Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP) Engines and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP Crankshaft Assembly, 5173-5175 [2020-01414]
Download as PDF
5173
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 19
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2018–1077; Product
Identifier 2018–NE–40–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air
Parts, Inc. (SAP) Engines and
Lycoming Engines Reciprocating
Engines With a Certain SAP
Crankshaft Assembly
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
SAP Model IO–360-series and O–360series reciprocating engines and certain
Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model
AEIO–360-, IO–360-, and O–360-series
reciprocating engines with a certain
SAP crankshaft assembly installed. This
SAP crankshaft assembly is installed as
original equipment on the affected SAP
engines and as a replacement part under
parts manufacturer approval (PMA) on
the affected Lycoming engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by three
crankshaft assembly failures that
resulted in the loss of engine power and
immediate or emergency landings. This
proposed AD would require the removal
from service of all affected crankshaft
assemblies. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by March 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jan 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
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–2018–
1077; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer, Fort
Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX,
76177; phone: 817–222–5146; fax: 817–
222–5245; email: justin.carter@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include
‘‘Docket No. FAA–2018–1077; Product
Identifier 2018–NE–40–AD’’ at the
beginning of your comments. The FAA
specifically invites comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
this NPRM. The FAA will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM because of
those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
FAA will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information
(CBI) is commercial or financial
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Justin Carter,
Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. Any commentary
that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
Discussion
The FAA learned of three SAP
crankshaft assembly failures that took
place on March 6, 2017, August 3, 2017,
and October 31, 2018, that resulted in
the loss of engine power and immediate
or emergency landings. Since the FAA
received these reports, the FAA
determined that the crankshaft assembly
failures resulted from the manufacturing
process at SAP’s crankshaft vendor
during 2012 and 2014.
The crankshaft assembly is a non-lifelimited part, which should not fail
(crack or separate) through fatigue.
Rather, the crankshaft assembly is
inspected during overhaul and may be
replaced, on-condition, due to wear
beyond limits of the cam lobes and
bearing surfaces.
The FAA’s analysis of the process
used to manufacture the failed
assemblies identified that gaseous
nitrocarburization resulted in excessive
residual white layer forming on the
assemblies. This white layer is brittle
and can lead to spalling or fatigue
cracking of the crankshaft assembly as a
result of the normal mechanical loads
during engine operation. The FAA’s
analysis concluded that all three SAP
crankshaft assembly failures were the
result of this fatigue cracking. This
condition, if not addressed, could result
E:\FR\FM\29JAP1.SGM
29JAP1
5174
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
in failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of the airplane.
These SAP crankshaft assemblies are
installed as original equipment on SAP
Model IO–360-series and O–360-series
reciprocating engines and as a
replacement part under PMA on certain
Lycoming Model AEIO–360-, IO–360-,
and O–360-series reciprocating engines.
The FAA considered alternatives that
may be less burdensome than removing
the crankshaft assembly from service,
including not taking AD action and
requiring periodic inspections of the
crankshaft assembly. However, these
options are not acceptable because
taking no action does not correct this
known unsafe condition and the
crankshaft assembly cannot be
inspected without destroying it. The
FAA concluded that there is no
acceptable safety alternative to the
replacement of the crankshaft assembly.
FAA’s Determination
The FAA is proposing this AD
because it evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require the
removal from service of all affected
crankshaft assemblies.
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.
The FAA is 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.
This AD is issued in accordance with
authority delegated by the Executive
Director, Aircraft Certification Service,
as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C.
In accordance with that order, issuance
of ADs is normally a function of the
Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, but during this transition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jan 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
period, the Executive Director has
delegated the authority to issue ADs
applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager,
Engine and Propeller Standards Branch,
Policy and Innovation Division.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354, codified as amended at
5 U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as
a principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ Public
Law 96–354, 2(b), Sept. 19, 1980. The
RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Agencies
must perform a review to determine
whether a rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency
determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
as described in the RFA. This portion of
the preamble serves as the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
Compliance cost of this proposed AD
comes from the cost to remove and
replace a crankshaft assembly. The FAA
estimates that this proposed AD would
affect 115 crankshaft assemblies
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
This cost estimate does not include 77
SAP crankshafts installed on
experimental engines since these
engines are not included in the
applicability of this AD. Compliance
cost per crankshaft assembly is
identified below.
Labor cost = 61 hours per crankshaft
assembly replacement × $85 Hourly
Wage = $5,185.
Equipment costs per crankshaft
assembly replacement = $9,636 (Source:
Average of the two manufacturers).
$5,185 labor per crankshaft assembly
+ $9,636 equipment costs per crankshaft
assembly replacement = $14,821
compliance cost per engine.
The total costs to U.S. operators is
$1,704,415, or $119,309 in annualized
costs. There are no additional costs after
removing and replacing the crankshaft
assembly.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under Section 603(b) and (c) of the
RFA, the initial analysis must address
the following six areas:
(1) Description of reasons the agency
is considering the action;
(2) Statement of the legal basis and
objectives for the proposed rule;
(3) Description of the record keeping
and other compliance requirements of
the proposed rule;
(4) All federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule;
(5) Description and an estimated
number of small entities to which the
proposed rule will apply; and
(6) Describe alternatives considered.
Reasons the Agency Is Considering the
Action
This proposed AD was prompted by
three crankshaft assembly failures that
resulted in the loss of engine power and
immediate or emergency landings. The
FAA is proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the crankshaft assembly by
requiring the removal of all affected
crankshaft assemblies from service.
Failure of a crankshaft assembly, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the
engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of
the airplane.
Legal Basis and Objectives for the
Proposed Rule
The FAA’s legal basis for this
proposed AD is discussed in detail
under the ‘‘Authority for this
Rulemaking’’ section.
Description and an Estimated Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rule Would Apply
This proposed AD would apply to all
SAP Model IO–360-series and O–360series reciprocating engines and certain
Lycoming Model AEIO–360-, IO–360-,
and O–360-series reciprocating engines
with a certain SAP crankshaft assembly
installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly
is installed as original equipment on the
affected SAP engines and as a
replacement part under PMA on the
affected Lycoming engines. These
engines are installed on airplanes
performing various activities including,
but not limited to, flight training,
charter flights, and agriculture.
Under the RFA, the FAA must
determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA uses
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) criteria for determining whether
an affected entity is small. For aircraft/
engine manufacturers, aviation
operators, and any business using an
aircraft, the SBA criterion is 1,500 or
E:\FR\FM\29JAP1.SGM
29JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
fewer employees. The FAA estimates
that this proposed AD would affect 115
crankshaft assemblies installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA does
not have any information or data on
whether these entities are small
businesses according to the definition
established by the SBA. The FAA
requests comment and data that would
allow us to more accurately assess the
number of employees and sales
revenues of the affected entities.
Record-Keeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
There are no record-keeping costs
associated with this proposed rule.
As part of the IRFA, the FAA is
required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less
burdensome. The FAA considered the
following alternatives:
Do nothing: This option is not
acceptable because the risk of additional
failures of these crankshaft assemblies
constitutes a known unsafe condition.
Periodic inspections: This option is
not possible as the crankshaft assembly
cannot be inspected without destroying
it.
There is no direct safety alternative to
the replacement of the crankshaft
assembly. The replacement addresses a
safety issue aimed at preventing the
failure of the crankshaft assembly.
Therefore, this proposed rulemaking
may have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA invites public
comments regarding this determination.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska.
Jkt 250001
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
Alternatives to the Proposed AD
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by three crankshaft
assembly failures that resulted in the loss of
engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the crankshaft assembly.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
§ 39.13
There are no relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with this proposed rule.
16:49 Jan 28, 2020
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or
Conflicting Federal Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Superior Air Parts, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–
2018–1077; Product Identifier 2018–NE–
40–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments by March
16, 2020.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to the reciprocating engine
models identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this AD with a Superior Air Parts, Inc.
(SAP) crankshaft assembly, part number (P/
N) SL36500–A20 or P/N SL36500–A31, with
serial numbers 82976–01; 82976–02; SP12–
0003 through SP12–0089, inclusive; SP13–
0034 through SP13–0150, inclusive; or SP14–
0151 through SP14–0202, inclusive;
installed.
(1) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N
SL36500–A20, installed:
(i) SAP Model IO–360-series and O–360series reciprocating engines.
(ii) Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model
IO–360–B2F, IO–360–L2A, O–360, O–360–
A2A, O–360–A2D, O–360–A2E, O–360–A2F,
O–360–A2G, O–360–B2A, O–360–C2A, O–
360–C2C, O–360–C2D, O–360–C2E, O–360–
D2A, and O–360–D2B reciprocating engines.
(2) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N
SL36500–A31, installed:
(i) SAP Model IO–360-series and O–360series reciprocating engines.
(ii) Lycoming Model AEIO–360–H1A, IO–
360–B1A, IO–360–B1B, IO–360–B1D, IO–
360–B1E, IO–360–B1F, IO–360–M1A, O–360,
O–360–A1A, O–360–A1C, O–360–A1D, O–
360–A2A, O–360–C1A, O–360–C1G, O–360–
C1C, O–360–C1E, and O–360–C1F
reciprocating engines.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: This
SAP crankshaft assembly may be installed as
a replacement part under parts manufacturer
approval on the affected Lycoming engines.
(g) Required Action
Within 25 engine operating hours after the
effective date of this AD, remove the
crankshaft assembly from service.
(h) Special Flight Permit
A one-time special flight permit may be
issued to fly the aircraft to a maintenance
facility to perform the actions of this AD with
the following limitations: No passengers,
visual flight rules (VFR) day conditions only,
and avoid areas of known turbulence.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Fort Worth ACO Branch,
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
certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(j) Related Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer,
Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177;
phone: 817–222–5146; fax: 817–222–5245;
email: justin.carter@faa.gov.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
January 23, 2020.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller
Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–01414 Filed 1–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 8520, Reciprocating Engine Power
Section.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
5175
E:\FR\FM\29JAP1.SGM
29JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5173-5175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01414]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5173]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2018-1077; Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP) Engines
and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP
Crankshaft Assembly
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines
and certain Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model AEIO-360-, IO-360-, and
O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP crankshaft
assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is installed as
original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a replacement
part under parts manufacturer approval (PMA) on the affected Lycoming
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly
failures that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or
emergency landings. This proposed AD would require the removal from
service of all affected crankshaft assemblies. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16,
2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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-2018-
1077; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer,
Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX,
76177; phone: 817-222-5146; fax: 817-222-5245; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-1077;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Discussion
The FAA learned of three SAP crankshaft assembly failures that took
place on March 6, 2017, August 3, 2017, and October 31, 2018, that
resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. Since the FAA received these reports, the FAA determined that
the crankshaft assembly failures resulted from the manufacturing
process at SAP's crankshaft vendor during 2012 and 2014.
The crankshaft assembly is a non-life-limited part, which should
not fail (crack or separate) through fatigue. Rather, the crankshaft
assembly is inspected during overhaul and may be replaced, on-
condition, due to wear beyond limits of the cam lobes and bearing
surfaces.
The FAA's analysis of the process used to manufacture the failed
assemblies identified that gaseous nitrocarburization resulted in
excessive residual white layer forming on the assemblies. This white
layer is brittle and can lead to spalling or fatigue cracking of the
crankshaft assembly as a result of the normal mechanical loads during
engine operation. The FAA's analysis concluded that all three SAP
crankshaft assembly failures were the result of this fatigue cracking.
This condition, if not addressed, could result
[[Page 5174]]
in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the airplane.
These SAP crankshaft assemblies are installed as original equipment
on SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines and
as a replacement part under PMA on certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines.
The FAA considered alternatives that may be less burdensome than
removing the crankshaft assembly from service, including not taking AD
action and requiring periodic inspections of the crankshaft assembly.
However, these options are not acceptable because taking no action does
not correct this known unsafe condition and the crankshaft assembly
cannot be inspected without destroying it. The FAA concluded that there
is no acceptable safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly.
FAA's Determination
The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require the removal from service of all
affected crankshaft assemblies.
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.
The FAA is 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.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, codified as
amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes ``as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the
objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider
flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' Public Law 96-354, 2(b), Sept. 19, 1980. The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. This portion
of the preamble serves as the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).
Compliance cost of this proposed AD comes from the cost to remove
and replace a crankshaft assembly. The FAA estimates that this proposed
AD would affect 115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes of
U.S. registry. This cost estimate does not include 77 SAP crankshafts
installed on experimental engines since these engines are not included
in the applicability of this AD. Compliance cost per crankshaft
assembly is identified below.
Labor cost = 61 hours per crankshaft assembly replacement x $85
Hourly Wage = $5,185.
Equipment costs per crankshaft assembly replacement = $9,636
(Source: Average of the two manufacturers).
$5,185 labor per crankshaft assembly + $9,636 equipment costs per
crankshaft assembly replacement = $14,821 compliance cost per engine.
The total costs to U.S. operators is $1,704,415, or $119,309 in
annualized costs. There are no additional costs after removing and
replacing the crankshaft assembly.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under Section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, the initial analysis must
address the following six areas:
(1) Description of reasons the agency is considering the action;
(2) Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed
rule;
(3) Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule;
(4) All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule;
(5) Description and an estimated number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply; and
(6) Describe alternatives considered.
Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action
This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly failures
that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent failure of the
crankshaft assembly by requiring the removal of all affected crankshaft
assemblies from service. Failure of a crankshaft assembly, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown,
and loss of the airplane.
Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule
The FAA's legal basis for this proposed AD is discussed in detail
under the ``Authority for this Rulemaking'' section.
Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rule Would Apply
This proposed AD would apply to all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-
360-series reciprocating engines and certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP
crankshaft assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is
installed as original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a
replacement part under PMA on the affected Lycoming engines. These
engines are installed on airplanes performing various activities
including, but not limited to, flight training, charter flights, and
agriculture.
Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
uses the Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for determining
whether an affected entity is small. For aircraft/engine manufacturers,
aviation operators, and any business using an aircraft, the SBA
criterion is 1,500 or
[[Page 5175]]
fewer employees. The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect
115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The
FAA does not have any information or data on whether these entities are
small businesses according to the definition established by the SBA.
The FAA requests comment and data that would allow us to more
accurately assess the number of employees and sales revenues of the
affected entities.
Record-Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
There are no record-keeping costs associated with this proposed
rule.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
Alternatives to the Proposed AD
As part of the IRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome. The FAA considered the
following alternatives:
Do nothing: This option is not acceptable because the risk of
additional failures of these crankshaft assemblies constitutes a known
unsafe condition.
Periodic inspections: This option is not possible as the crankshaft
assembly cannot be inspected without destroying it.
There is no direct safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly. The replacement addresses a safety issue aimed at
preventing the failure of the crankshaft assembly.
Therefore, this proposed rulemaking may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA invites
public comments regarding this determination.
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Superior Air Parts, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-1077; Product
Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments by March 16, 2020.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to the reciprocating engine models identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD with a Superior Air Parts, Inc.
(SAP) crankshaft assembly, part number (P/N) SL36500-A20 or P/N
SL36500-A31, with serial numbers 82976-01; 82976-02; SP12-0003
through SP12-0089, inclusive; SP13-0034 through SP13-0150,
inclusive; or SP14-0151 through SP14-0202, inclusive; installed.
(1) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N SL36500-A20, installed:
(i) SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating
engines.
(ii) Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model IO-360-B2F, IO-360-L2A,
O-360, O-360-A2A, O-360-A2D, O-360-A2E, O-360-A2F, O-360-A2G, O-360-
B2A, O-360-C2A, O-360-C2C, O-360-C2D, O-360-C2E, O-360-D2A, and O-
360-D2B reciprocating engines.
(2) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N SL36500-A31, installed:
(i) SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating
engines.
(ii) Lycoming Model AEIO-360-H1A, IO-360-B1A, IO-360-B1B, IO-
360-B1D, IO-360-B1E, IO-360-B1F, IO-360-M1A, O-360, O-360-A1A, O-
360-A1C, O-360-A1D, O-360-A2A, O-360-C1A, O-360-C1G, O-360-C1C, O-
360-C1E, and O-360-C1F reciprocating engines.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: This SAP crankshaft assembly
may be installed as a replacement part under parts manufacturer
approval on the affected Lycoming engines.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8520, Reciprocating
Engine Power Section.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly failures that
resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
crankshaft assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Required Action
Within 25 engine operating hours after the effective date of
this AD, remove the crankshaft assembly from service.
(h) Special Flight Permit
A one-time special flight permit may be issued to fly the
aircraft to a maintenance facility to perform the actions of this AD
with the following limitations: No passengers, visual flight rules
(VFR) day conditions only, and avoid areas of known turbulence.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Fort Worth ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(j) Related Information
For more information about this AD, contact Justin Carter,
Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; phone: 817-222-5146; fax: 817-222-
5245; email: [email protected].
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 23, 2020.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01414 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P