
batteries should follow the battery standards requirements specified in
TSO-C142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries. TSO-C142a
states that non-rechargeable lithium cells and batteries must meet
minimum performance standards in RTCA, Inc., document RTCA DO-227,
``Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Lithium Batteries,''
dated June 23, 1995 (``DO-227''). As specified in DO-227, if any
lithium battery replacement is necessary, all batteries should be
replaced, i.e., there should not be a mixture of new and old batteries
installed in an ELT. If operators have questions on lithium battery
replacement, they may contact the person identified under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph of this AD.
Regarding Ameri-King's comment about non-essential equipment and
minor failures, we acknowledge that ELTs are considered non-essential
equipment for certain aircraft. However, the majority of Ameri-King
ELTs (approximately 10,500 units) were sold to operators of small
airplanes, certificated under 14 CFR part 23. In assessing this issue,
we followed Section 4-12, ``Other Structure--
[[Page 43679]]
Occupant Protection,'' of the Small Airplane Risk Analysis (SARA)
Handbook, dated September 30, 2010, which contains the following
statement: ``An ASE [aviation safety engineer] should consider
corrective action for any defect or failure in a design feature
intended to improve survivability in accidents.'' As noted in Section
1-2, ``Use of Risk Methods,'' of the SARA handbook:
Also, airplane components intended to provide occupant
protection must function as intended in a survivable incident or
accident. Using a probabilistic approach in these types of
situations is not appropriate for making decisions on whether
airworthiness action is necessary. However, probabilistic methods
can help us determine how quickly we should take an airworthiness
action and how effective a proposed airworthiness action may be in
reducing the risk associated with an airworthiness concern.
Thus, we find that Ameri-King ELT failures must be addressed
because nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the
flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing.
Request To Remove Requirement To Repair Discrepancies
Three commenters requested that we remove repair requirements from
the proposed AD. One of these commenters, Neal Dillman, noted that the
existing manual does not specify that repairs be accomplished. The
commenter indicated that doing a repair in order to maintain
airworthiness is supported by existing advisory circulars, as well as
other FAA documentation. The commenter also noted that other ELT
manufacturers have documentation that does not include repairs and,
therefore, requiring a repair for Ameri-King is superfluous.
Another commenter, Richard Koehler, questioned why the proposed AD
specifies to repair discrepancies when 14 CFR 91.207(d) calls for an
inspection of the ELT, but leaves the repair to the mechanic with an
inspection authorization. The commenter questioned why we have to add
overt words to repair discrepancies in the proposed AD, but not in the
regulations. We infer the commenter is requesting that we not include
repair requirements.
Another commenter, Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for
Ameri-King, stated that to the extent that the proposed AD requires
accomplishing the actions already specified in Ameri-King's
Installation & Operations Manuals, ``Documents IM-450 and IM-451,''
which include yearly inspections and performance of functional and
operations tests, no objection is offered. However, Ameri-King stated
that the requirements of the proposed AD differ from Ameri-King's
Installation & Operations Manuals where it specifies corrective actions
that would be required in repairing or replacing inoperative ELTs.
Ameri-King noted that corrective action is already required under
the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and established industry
practices. Ameri-King considered that it should be intuitive and
axiomatic that any personnel performing inspections and functional or
operations tests would take appropriate corrective actions to ensure
that any faults are corrected so the equipment meets and performs in
accordance with specifications. As such, Ameri-King concluded that
there is little, if any, need to mandate corrective action by AD.
Ameri-King also noted that Ameri-King's Installation & Operations
Manuals were approved by the FAA in conjunction with the FAA having
issued TSOAs and PMAs to Ameri-King, and at that time, the FAA saw no
need to specify corrective actions in the event that inspection or
testing revealed any problems--most likely because corrective action is
already required by the Federal Aviation Regulations and standard
industry practices.
We disagree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement
to repair discrepancies. When we issue an AD, we must include actions
that are necessary to address the unsafe condition. We acknowledge that
the existing regulations provide acceptable requirements to ensure
proper maintenance inspection and operation. However, we also typically
include actions in ADs to ensure that operators do not overlook
(unintentionally or otherwise) the necessity of accomplishing on-
condition repairs or replacements related to actions that are necessary
to address unsafe conditions. We have not found a similar unsafe
condition on ELTs from other manufacturers. For the ELTs identified in
this AD, repairs or replacements must be done if discrepancies are
found, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.
However, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to
clarify that either a repair or replacement may be done if any of the
conditions identified in those paragraphs is found. Paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2) of the proposed AD had only specified that a replacement
must be done. An ELT may be repaired using approved maintenance
practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR
135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules under
subchapters F and G of 14 CFR chapter I. Repairs must be done at an
authorized repair station. For clarity, we added a reference to 14 CFR
135.168 to specify the applicable regulation for rotorcraft that
affects ELTs.
We have also revised paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that
all discrepancies must be repaired using approved maintenance practices
and to add a reference to 14 CFR 135.168. In addition, we revised
paragraph (g) of this AD to include a reference to 14 CFR 135.168.
Request To Require the Use of Specific Equipment
Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King, requested
that we revise the requirements of the proposed AD to include requiring
the use of Ameri-King compatible equipment, as currently specified in
Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals, for the functional and
operations tests. Ameri-King stated that non-compatible equipment will
damage the ELT and may produce erroneous test results.
We agree with the commenter that operators should use Ameri-King
compatible equipment as identified in Ameri-King's Installation &
Operations Manuals. However, this AD requires operators to do actions
in accordance with section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; or section 3.4, ``Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The steps in those sections
either do not specify test equipment that must be used or specify a
type of equipment ``or equivalent'' that must be used. Therefore, we
have determined it is not necessary to revise this AD in this regard.
Request To Allow Operators To Determine if the ELT Is Functional
Michael Dunn requested that we allow operators to determine if the
ELT is functional. The commenter noted his AK-451 ELT was inadvertently
set off and it worked.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The service information
specified in this AD provides instructions for testing the ELT, and we
have determined this test is necessary to address the identified unsafe
condition.
[[Page 43680]]
We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Request To Revise Work-Hour Estimate
Richard Koehler stated the number of work-hours specified in the
NPRM for the inspection is high. The commenter stated the inspection
should be done in about 20 minutes, particularly when done in concert
with an annual inspection. We infer the commenter is requesting that we
revise the 2 work-hours specified in the ``Costs of Compliance''
paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM.
We disagree with the request to revise the work hours. The
specified number of work hours is only an estimate. The estimate does
not assume operators will do the required inspection concurrently with
other actions that are not mandated by this AD. Operators may
accomplish required actions concurrently with other actions, provided
the AD actions are done within the specified compliance time. We have
not revised this AD in this regard.
Explanation of Removal of Paragraph (h)(4) of the Proposed AD
Paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD is an exception to the service
information and provides specific instructions to replace non-
functioning batteries. We have determined that this AD does not need to
specify those instructions as an exception to paragraph (g) of this AD.
Replacing affected batteries as required by paragraph (g) of this AD
addresses the identified unsafe condition for ELTs with non-functioning
batteries. Therefore we have not included paragraph (h)(4) of the
proposed AD in the regulatory text of this AD.
Request To Correct the Number of Replacement Batteries
Leon Rinke stated that paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD
specifies to use four ``D'' cell batteries, but the AK-450 ELT uses six
``D'' cell batteries, as specified in the maintenance manual. We infer
the commenter is requesting that we revise paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD to correct the number of replacement batteries.
We agree with the commenter's statement for the reasons provided.
However, we have not revised this AD because paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD is not included in the regulatory text of this AD.
Explanation of Change to Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD
We have confirmed with Ameri-King that Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited rotorcraft did not receive Ameri-King ELTs. Therefore,
we have removed Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft from
table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, which lists known aircraft that
might have the affected ELTs installed. However, if an affected ELT is
installed on any Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft,
this AD applies to that rotorcraft.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this 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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
We reviewed section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; and section 3.4, ``Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The service information describes
procedures for inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests,
and verifications to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective
actions. Corrective actions include replacing affected parts. These
documents are distinct because they apply to different Ameri-King
Corporation ELT models. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 14,500 ELTs installed on various
aircraft of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections, checks, tests, and 2 work-hours x $85 per $170 per inspection $2,465,000 per
verifications. hour = $170 per cycle. inspection cycle.
inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspections, checks,
tests, and verifications. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements.
On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................... 4 work-hours x $85 per Between $600 and $1,500. Between $940 and $1,840.
hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43681]]
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
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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2017-16-01 Ameri-King Corporation: Amendment 39-18978; Docket No.
FAA-2016-6673; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-092-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and
AK-451-( ) series emergency locator transmitters (ELTs). This
appliance is installed on, but not limited to, aircraft identified
in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD--Certain Aircraft That Might Have Affected ELTs Installed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft ELT model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus rotorcraft.......................................... AK-451.
American Champion Aircraft Corp. airplanes................. AK-450 and AK-451.
Aviat Aircraft Inc. airplanes.............................. AK-450.
Beechcraft Corporation airplanes........................... AK-451.
Bombardier Inc. airplanes.................................. AK-451.
Cessna Aircraft Company airplanes.......................... AK-451.
Cirrus Design Corporation airplanes........................ AK-451.
Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. airplanes................. AK-450 and AK-451.
Eclipse Aerospace Inc. airplanes........................... AK-451.
Embraer S.A. airplanes..................................... AK-451.
KitFox Aircraft LLC (formerly SkyStar Aircraft Corporation AK-450.
and also Denney Aerocraft Company) airplanes.
Luscombe Aircraft Corporation airplanes.................... AK-450 and AK-451.
Mooney Aircraft Corporation airplanes...................... AK-450.
Piper Aircraft Inc. airplanes.............................. AK-451.
Robinson Helicopter Company rotorcraft..................... AK-451.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation rotorcraft................... AK-451.
SOCATA, S.A., Socata Groupe Aerospatiale airplanes......... AK-450.
Twin Commander Aircraft LLC airplanes...................... AK-451.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2562, Emergency Locator Beacon.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of ELT failure. This AD
was also prompted by a report of noncompliance to quality standards
and manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs.
Failure to adhere to these standards and processes could result in
ELTs that do not function. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct nonfunctioning ELTs, which, if not corrected, could delay or
impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an
emergency landing.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Repetitive Actions and Corrective Actions
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do general
visual inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests, and
verifications, as applicable, to ensure the ELT is functioning; and
all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with section 3.4,
``Periodic Maintenance,'' of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450,
``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision A, dated October 18,
1995; or section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451,
``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July
5, 2014; as applicable; and as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Do all applicable corrective actions following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14
CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules under subchapters F and G of 14 CFR
chapter I (hereafter referred to as ``other applicable operating
rules'') after accomplishing the inspections, checks, tests, and
verifications. Repeat the inspections and
[[Page 43682]]
applicable checks, tests, and verifications thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 12 months until the terminating action specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Operators are not required to get
replacement batteries from Ameri-King Corporation.
(h) Additional Corrective Actions
(1) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any ELT fails the functional test specified in step 6., the
verification specified in step 7., or the activation check specified
in step 8., of section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995, do the actions specified in
paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Replace the affected Model AK-450-( ) ELT with a serviceable
FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD
(``Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT''), following 14 CFR
91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and
other applicable operating rules.
(ii) Repair the ELT using approved maintenance practices and
following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as
applicable, and other applicable operating rules.
(2) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any ELT fails any of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
through (h)(2)(v) of this AD: Replace the affected Model AK-451-( )
ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD (``Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT''),
following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as
applicable, and other applicable operating rules; or repair the ELT
using approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a),
14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules.
(i) The operational test specified in step 3.4.6 of section 3.4,
``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),''
of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(ii) Any check specified in step 3.4.7 of section 3.4,
``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),''
of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(iii) The digital message verification specified in step 3.4.8
of section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness),'' of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451,
``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July
5, 2014.
(iv) The registration verification specified in step 3.4.9 of
section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness),'' of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451,
``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July
5, 2014.
(v) The verification of the ELT and global positioning system
(GPS) interface specified in step 3.4.10 of section 3.4, ``Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),'' of Ameri-
King Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(3) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any of the discrepancies specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through
(h)(3)(vi) of this AD are found, repair all discrepancies using
approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14
CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other
applicable operating rules.
(i) Any unsecured fastener or mechanical assembly.
(ii) Any cuts or abrasions on the coaxial cable outer jacket.
(iii) Any corrosion on the ``BNC'' connectors and mating plug on
the antenna and the ELT main unit.
(iv) Any wear or abrasion on the modular cable outer jacket.
(v) Any corrosion on the jack and plug of the modular connecting
cable.
(vi) Any corrosion on the battery compartment.
(i) Definition of Serviceable FAA-Approved ELT
For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable FAA-approved ELT is
any FAA-approved ELT other than a Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( )
series ELT produced by Ameri-King Corporation.
(j) Optional Terminating Action
Doing the applicable action specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD.
(1) For aircraft required by operating regulations to be
equipped with an ELT: Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAA-
approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (``Definition
of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT'').
(2) For aircraft not required by operating regulations to be
equipped with an ELT: Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAA-
approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (``Definition
of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT''). The ELT may be removed as an
alternative to the ELT replacement; if an ELT is re-installed, it
must be a serviceable ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD
(``Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT'').
(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 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 paragraph (l) 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.
(l) Related Information
For more information about this AD, contact Gilbert Ceballos,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax: 562-
627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.
(m) 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) Section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995.
(ii) Section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451,
``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,'' Revision NC-4.1h, dated July
5, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch,
ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372;
fax: 562-627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
(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: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16048 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
