Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11681 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of airplane. It is not a rule of general 

applicability. 

The substance of these special 

conditions has been subjected to the 

notice and comment period in several 

prior instances and has been derived 

without substantive change from those 

previously issued. It is unlikely that 

prior public comment would result in a 

significant change from the substance 

contained herein. Therefore, because a 

delay would significantly affect the 

certification of the airplane, the FAA 

has determined that prior public notice 

and comment are unnecessary and 

impracticable, and good cause exists for 

adopting these special conditions upon 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

FAA is requesting comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment described above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

conditions are issued as part of the typecertification basis for Embraer Model 

ERJ–170 airplanes: 

1. Compliance with part 25, Appendix 

F, parts IV and V, heat release and 

smoke emission, is required for seats 

that incorporate large, non-traditional, 

non-metallic panels that may either be 

a single component or multiple 

components in a concentrated area in 

their design. 

2. The applicant may designate up to 

and including 1.5 square feet of nontraditional, non-metallic panel material 

per seat place that does not have to 

comply with No. 1. A triple seat 

assembly may have a total of 4.5 square 

feet excluded on any portion of the 

assembly (e.g., outboard seat place 1 sq. 

ft., middle 1 sq. ft., and inboard 2.5 sq. 

ft.) 

3. Seats need not meet the test 

requirements of Title 14 CFR part 25 

Appendix F, parts IV and V when 

installed in compartments that are not 

otherwise required to meet these 

requirements. Examples include: 

a. Airplanes with passenger capacities 

of 19 or fewer. 

b. Airplanes that do not have smoke 

emission and heat release in their 

certification basis and do not need to 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 121.312. 

c. Airplanes exempted from heatrelease and smoke-emission 

requirements. 

4. Only airplanes associated with 

new-seat certification programs 

approved after the effective date of these 

special conditions will be affected by 

the requirements in these special 

conditions. Previously certificated 

interiors on the existing airplane fleet 

and follow-on deliveries of airplanes 

with previously certificated interiors are 

not affected. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

21, 2014. 

John P. Piccola, Jr., 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04559 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0562; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–015–AD; Amendment 

39–17740; AD 2014–03–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 

Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411, 

414, and 421 airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by an investigation of recent 

and historical icing-related accidents 

and incidents for the products listed 

above. This AD requires either having 

the supplemental airplane flight 

manual/airplane flight manual 

supplement (SAFM/AFMS) inside the 

airplane and accessible to the pilot 

during the airplane’s operation or 

installing a placard that prohibits flight 

into known icing conditions and 

installing a placard that increases 

published airspeed on approach at least 

17 mph (15 knots) in case of an 

inadvertent encounter with icing. We 

are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 7, 

2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Cessna 

Aircraft Company, Product Support, 

P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; 

telephone: (316) 517–5800; fax: (316) 

517–7271; email: customercare@

cessna.textron.com; Internet: http://

www.cessna.com/. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

MO 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.

regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating Docket No. FAA–2011–0562; or 

in person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

AD, the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for the Docket 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Withers, Program Manager, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 

946–4137; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

dan.withers@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain Cessna Aircraft 

Company (Cessna) Models 310, 320, 

340, 401, 402, 411, 414, and 421 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 

32103). The NPRM proposed to require 

you to install a placard that prohibits 

flight into known icing conditions and 

install a placard that increases 

published airspeed on approach at least 

17 mph (15 knots) in case of an 

inadvertent encounter with icing. We 

are issuing this AD to prohibit flight 

into known icing conditions as well as 

increase the approach speed in case of 

an inadvertent encounter with icing. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11682 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

result in unusual flight characteristics 

that could lead to loss of control after 

flight into known icing conditions or an 

inadvertent encounter with icing 

conditions. Based on the data, an 

example of the unusual flight 

characteristics seen in many of the 

accidents is high sink speeds that 

resulted in a hard landing. 

After publication of the NPRM (76 FR 

32103, June 3, 2011), we re-evaluated 

our certification under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) that the proposed 

rule would not, if promulgated, have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Based on our 

re-evaluation, we determined that the 

proposed rule would, if promulgated, 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

completed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) and issued an 

availability of the IRFA that invited 

comments from the public. The 

availability of the IRFA published in the 

Federal Register on October 1, 2012 (77 

FR 59873). We received no comments 

on the IRFA that pertained to cost and 

required a change to the IRFA. We 

completed the final regulatory flexibility 

analysis that is partially included in this 

AD. You may examine the complete 

analysis in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2011-0562 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011) and the availability of the 

IRFA (77 FR 59873, October 1, 2012) 

and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Support for the Proposed AD (76 FR 

32103, June 3, 2011) 

Deborah A.P. Hersman, Chairman of 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) wrote supportive 

comments for the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011). 

Deborah A.P. Hersman agreed that 

pilots of airplanes that have not been 

certificated for flight into known icing 

conditions may not realize that, even 

with deice boots or other similar 

equipment installed, the airplanes are 

not certificated for flight into known 

icing conditions. Further, Deborah A.P. 

Hersman noted the NTSB has 

investigated accidents involving the 

Cessna airplane models identified in the 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) that 

have accreted ice while operating in 

atmospheric icing conditions, which led 

to an increase of the stall speed. 

Deborah A.P. Hersman commented 

that small amounts of ice on the 

protected and unprotected surfaces 

accreted in inadvertent icing encounters 

could result in potentially large 

increases in the stall speed and changes 

to the handling characteristics, to the 

point of experiencing aerodynamic stall 

or loss of control with no stall warning. 

Kim Hackett of Cessna supported 

FAA’s issuance of an AD mandating 

accomplishment of Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4. The service bulletin 

fulfills the requirements of the AD as 

outlined in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011) regarding installation of a 

placard to prohibit flight into known 

icing on airplanes not specifically 

approved for such operations. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Use Pilot Training To 

Address This Safety Concern 

Kenneth Sutton, Linda Marlene 

Honegger of Corporate Aviation 

Services, LLC, Ed, Michael Burwell, 

Gary Thomas O’Toole, Gary Norton, 

James Creamer, Clayton Conrad of 

Squadron 2, Rich Clover, Fred von 

Zabern, Walter Embke, Harold Gaier, 

Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of 

Aviation, Inc., Jeffrey Gaier, Kristine 

Hartzell of the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), John Halbur, 

Kent William Potter, and Joeseph M. 

Lambert of Northern Skies Aviation 

requested pilot training be used to 

address this safety concern. 

Gary Thomas O’Toole, Gary Norton, 

Fred von Zabern, and Alan Nicol of 

AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. 

expressed that the solution to this issue 

would be recurrent training for pilots, 

with Fred von Zabern stating that this 

training should be required. 

Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of 

Aviation, Inc. felt that the training and 

procedures they developed have 

resulted in safely operating in icing 

conditions; therefore, he believes there 

is no unsafe condition. Walter Embke 

noted that the proposal of increased 

approach airspeed in icing is good 

judgment in any airplane. 

William West and Kristin Winter also 

commented that this safety concern 

should be addressed through training 

and education of pilots. They further 

elaborated that airplanes without deicing equipment can operate in icing 

conditions. Kristin Winter reasoned that 

design of the airplane and available 

excess horsepower are greater factors 

than installed de-icing equipment. 

William West also felt the training and 

education would benefit pilots on other 

airplanes in addition to the Cessna’s 

twin piston-engine airplanes. 

We do not agree with these 

comments. The FAA recognizes that 

training and education could benefit all 

pilots, not just pilots of Cessna’s twin 

piston-engine airplanes. The FAA 

sponsored development of numerous 

icing training products for general 

aviation pilots, revised Advisory 

Circular (AC) 91–74A, Pilot Guide: 

Flight in Icing Conditions (rgl.faa.gov/

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/

rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

4c8192bb0b733862862573d2005e7151/

$FILE/AC%2091-74A.pdf), with safety 

information, as well as issued Special 

Airworthiness Information Bulletin 

(SAIB) CE–11–18, Ice/Rain Protection 

System—Stall Warning Stall Warning 

System Characteristics in Icing 

Conditions (rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_

Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/

eb2e63f033aa98ad8625782200586295/

$FILE/CE-11-18.pdf). The FAA wrote 

SAIB CE–11–18 to inform pilots of 

normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter 

category (part 23) airplanes certificated 

before the year 2000 of the potential 

hazards associated with stall warning 

characteristics in icing conditions. 

However, there are no mandatory FAA 

requirements for a pilot to receive 

training on icing. Furthermore, training 

cannot be relied upon to correct this 

unsafe condition. 

Service history has shown training 

alone cannot keep a pilot from 

inadvertently flying closer to stall. It 

may be possible, for an airplane with 

adequate power, to fly in the middle of 

the flight envelope in light icing 

conditions; however, icing conditions 

can vary greatly. Even a light accretion 

will reduce safety margins, such as stall 

warning, and contribute to the unsafe 

condition. 

Training cannot compensate for an 

airplane not equipped to handle the 

icing environment specified in the 

regulations. The airplane manufacturer 

has placed a limitation on the airplane 

based on the installed equipment that 

has not been shown acceptable for flight 

into known icing conditions. Therefore, 

we have determined that an unsafe 

condition exists when these airplanes 

operate in icing conditions. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request Change AD Requirements 

Kenneth Sutton, Ed, Michael Burwell, 

Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage, Brian 

Boyter, Clayton Conrad of Squadron 2, 

Rich Clover, The Honorable Todd 

Rokita, Member of Congress, and 

Kristine Hartzell of AOPA requested 

that both placards not be required 

because the operating manual already 

states a limitation or there is no room 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11683 

in the cockpit for the additional 

placards. 

The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member 

of Congress, and Kristine Hartzell of 

AOPA wrote that a placard prohibiting 

flight into known icing conditions is 

redundant. One commenter felt that a 

placard would not be sufficient to keep 

a pilot from flying into icing conditions. 

Clayton Conrad recommended creating 

an additional page in the flight manual. 

We partially agree that there may not 

be enough room for the placards on the 

cockpit because of other installed 

equipment or other placards. However, 

we disagree that there is already a 

limitation on the airplanes because the 

certification basis for these airplanes 

either requires an FAA-approved flight 

manual or appropriate placards that 

state the required information. 

Based on feedback on the lack of 

space to put placards in the airplane, we 

created an SAFM/AFMS to use in lieu 

of installing both of the placards and 

changed the AD’s requirements to 

require either the SAFM/AFMS or the 

placards. We included the SAFM/AFMS 

as Appendix 1 to this AD. 

Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 

FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Since Pilots 

Know When an Airplane Is Certificated 

for Flight Into Known Icing 

Michael Burwell, Rolf G. Fuchs, Brian 

Boyter, and John Halbur commented 

that the AD is not necessary since pilots 

know when an airplane is certificated 

for flight into known icing conditions. 

Michael Burwell wrote that from a 

practical perspective, a pilot who has 

the experience and training to fly multiengine airplanes is going to know 

whether it is certificated for flight into 

known icing conditions. 

Rolf G. Fuchs noted that, unless 

otherwise stated, small airplanes are not 

certificated for flight into known icing 

conditions. 

Brian Boyter commented that it is 

already illegal to fly into known icing 

conditions unless the airplane is 

certificated for operation into known 

icing conditions. John Halbur stated that 

the airplanes listed in Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, dated March 24, 

1997, are not certificated for flight into 

known icing conditions, but they are 

allowed to be flown into known icing 

conditions when properly equipped as 

stated in part 135.227. 

We disagree with these comments 

because the limitations section of an 

FAA-approved AFM or placards are the 

only legal method in 14 CFR part 91 

operations to prohibit an airplane from 

flight into known icing conditions, 

without permanently grounding the 

airplanes. The certification basis for 

these airplanes either requires an FAAapproved flight manual or appropriate 

placards that state the required 

information. 

In response to Brian Boyter’s 

comments, the answer is complex: In 

some cases, the answer is that it is not 

necessarily illegal to fly into known 

icing conditions if the airplane has not 

been certificated for known icing. The 

term certificated for known icing came 

into being about the mid-1970s when 

some of the airplane certification rules 

and criteria to install ice equipment on 

airplanes were changed. So, in some 

earlier applications, the manufacturer 

may have installed what is commonly 

referred to today as a ‘‘no-hazard 

system’’ and would not have been 

required to specify if the airplanes were 

intended to fly into icing conditions. 

For airplanes not subject to 14 CFR 

91.527 (Subpart F) or 14 CFR 135.227, 

and not operating under 14 CFR part 

121 or 14 CFR part 125, 14 CFR 91.9 is 

applicable. An AFM limitation or 

placard is required to prohibit an 

airplane from flight into known icing 

conditions. 14 CFR 91.9 would take 

priority over 14 CFR 91.527 or 14 CFR 

135.227, for example, for an airplane 

that was equipped but certificated as 

specified in those regulations. 

Since there is no FAA-approved flight 

manual for most of the airplanes 

identified in this AD, the FAA is 

mandating either installing placards or 

an SAFM/AFMS we created to use in 

lieu of installing both of the placards. 

We included the SAFM/AFMS as 

Appendix 1 to this AD. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Clarify Definition of 

‘‘Icing Conditions’’ 

John Halbur, Jeff Veers of Aviation on 

Demand LLC, Gary Norton, Brad 

Hoeltzner, William West, and Tracy A. 

Schoenrock of Pro Aire Cargo & 

Consulting commented that the AD, as 

written, would ground all airplanes that 

are not certificated for flight into known 

icing conditions anytime icing 

conditions are forecast and needlessly 

limit the ability to dispatch affected 

airplanes in the winter months. 

William West commented that the 

FAA has not defined what known icing 

conditions are and further noted that 

this AD will result in fewer submissions 

of pilot reports (PIREPS) because of the 

fear that pilots will have enforcement 

action taken against them. Brad 

Hoeltzner stated that the definition for 

flight into known icing conditions is if 

there are clouds (visible moisture) and 

that the temperature is below 32 degrees 

Fahrenheit. We conclude that 

commenters want the FAA to further 

define ‘‘icing conditions.’’ 

We do not agree with the comments 

since the AD will prohibit airplanes 

from flying into only known icing 

conditions. 

The definition of known icing 

conditions were defined in a legal 

interpretation to AOPA on January 16, 

2009, and it is defined in the FAAissued Aeronautical Information Manual 

(AIM) (faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/

atpubs/aim/). 

Flight in potential icing conditions 

(visible moisture such as clouds at 

freezing temperatures), as well as 

forecast icing, are not prohibited, as 

long as there are no relevant PIREPs. If 

an applicable airplane encounters icing 

in an area with no prior reported icing 

and the pilot takes precautions to 

minimize an encounter and follows an 

exit strategy that had been planned on 

pre-flight, the pilot should not be 

concerned about legal action. The FAA 

does not want to discourage submission 

of PIREPs. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Remove AD’s 

Requirement To Increase the Speed on 

Approach 

Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage, 

William West, Kim Hackett of Cessna, 

and Kristine Hartzell of AOPA 

requested the FAA remove the 

requirement to increase the speed on 

approach. Rolf G. Fuchs commented 

that having a mandated speed cannot 

take into account the real life operating 

conditions on a particular flight and 

there is no factual support for the speed 

increase to be stated on the placard. 

Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage, 

William West, and Kim Hackett of 

Cessna commented that the placard was 

not necessary since it was standard 

procedure and Cessna has an 

inadvertent icing encounter procedure 

that states to increase airspeed on 

approach. Kristine Hartzell stated 

concerns about the unintended 

consequence of pilots having runway 

overrun accidents due to increased 

approach speeds. 

We agree that having a mandated 

speed cannot take into account the real 

life operating conditions on a particular 

flight and that landing distance will 

increase as the approach speed 

increases because variations in the icing 

conditions could require additional 

speed. 

The FAA recognizes that Cessna has 

a procedure for inadvertent icing 

encounters in their owner’s manual and 

pilot safety and warning supplements 

(PSWS), which provides guidance to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

pilots for dealing with inadvertent icing. 

This procedure for inadvertent icing 

encounters provides information for the 

pilot to increase airplane speed on 

approach and increase airplane landing 

distance; however, the owner’s manual 

or PSWS are not required to be carried 

in the airplane. 

Landing distance data is not required 

by the certification basis for many of the 

airplanes identified in this AD. In FAA– 

H–8083–25A, Pilot’s Handbook of 

Aeronautical Knowledge (faa.gov/

library/manuals/aviation/pilot_

handbook/media/), there is guidance for 

what happens to landing distance when 

a pilot increases airspeed on approach. 

It is assumed that this is general pilot 

knowledge. 

Based on the number of hard landings 

attributed to these airplane models, 

guidance in FAA–H–8083–25A, and 

feedback received on the NPRM (76 FR 

32103, June 3, 2011), the FAA deemed 

it appropriate to quantify how much to 

increase the approach speed and add 

clarification to the procedure specified 

in the owner’s manual and PSWS to 

avoid high sink speeds upon landing. 

We changed the required placard’s text 

to read ‘‘at least 17 mph (15 knots).’’ We 

also inserted in the note section of 

Appendix 1 of this AD (the SAFM/

AFMS) language that tells the pilot to 

increase their landing distance by a 

factor of at least 1.5. This factor was 

calculated based on the change in 

energy due to the increase in approach 

speed (Vapp+17mph)∧2/Vapp∧2. Based 

on accident history, a runway overrun 

on this class of airplane has less chance 

of being fatal than a stall on approach. 

Request FAA Change Placard to State: 

‘‘Not Certified for Flight Into Known 

Icing Conditions’’ 

Brad Hoeltzner requested the FAA 

change the placard to state: ‘‘Not 

Certified for Flight into Known Icing 

Conditions.’’ Brad Hoeltzner wrote this 

would meet the requirements of 

informing the pilot that his airplane has 

not been certificated or tested to meet a 

standard for flight into known icing 

conditions but, when properly 

equipped, has been approved or 

accepted as satisfactory. The airplanes 

listed in Cessna Service Bulletin 

MEB97–4, dated March 24, 1997, are not 

certificated for flight into known icing 

conditions, but they are allowed to be 

used when properly equipped as stated 

in 14 CFR 135.227. 

We disagree with the request. The 

intent of the placard is to prohibit flight 

into known icing conditions for the 

airplanes identified since the airplanes 

are not properly equipped and have not 

been shown to be safe to operate in the 

conditions specified by the regulations. 

Based on the guidance in AC 135–9, 

FAR Part 135 Icing Limitations 

(rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/

3f83f89f0ef9ca17862569eb006cf35c/

$FILE/AC135-9.pdf), the airplane will 

not meet the requirements of 14 CFR 

135.227. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request Applicability Include All 

Cessna Twin Piston-Engine Airplanes 

Brad Hoeltzner commented that this 

AD should apply to all Cessna twinengine airplanes. He reasoned that the 

performance differences between 

airplanes certificated for flight into 

known icing conditions and airplanes 

non-certificated for flight into known 

icing conditions is very minor when 

icing is encountered. 

We do not agree with the comments. 

The airplanes and their system 

performance do vary between the 

certificated and non-certificated variants 

identified. As an example, due to 

performance limitations of the airplane, 

Cessna added a de-ice boot on the 

vertical tail of the Model 310 airplane to 

remove the additional ice. For the same 

reason, they also had to add de-ice boots 

on the wing between the engine nacelle 

and fuselage of the Model 310 airplane. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request AD Allow Pilot To Install the 

Placard 

John W. Savage commented that the 

AD should allow the pilot to install the 

placard. 

We have determined that the pilot 

should be able to install the placards 

provided the airplane is not used in 14 

CFR part 119 operations. No special 

training or tools are required to do this 

action and, thus can adequately be done 

by a pilot or a mechanic. The pilot must 

record compliance in the aircraft’s 

maintenance records in accordance with 

applicable regulations. 

We have changed the final rule to 

make this allowance. 

Request AD’s Applicability Not Include 

the Model 421C Airplane 

Gary Norton requested the AD’s 

applicability not include the Model 

421C airplane. 

We agree with the comments. The 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) did 

not include the Model 421C airplane in 

paragraph (c), the Applicability section, 

and this AD does not include the Model 

421C in paragraph (c), the Applicability 

section. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Address This Safety 

Concern in ACs 

Clayton Conrad of Squadron 2 

requested the FAA use ACs to address 

safety concerns for airplanes that may 

have anti/de-icing systems but are not 

approved for flight into known icing. 

We do not agree with these 

comments. This is a special 

circumstance where most of the 

inadvertent icing systems already have 

a placard prohibiting flight into known 

icing conditions; an advisory circular in 

this instance would not fully address 

the unsafe condition since advisory 

circulars are advisory in nature and not 

required actions. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 

FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because of 

Confusing Data 

Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand 

LLC, and Alan Nicol of AeroFlight 

Academy of Aviation, Inc. requested the 

FAA withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011). Jeff Veers reasoned that 

51 incidents and accidents during the 

past 30 years do not appear to be a 

statistically significant number to 

warrant AD action. 

Kim Hackett and Joshua Southard of 

Cessna and Alan Nicol found it unclear 

from the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 

2011) how many of the 51 reported 

icing-related accidents and incidents 

were directly attributed to continued 

flight in icing conditions by airplanes 

not properly equipped or certificated for 

flight into these conditions. They noted 

it is also unclear how many of these 

icing-related accidents and incidents 

might have been prevented if the 

placard defined in Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, dated March 24, 

1997, had been installed. Joshua 

Southard of Cessna stated that the AD 

does not specify the accident rate per 

100,000 operating hours. 

Jeff Veers asked the FAA the 

questions: How does this rate of 

occurrence compare to other airplane 

models when considering hours flown 

and do airplanes of the same model that 

are certificated for flight into known 

icing conditions have a similar record? 

We do not agree with the comments. 

There were actually more icing-related 

accidents for the airplane models 

identified, but as part of the analysis in 

support of this rule, airplanes and their 

equipment involved with the incidents 

were carefully evaluated. The NTSB 

factual and probable causes on NTSB’s 

Web site, as well as the NTSB dockets, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11685 

were evaluated to determine that if this 

AD had been in place, could the 

accidents have been prevented. 

As part of determining what level of 

action to take, the FAA used a riskbased determination assessment. This 

analysis takes into account the total 

number of events, their severity 

(accident opposed to incident, fatality 

opposed to no injuries), the total 

number of airplanes, and an estimate of 

the average number of flight hours per 

airplane per year. Based on this analysis 

and FAA guidelines for risk acceptance, 

this AD action is warranted. 

In response to Jeff Veers’ question of 

‘‘how does this rate of occurrence 

compare to other airplane models when 

considering hours flown?’’, we believe 

that the rate of occurrence cannot be 

logically compared to other models that 

are not affected by this AD since they 

do not have the same aerodynamic 

design nor do they have the same deicing equipment. 

As to Jeff Veers’ question of ‘‘do 

airplanes of the same model that are 

certificated for flight into known icing 

conditions have a similar record?’’, that 

analysis was not done since Cessna did 

not issue a service bulletin to limit those 

airplanes from flight into known icing. 

In response to Kim Hackett and Alan 

Nicol, the airplanes in the 51 icingrelated accidents and incidents were all 

believed to have been equipped with 

some or all of the de-ice equipment 

available for these airplane models. 

The FAA filtered the data to not 

consider icing related accidents and 

incidents on airplanes that were not 

equipped with de-ice equipment or 

where the de-ice equipment was not 

functional. The FAA believes that all of 

these accidents could have been 

avoidable if the placard specified by 

Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97–4 had 

been installed, the limitations were 

followed, and/or the pilots had 

increased their speed on approach. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Provide a Means To Equip 

Airplanes To Allow Flight Into Known 

Icing 

Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand LLC 

and Walter Embke requested FAA 

provide a means to equip airplanes to 

allow flight into known icing 

conditions. 

Jeff Veers reasoned that since later 

models of the airplanes identified in 

this AD have been certificated for flight 

into known icing, it seemed reasonable 

that earlier models could be equally 

equipped and certificated. 

Walter Embke noted the need for the 

FAA to clarify what equipment is 

needed to be added or retrofitted to this 

class of airplane to meet equipment 

requirements to operate in limited icing 

conditions. 

We disagree with the request. It is not 

the FAA’s responsibility to provide 

design data; only to review and, if 

acceptable, approve such data. If an 

owner/operator submits substantiating 

data to support modifications as an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) to this requirement, the FAA 

will review and consider all AMOC 

requests we receive provided they 

follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 

and this AD. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Consider All Costs 

Associated With Compliance 

Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand 

LLC, Harold Gaier, Jeffery Gaier, and 

Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of 

Aviation, Inc. requested the FAA 

consider all costs associated with 

compliance with this AD. They 

commented the identified costs in the 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) did 

not reflect the operational ramifications 

and the loss of revenue to companies 

and/or individuals. 

Jeff Veers stated that based on this 

AD, limiting these airplanes from flight 

into known icing conditions, Aviation 

on Demand LLC would be affected by 

tens of thousands of dollars due to the 

inability to fly the identified airplanes 

into known icing conditions. 

Alan Nicol stated that the costs 

directly associated with the NPRM (76 

FR 32103, June 3, 2011) as written are 

minimal; however, the indirect costs to 

AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. 

and other operators or individuals could 

easily exceed their ability to continue 

operations. Mr. Nicol believes that the 

inability to operate airplanes in known 

icing conditions would be a crippling 

blow in his region of the country. Alan 

Nicol commented that the overall 

annual losses for just AeroFlight 

Academy of Aviation, Inc. could exceed 

$1,000,000 if the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011) was adopted as proposed. 

The commenter feels the company 

would be unable to continue to meet 

their daily contractual obligations due 

to a lack of operational airplanes, and 

further losses would likely follow due to 

the loss in value of AeroFlight’s assets, 

primarily the value of the airplanes. 

Alan Nicol also noted that this rule 

violates Executive Order 12866. 

We agree with the request. The 

requirement for the cost section of an 

AD is to state the time and cost 

associated with completing the AD. This 

would be installing a placard or 

incorporating an AFM; not a huge 

workload or cost. 

The FAA recognizes there is an 

impact to operations (and loss of 

revenue) due to the limitations on the 

airplanes imposed by this AD. The FAA 

completed the IRFA, and its availability 

was published in the Federal Register 

(77 FR 59873, October 1, 2012). We 

completed the final regulatory flexibility 

analysis, partially included in this AD 

action. You may examine the complete 

analysis in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

The FAA determined that the safety 

benefit provided by mandating the 

changes to the airplane operational 

limitations outweighs the overall cost of 

compliance. This determination is 

consistent and in compliance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

Based on these comments, we have 

added some language explaining the 

regulatory flexibility analysis to this AD 

action and have expanded the cost 

section to include the operational costs 

associated with this AD action. 

Request FAA Address Flight Into 

Known Icing Conditions by Airplanes 

Not Approved for Icing as a Global 

Industry-Wide Issue 

Kim Hackett of Cessna wrote that 

flight into icing conditions by airplanes 

not approved for icing is an industrywide issue, and the FAA needs to 

consider it in a much more ‘‘global’’ 

context than is presented in the NPRM 

(76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011). To this end, 

Kim Hackett recommended the FAA 

address this issue through publication 

of a document such as a safety alert for 

operators (SAFO), information for 

operators (InFO), AC, SAIB, or 

supplement to the AIM (faa.gov/air_

traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/). 

We agree that flight into known icing 

conditions by airplanes not approved 

for icing is an industry-wide issue, and 

we should consider it in a much more 

‘‘global’’ context than is presented in the 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011). The 

FAA has issued numerous reference 

publications (SAFO, InFO, AC, and 

SAIBs) to the public, and we will 

continue to issue publications and take 

action as necessary. 

This AD is necessary to address and 

clarify the limitation of the identified 

airplane models in this AD as well as to 

address the large number of icingrelated accidents and incidents that 

have occurred due to hard landings 

related to operations in icing conditions. 

The FAA published SAIB CE–11–18 

(You may find the SAIB at rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/

rgSAIB.nsf/0/eb2e63f033aa98ad

8625782200586295/$FILE/CE-11-18.pdf) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

to inform pilots of normal, utility, 

acrobatic, and commuter category (part 

23) airplanes certificated before year the 

2000 of the potential hazards associated 

with stall warning characteristics in 

icing conditions. We plan to re-issue 

this SAIB every two years before the 

U.S. winter icing season. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request the FAA Withdraw the NPRM 

(76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because It 

Will Not Affect Safety 

The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member 

of Congress, requested the FAA 

withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 

3, 2011). Todd Rokita commented that 

the adoption of this AD will not result 

in safer air travel. 

We do not agree. Based on the 

accident and incident history, the FAA 

estimates that we could prevent 1.5 

accidents and/or incidents and 1.2 

deaths of the American flying public 

from occurring every year. The results of 

our risk-based analysis show this AD is 

needed and warranted. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request the FAA Justify Taking AD 

Action on Certain Airplanes Made by 

Cessna 

The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member 

of Congress, and Kristine Hartzell of 

AOPA requested the FAA explain the 

reasoning behind taking AD action on 

the identified airplanes as it appeared 

we were singling out the Cessna 

airplanes identified in this AD. 

We disagree that the FAA is singling 

out the Cessna airplanes. Cessna issued 

Service Bulletin MEB97–4, which 

required the installation of a placard to 

prohibit flight into known icing. Based 

on the accident history, the FAA 

believes there is an unsafe condition on 

the identified airplanes and requires the 

completion of the Cessna service 

bulletin. 

During FAA’s review of the accidents 

and incidents, it was determined that 

there was a large number of hard 

landings due to high sink speeds. Based 

on these accidents and incidents, the 

FAA is mandating a minimum approach 

speed increase to avoid these high sink 

speeds. 

If the FAA identifies similar problems 

and determines that an unsafe condition 

exists on other non-Cessna airplanes, we 

would take appropriate action to 

address the issue. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request the FAA Withdraw the NPRM 

(76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because It 

Is an Operational Issue 

The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member 

of Congress, and Kristine Hartzell of 

AOPA requested the FAA withdraw the 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011). 

They commented that ADs are to be 

used for airworthiness issues, not 

operational issues. 

We do not agree with the comments. 

The airplane limitations and their flight 

manuals are part of the airworthiness of 

the airplane. Cessna specified the 

change to add the prohibition of flight 

into known icing, and, in order to make 

those changes legally required, the FAA 

is issuing this AD. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 

FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Since Service 

Bulletin Addressed Safety Issue 

Kristine Hartzell of AOPA requested 

the FAA withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 

32103, June 3, 2011) since Cessna 

addressed this issue in the issuance of 

a mandatory service bulletin in 1997. 

Kristine Hartzell wrote that Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4 was issued to resolve 

any confusion regarding the icing 

certification status of these Cessna twin 

piston-engine airplanes. Since the 

mandatory service bulletin already 

addressed this issue, Kristine Hartzell 

questioned whether or not a real safety 

concern exists for these airframes in 

particular and if the proposed two 

placards would have any effect on 

safety. 

We do not agree with the comments. 

This issue was clarified in FAA’s letter 

to AOPA, dated Febuary 24, 2004 

(aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/

News/All%20News/News%20Archives/

2006/AOPA%20stands%

20against%20mandatory%20service%

20bulletins%20for%20Part%

2091%20aircraft/060614sb-letter.pdf). A 

company’s mandatory service bulletin 

only specifies what is to be done; the 

AD legally requires the actions. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA Clarify Accident History 

Spanned 30 Years 

Walter Embke commented that the 

NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) was 

trying to imply that all of icing 

accidents that were evaluated were 

recent, when in fact the accident history 

spanned 30 years. 

We do not agree with the comments. 

We believe the AD is clear that recent 

icing-related accidents and incidents led 

us to investigate accidents over the past 

30 years to get a historical perspective 

and to determine that there is an unsafe 

condition. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

Request FAA’s Principal Maintenance 

and Operations Inspectors (PMI and 

POI, Respectively) of Affected 

Operators Make Decision To Operate 

Affected Airplanes in Icing Conditions 

Tracy A. Schoenrock of Pro Aire 

Cargo Consulting requested FAA leave 

the decision of operating fully-deiced 

airplanes to the POIs and PMIs of the 

operators affected if there are any 

legitimate safety concerns involving 

them. 

We do not agree with the request. 

This is an unsafe condition and is likely 

to exist on other airplanes. The FAA is 

regulatory bound to mitigate the unsafe 

condition and a means of doing that is 

through the issuance of an AD. 

We have made no changes to this AD 

action based on these comments. 

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 (76 FR 

32103, June 3, 2011) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, 

June 3, 2011). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 4,206 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

For these airplanes, operators will 

incur the minimal cost of placard 

fabrication and installation. 

We estimate that 1,608 of the 

airplanes affected by this AD were 

produced with deicing equipment. 

We estimate the operator costs of no 

longer being able to fly these airplanes 

into known icing conditions by the net 

capital cost of substituting for the 

affected airplanes, airplanes in the same 

or similar series certificated for flight 

into known icing conditions. 

We limit our cost estimate to a 10-year 

period to simplify the analysis. The 

substituting operator will incur a net 

increase in capital costs. We measure 

the 10-year capital cost of an airplane by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11687 

estimating the decline in its value over 

the 10-year period. Substitute airplanes 

are more expensive, have a higher 

capital cost, and will decline more in 

value than less expensive affected 

airplanes. 

The net cost of this AD per affected 

airplane will be the net decline in 

airplane value incurred by operators 

substituting newer, more expensive, 

airplanes for older, less expensive 

affected airplanes. We approximate the 

decline in airplane value over time. For 

both the affected and substitute 

airplanes, we amortize the 10-year 

decline in airplane value to generate a 

10-year annual series of declines in 

airplane value. 

For the affected airplanes, we estimate 

the 10-year series starting from average 

affected airplane value at average age 45 

to estimated value at age 55. For the 

substitute airplanes, we estimate the 10- 

year series from their average value at 

average age 34 to estimated value at age 

44. We calculate net changes in value by 

subtracting the affected airplane series 

from the substitute airplane series. 

We estimate the following direct costs 

(the sum of labor and parts costs) and 

capital costs on U.S. operators for this 

AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost 

Labor & parts 

cost per 

airplane 

Capital cost 

per airplane 

Number of 

affected 

airplanes 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Install placards .................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour 

= $85.

$1 $86 ........................ 4,206 $361,716 

Prohibit flight into known 

icing.

............................................. ........................ ........................ $60,277 1,608 96,515,024 

You may view a detailed copy of our 

cost of compliance in the Federal 

Docket Management System at the 

address listed in Examining the AD 

Docket. 

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. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This section presents the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 

that was done for this action. We have 

reworded and reformatted for Federal 

Register publication purposes. The 

FRFA in its original form can be found 

in the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Introduction and Purpose of This 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (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.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit 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. 

Section 604 of the Act requires 

agencies to prepare an FRFA describing 

the impact of final rules on small 

entities. Section 604(a) of the Act 

specifies the content of a FRFA. The 

results of this FRFA show that this rule 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial numbers of small 

entities. Each FRFA must contain: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

• A description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

• A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

1. The Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Final Rule 

This AD requires the installation of a 

placard prohibiting flight into known 

icing conditions and installation of a 

second placard that increases published 

speed on approach by 17 mph (15 knots) 

in case of an inadvertent encounter with 

icing or the use of the SAFM/AFMS that 

incorporates the same limitations as the 

placards. With the limited deicing 

equipment of the affected airplanes, 

flight into known icing conditions could 

result in unusual flight characteristics 

leading to loss of control with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

consequent accidents. Many of the 

Cessna accidents were the result of high 

sink speeds, which may have been 

related to icing, resulting in hard 

landings. Failure to mandate an 

increased published speed may result in 

continuing occurrences of this unusual 

flight characteristic with consequent 

accidents. 

2. The Significant Issues Raised by the 

Public Comments in Response to the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a 

Statement of the Assessment of the 

Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement 

of Any Changes Made in the Proposed 

Rule as a Result of Such Comments 

The FAA is unaware of any issues 

raised by public comments specifically 

pertaining to cost in response to the 

availability of the IRFA (77 FR 59873, 

October 1, 2012). The FAA has made no 

changes in this regard to this AD. 

3. The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

The FAA is unaware of any comments 

filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) in response to the proposed AD. 

The FAA has made no changes in this 

regard to this AD action. 

4. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Final Rule Will Apply or an 

Explanation of Why No Such Estimate 

Is Available 

For all of the U.S. industries, the SBA 

maximum small business size is 1,500 

employees. Since this AD applies to all 

certificate holders operating some of 

Cessna airplane models, we obtained 

information on small entities based on 

a questionnaire sent directly to seven 

firms and an online survey conducted 

by AOPA. All of the entities in both 

samples are well below 1,500 

employees. We estimated the number of 

small entities to be about 104, excluding 

individuals who used their airplanes for 

personal use only. 

5. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Final 

Rule 

Small entities will incur no new 

reporting and record-keeping 

requirements as a result of this AD. 

Persons who own and operate the 

affected airplanes must meet 

requirements to install placards on their 

airplanes or incorporate an SAFM/

AFMS that requires the same operating 

limitations as the placards. 

6. A Description of the Steps the Agency 

Has Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Final 

Rule Considered by the Agency Which 

Affect the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

The FAA has taken steps to minimize 

the significant adverse economic impact 

on small entities. The requirement of 

installing placards is a significant 

alternative to other burdensome 

regulatory choices, such as mandatory 

installation of de-icing equipment 

certificated for flight into known icing 

conditions or flight prohibition of many 

models involved in the Cessna 

accidents. The FAA also allows, in lieu 

of installing the placards, the option of 

incorporating an SAFM/AFMS that 

requires the same operating limitations 

as the placards. Balancing with safety 

considerations and impacts on small 

entities, we found there is no other 

significant alternatives to installing 

placards or incorporating an SAFM/

AFMS that prohibits the affected 

airplanes from flying into known icing 

conditions and an additional placard 

mandating an increase in published 

speed on approach in case of an 

inadvertent encounter with icing. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

1. Is not a ’’significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ’’significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will have a significant economic 

impact, positive or negative, on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a summary of the costs 

to comply with this AD (and other 

information as included in the 

Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in 

the AD Docket, which may be found on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.

gov; or in person at the Document 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

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 

■ 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 

an airworthiness directive (AD): 

2014–03–03 Cessna Aircraft Company: 

Amendment 39–17740; Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0562; Directorate Identifier 

2011–CE–015–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective April 7, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft 

Company Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 

411, 414, and 421 airplanes identified in 

Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin 

MEB97–4, dated March 24, 1997, certificated 

in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code: 11, Placards and Markings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an investigation 

of recent and historical icing-related 

accidents and incidents for the products 

listed above. We are issuing this AD to 

prohibit flight into known icing conditions as 

well as increase the approach speed in case 

of an inadvertent encounter with icing. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result in 

unusual flight characteristics that could lead 

to loss of control after flight into known icing 

conditions or an inadvertent encounter with 

icing conditions. Based on the data, an 

example of the unusual flight characteristics 

seen in many of the accidents is high sink 

speeds that resulted in a hard landing. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with the actions specified in 

paragraphs (g) through (i) of this AD, to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11689 

include all subparagraphs, unless already 

done. 

(g) Incorporate Operational Limitations 

Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after April 7, 2014 (the effective date of this 

AD) or within 3 calendar months after April 

7, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), 

whichever occurs first, incorporate the 

operational limitations by accomplishing 

either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, to 

include all subparagraphs: 

(1) Incorporate the limitations identified in 

Appendix 1 of this AD into your airplane 

maintenance records and install a copy of the 

approved supplemental airplane flight 

manual/airplane flight manual supplement 

(SAFM/AFMS) in Appendix 1 of this AD in 

the airplane accessible to the pilot; or 

(2) Install the following placards: 

(i) Cessna placard part number (P/N) 

DP0500–13 or a placard that states: ‘‘This 

airplane is prohibited from flight into known 

icing conditions.’’ If installing the Cessna 

placard P/N DP0500–13, obtain the placard 

following Cessna Aircraft Company Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, dated March 24, 1997; 

and 

(ii) An additional placard for the 

applicable airspeed indicator readings listed 

in paragraph (g)(2)(A) or (g)(2)(B) below, as 

applicable: 

(A) If Airspeed Indicator Reads in MPH. 

Placard states: ‘‘For inadvertent encounters 

with icing conditions, increase published 

airspeed on approach at least 17 mph.’’ 

(B) If Airspeed Indicator Reads in Knots. 

Placard states: ‘‘For inadvertent encounters 

with icing conditions, increase published 

airspeed on approach at least 15 KIAS.’’ 

(h) Placard Installation 

Install the placards on the instrument 

panel in clear view of the pilot using 1/8- 

inch black lettering on a white background. 

(i) Pilot Authorization 

In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 

43.3 and 43.7, the actions required by 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, to 

include all subparagraphs, may be performed 

by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least 

a private pilot certificate and must be entered 

into the airplane records showing 

compliance with this AD in accordance with 

14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)–(4) and 14 CFR 

91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be 

maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417. 

This authority is not applicable to aircraft 

being operated under 14 CFR part 119. 

(j) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits are permitted with 

the following limitation: flight into known 

icing is prohibited. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(l) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Dan Withers, Program Manager, FAA, 

Wichita ACO, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 

100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 

946–4137; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

dan.withers@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) Cessna Aircraft Company Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, dated March 24, 1997. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For Cessna Aircraft Company service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, 

P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: 

(316) 517–5800; fax: (316) 517–7271; email: 

customercare@cessna.textron.com; Internet: 

http://www.cessna.com/. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Appendix 1 to Airworthiness Directive 

2014–03–03 

Supplemental Airplane Flight Manual 

(SAFM) for Airplanes Without an Approved 

AFM or Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 

(AFMS) For Airplanes With an FAAApproved AFM or POH/AM 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 

31, 2014. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02636 Filed 2–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER03MR14.000</GPH>