Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King Corporation Emergency Locator Transmitters, 43677-43682 [2017-16048]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http:// 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: http:// 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 http://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 http://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: http://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