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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

1008 

Vol. 80, No. 5 

Thursday, January 8, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0002; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–42–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Continental 

Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. 

(AEC) replacement parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies 

marketed by Engine Components 

International Division (ECi). These 

cylinder assemblies are used on all 

Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 

520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and 

on all other CMI engine models 

approved for the use of model 520 and 

550 cylinder assemblies, such as the 

CMI model 470 when modified by 

supplemental type certificate (STC). The 

NPRM proposed to require initial and 

repetitive inspections, replacement of 

cracked cylinder assemblies, and 

replacement of cylinder assemblies at 

reduced times-in-service. The NPRM 

also proposed to prohibit the 

installation of affected cylinder 

assemblies into any engine. The NPRM 

was prompted by reports of multiple 

cylinder head-to-barrel separations and 

cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder 

heads. This supplemental NPRM 

(SNPRM) modifies the schedule for 

removal of the affected cylinder 

assemblies, adds that overhauled 

affected cylinder assemblies be removed 

within 80 hours, eliminates a reporting 

requirement, and removes the 

requirement for initial and repetitive 

inspections. We are proposing this 

SNPRM to prevent failure of the 

cylinder assemblies, which could lead 

to failure of the engine, in-flight 

shutdown, and loss of control of the 

airplane. We are reopening the comment 

period to allow the public the chance to 

comment on the proposed changes to 

the NPRM. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by February 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Engine 

Components International Division, 

9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 

78217; phone: 210–820–8101; Internet: 

http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_

svcpubs.aspx. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2012– 

0002; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this SNPRM, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. Given the volume of 

comments received, we are not 

identifying the individual commenters 

within this SNPRM. However, we 

identify all commenters, other than 

individuals, in the docket. The street 

address for the Docket Office (phone: 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, 

Special Certification Office, FAA, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 

817–222–5190; fax: 817–222–5785; 

email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite your review of the 

commenter list provided in Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0002. If you submitted a 

comment to an organization and do not 

see the name of the organization in the 

commenter list, please submit your 

comment directly to us as provided for 

in this SNPRM. If you submitted as an 

individual, you will not be listed as a 

commenter. 

We also invite you to review our 

responses to comments, and to resubmit 

your comment if you conclude that your 

comment was not responded to below. 

We also invite you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this SNPRM. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under the ADDRESSES section. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2012–0002; 

Directorate Identifier 2011–NE–42–AD’’ 

at the beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this SNPRM. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend this SNPRM because of 

those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this SNPRM. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain AEC replacement PMA 

cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi. 

These assemblies are used on CMI 

model 520 and 550 reciprocating 

engines, and all other CMI engine 

models approved for the use of models 

520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as 

the CMI model 470 when modified by 

STC. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1009 

FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to 

require initial and repetitive 

inspections, immediate replacement of 

cracked cylinder assemblies, and 

replacement of cylinder assemblies at 

reduced times-in-service (TIS) since 

new. The NPRM also proposed to 

prohibit the installation of affected 

cylinder assemblies into any engine. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since the NPRM published on August 

12, 2013 (78 FR 48828), we received 

numerous comments on the proposed 

rule. We reviewed those comments and 

considered their impact to safety. Some 

of those comments included additional 

failure information that we 

subsequently incorporated in our 

updated risk analysis. 

Following our comment review, we 

determined that we needed to review 

how we proposed to address the unsafe 

condition. So, we formed a multidirectorate/multi-disciplinary team to 

review the technical basis of the 

proposed rule, as well as the numerous 

public comments, and the additional 

failure information provided by 

commenters, to the NPRM. This team 

confirmed that the subject cylinder 

assemblies are unsafe. 

The team’s review of the new data 

provided by commenters supports a 

lengthier compliance interval. This team 

therefore recommended several changes 

to the NPRM, which resulted in this 

SNPRM. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM (78 FR 48828, 

August 12, 2013). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are 

Not Unsafe 

Many operators, maintenance 

organizations, and private citizens asked 

that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 

48828, August 12, 2013). The 

commenters claimed that the affected 

ECi cylinder assemblies have an 

equivalent, or lower, failure rate than 

that of cylinder assemblies 

manufactured by the original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM). We concluded that 

these commenters were requesting that 

we withdraw the NPRM because they 

believe that the ECi cylinder assemblies 

are not unsafe. 

We disagree. The rate of separation for 

the affected ECi cylinder assemblies is 

at least 32 times greater than that of 

OEM cylinder assemblies over the same 

period. Although there are 

approximately four times as many OEM 

cylinder assemblies in service than ECi 

cylinder assemblies, the ECi cylinder 

assemblies suffered more cylinder head 

separations than OEM cylinder 

assemblies since 2004. This data is 

available for review in Docket No. FAA– 

2012–0002. We did not withdraw the 

NPRM. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because Airplanes Can Operate Safely 

With a Separated Cylinder Head 

Numerous aircraft operators, 

maintenance organizations, and private 

citizens commented that we should not 

issue the AD because airplanes can 

continue to operate safely even after a 

cylinder head separation. Several 

commenters have also stated that 

airplane engines are designed and 

certified to safely operate with one 

failed cylinder. They cited 14 CFR 33.43 

in support of their position. 

We disagree. The safety consequences 

represented by a cylinder head 

separation in flight are significant, and 

include multiple secondary effects, like 

fire. We did not withdraw the NPRM. 

We also disagree that § 33.43, 

Vibration Test, supports the 

commenter’s position that airplanes are 

certified to operate safely after a 

cylinder head separation. Section 

33.43(d), addressing the engine 

vibration survey of § 33.43(a), requires 

assessment of crankshaft vibration for 

an engine that has one cylinder that ‘‘is 

not firing.’’ That paragraph, like the rest 

of § 33.43, does not discuss cylinder 

head separation. We did not withdraw 

the NPRM. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because Root Cause of Cylinder Failure 

Is Unknown 

Numerous aircraft operators, 

maintenance organizations, and private 

citizens requested that we withdraw the 

NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) 

because the FAA failed to identify the 

root cause(s) of cylinder head 

separations. 

We disagree. The root cause of the 

cylinder head separation is not the 

unsafe condition. We have identified 

the unsafe condition—cylinder head 

separation. Removal of the cylinder 

assembly resolves the unsafe condition. 

We did not withdraw the NPRM. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because Pilot Error Is Causing Cylinder 

Head Separations 

Numerous organizations, aircraft 

operators, and private citizens 

commented that cylinder head 

separations involving the ECi cylinder 

assemblies affected by this NPRM (78 

FR 48828, August 12, 2013) were caused 

by pilot error rather than by design 

deficiencies of the cylinder assemblies. 

They therefore requested that we not 

issue the AD. 

We disagree. If pilot error was leading 

to cylinder head separation, then we 

would expect to see similar damage in 

engines with other than ECi cylinder 

assemblies installed where the pilots 

exceeded the same limitation(s). 

However, we do not have any such data. 

We did not withdraw the NPRM. 

Request To Adopt Less Stringent 

Compliance Requirements 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), other organizations, 

numerous aircraft operators, and private 

citizens commented that the compliance 

requirements in the proposed AD are 

too severe and that we should adopt less 

stringent requirements. 

We agree that the requirements for 

removal of the cylinder assemblies can 

be made less severe. Our updated 

analysis indicates that our proposed 

reduced compliance interval with the 

attendant removal from service of 

affected cylinder assemblies and lesser 

impact to operators addresses the unsafe 

condition and is consistent with our risk 

guidelines. We revised the compliance 

paragraphs in this SNPRM by changing 

the schedule for removal of affected 

cylinder assemblies to a phased removal 

schedule for all affected cylinder 

assemblies based on total time in service 

since new. 

The NTSB also recommended in 

NTSB Safety Recommendation A–12–7 

that we impose a repetitive inspection 

requirement for certain ECi cylinder 

assemblies and their removal once they 

reach the manufacturer’s recommended 

time between overhaul (TBO). 

We disagree. Repetitive inspections 

until TBO as suggested by the 

commenter, is inconsistent with the 

serious hazard represented by cylinder 

assembly failures. Therefore, we are 

requiring removal of affected cylinder 

assemblies from service prior to TBO. 

Also, engine overhaul is not a 

requirement for all operators. Therefore, 

tying the proposed recurrent inspection 

to engine overhaul would not resolve 

the unsafe condition. We did not change 

this proposed AD based on this 

comment. 

The NTSB also noted that the 

proposed rule would affect many more 

cylinder assemblies than the NTSB had 

included in its safety recommendation 

letter A–12–7, dated February 24, 2012, 

to the FAA. The NTSB commented that 

the NPRM’s proposal to remove Group 

A cylinder assemblies (S/Ns 1 through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

33696) with fewer than 500 hours TIS 

or more than 1,000 hours TIS within 25 

hours does not appear to be supported 

by existing service information or 

discussions between the NTSB and the 

FAA. 

We disagree. Based on service failure 

data and known implementation of 

design improvements, this proposed AD 

must apply to cylinder assemblies S/Ns 

1 through 61176. We did not change this 

proposed AD based on this comment. 

Request for FAA To Follow Its Own 

Risk Assessment Policies 

Numerous aviation associations, 

aircraft operators, maintenance 

organizations, and private citizens 

commented that the FAA had not 

followed its own risk assessment 

policies in issuing the NPRM (78 FR 

48828, August 12, 2013). 

We disagree. The corrective actions 

proposed in the NPRM, and as revised 

by this SNPRM, are consistent with 

FAA Order 8040.4A, ‘‘Safety Risk 

Management Policy,’’ dated April 30, 

2012, and the Monitor Safety/Analyze 

Data (MSAD) process defined in FAA 

Order 8110.107A, ‘‘Monitor Safety/

Analyze Data,’’ dated October 1, 2012. 

The requirements of this proposed AD 

are also consistent with the guidance of 

Engine & Propeller Directorate 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Assessment for 

Reciprocating Engine Airworthiness 

Directives,’’ PS–ANE–100–1999–00006, 

dated May 24, 1999. We did not change 

this SNPRM as a result of this comment. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because of the Risk of Maintenance 

Errors 

Numerous aircraft operators, 

maintenance organizations, and private 

citizens commented that the FAA 

should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 

48828, August 12, 2013) because the 

removal and replacement of affected 

cylinder assemblies before TBO would 

result in maintenance errors that would 

adversely affect safety. 

We disagree. Our regulatory 

framework presumes that maintenance 

will be performed correctly by 

personnel authorized by the FAA to 

return aircraft to service in an airworthy 

condition. Further, we have not 

observed any negative effects on safety 

due to removal of these cylinder 

assemblies during maintenance. Also, 

cylinder removal and replacement is a 

maintenance action addressed in engine 

maintenance manuals. We did not 

withdraw the NPRM. 

Request To Review Repetitive 

Compression Test and Leak Check 

Some aircraft operators commented 

that they successfully passed the 

compression test with the piston at topdead-center, while still finding the 

cylinders cracked. We interpret the 

comment to be that the proposed 

inspection and test was inadequate to 

detect a cracked cylinder assembly. 

We agree. The inspection and test 

may not detect cracks. Also, we have 

received field reports of separated 

cylinders that occurred within the 

repetitive 50-hour compression test and 

leak check inspection intervals 

proposed by the NPRM. We therefore 

concluded that these tests are not 

sufficiently reliable and the cost 

associated with such ongoing tests 

outweighs the safety benefit. We 

changed this SNPRM by removing the 

requirement for repetitive compression 

and leak inspection tests. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

Because of Excessive Cost 

Numerous aviation associations, 

aircraft operators, maintenance 

organizations, and private citizens 

commented that the FAA should 

withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, 

August 12, 2013) because the cost of 

compliance is excessive to owners and 

operators of aircraft with engines that 

have affected cylinder assemblies. 

We disagree. We find that the safety 

benefits of the proposed rule, as 

changed by this SNPRM, outweigh its 

estimated cost. Further, we recalculated 

the cost of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, 

August 12, 2013). Our previous estimate 

was based on 36,000 cylinder 

assemblies. Based on data available to 

the FAA, we subsequently reduced the 

number affected cylinder assemblies to 

28,874. 

We also determined that a 

replacement cost based on a pro-rated 

life of the cylinder assemblies more 

accurately reflects the true cost of 

replacing the cylinder assemblies. In the 

NPRM, we used $1,700 per cylinder 

assembly for the entire affected cylinder 

assembly population. We recalculated 

the total value for loss of the part based 

on a pro-rated estimate of usage for the 

cylinder assembly population over their 

current accumulated time in service. 

This recalculated loss is $19,867,882 for 

the entire affected cylinder assembly 

population. 

Finally, since we issued the NPRM, 

we eliminated those inspections and 

their associated cost from this SNPRM. 

For further information on the estimated 

cost of this AD, please see our Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

in the text of this SNPRM. We did not 

withdraw the NPRM. 

Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM 

We received several comments on the 

rulemaking process, including several 

who supported the NPRM (78 FR 48828, 

August 12, 2013) as proposed. Several 

commenters stated that hundreds of 

failures of the affected cylinder 

assemblies had been reported to the 

FAA and ECi. 

We thank the commenters for their 

participation in the rulemaking process. 

Summary of Changes to the NPRM 

First, we removed the 50 hour 

repetitive inspection requirement in the 

NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). 

We did so because we determined that 

the inspection, compression test, and 

leak check proposed by the NPRM was 

not effective in detecting cracked 

cylinders. Based on further review of 

service information, we determined that 

a compression test and leak check will 

not identify a crack until the crack has 

propagated all the way through the 

cylinder wall to some detectable 

location. Therefore, we are relying on 

the phased removal of the cylinders 

along with annual or 100-hour 

inspections already required by other 

regulations to provide an adequate level 

of safety. 

We eliminated the requirement to 

report details of all cylinder assemblies 

removed per the requirements of the AD 

to the FAA. This information is no 

longer needed since we will rely on our 

established reporting channels, e.g., 

Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) and 

Malfunction/Defect (M/D) reports, to 

report future cylinder head failures. 

We reduced the estimated population 

of affected cylinder assemblies from 

36,000 to 28,874. 

We used a pro-rated loss of cylinder 

life which more accurately reflects the 

cost of replacing the affected cylinder 

assemblies. 

We removed the cost of inspection 

from this SNPRM since the recurrent 

visual inspections and compression/

leak tests proposed by the NPRM were 

ineffective in detecting the unsafe 

condition. 

We changed the compliance 

paragraphs by removing references to 

‘‘Group A’’ (serial numbers (S/Ns) 

between 1 and 33696) and ‘‘Group B’’ 

(S/Ns between 33697 and 61176). We 

determined that TIS and serial number 

(S/N) are sufficient to identify and 

correct the suspect cylinder assembly 

population. 

We modified the compliance schedule 

for removal of affected cylinder 

assemblies from 500 or 1,000 operating 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1011 

hours for all affected cylinder 

assemblies to a phased removal 

schedule based on total hours TIS since 

new. We determined that information 

submitted by commenters to the 

proposed rule justified a phased 

drawdown of the assemblies from 

service. 

Finally, we specified in this SNPRM 

that overhauled cylinder assemblies 

should be removed within 80 hours 

after the effective date of this AD. We 

concluded that overhauling of the 

cylinder assembly does not diminish the 

fatigue damage that has already 

accumulated in the cylinder head. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this SNPRM 

because we evaluated all the relevant 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition described previously is likely 

to exist or develop in other products of 

the same type design. Certain changes 

described above revise the scope of the 

NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). 

As a result, we have determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require removal 

of the affected cylinder assemblies, 

including overhauled cylinder 

assemblies, according to a phased 

removal schedule. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect about 5,000 CMI models 

IO–520, TSIO–520, IO–550, and IOF– 

550 reciprocating engines and all other 

CMI engine models approved for the use 

of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder 

assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 

when modified by STC), installed on 

airplanes of U.S. registry. The average 

labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate 

that about 18 hours would be required 

to replace all six cylinder assemblies 

during overhaul maintenance. We 

estimate the pro-rated value of the cost 

of replacement of six cylinder 

assemblies to be about $4,202 per 

engine. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the total cost of this proposed 

AD to U.S. operators to change all ECi 

cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. 

Our cost estimate is exclusive of 

possible warranty coverage. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

This proposed rule would have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities of part 135 

operators and smaller air services 

businesses. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) classifies 

businesses as small based on size 

standards, typically expressed as 

number of employees. The FAA 

identified 609 part 135 operators that 

meet the SBA definition of a small 

entity (entities with 1,500 or fewer 

employees) which would be affected by 

this proposed rule. Of these 609, the 

FAA identified 209 small part 135 

operators on which the rule would have 

a significant economic impact. We 

consider this a substantial number of 

small entities. In addition, we estimate 

that more than 2,000 smaller air services 

businesses would be affected by this 

proposed rule. This business segment 

also has a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA is unaware of the 

assets or financial resources of these 

businesses. The FAA requests 

comments from these businesses 

regarding their economic impact. 

The FAA estimates the compliance 

cost from this AD to be the sum of the 

replacement cost per aircraft, plus the 

loss of use due to earlier replacement, 

plus minor paperwork cost. The labor 

cost to replace all six cylinder 

assemblies is the average labor rate $85 

per hour multiplied by the estimated 18 

hours to complete the task. 

The FAA believes that a pro-rated 

value of the replacement cost of the 

cylinder assemblies is more accurate 

and reflects on the true cost to replacing 

the cylinder assemblies. This AD would 

result in a loss-of-use as some cylinder 

assemblies would be replaced sooner 

than current practice. This AD requires 

removal of the cylinder assemblies at an 

average of 1,000 hours instead of at the 

average TBO of 1,700 hours. This means 

that the allowable life is only 1,000 of 

the original 1,700 hours, or at 58.82% of 

the current life. Therefore the life value 

that is lost equals 0.4118 (1.0¥0.5882). 

We estimate the pro-rated loss of life 

value for six cylinder assemblies to be 

about $4,200 per engine (1,700 × 6 × 

.4118). The loss-of-use expense 

implicitly includes the earlier purchase 

of the replacement cylinder assemblies. 

Therefore the AD cost per aircraft 

equals the labor costs of $1,530 and the 

loss-of-service cost of $4,202, or about 

$6,000. Based on the number of aircraft 

owned by the operators impacted, total 

compliance costs range between $6 

thousand to $525 thousand per small 

entity encompassing one to eighty-eight 

aircraft. 

To determine whether the compliance 

cost would be a significant economic 

impact, we measured the annualized 

compliance cost relative to the value of 

the aircraft. The estimated value of their 

aircraft ranges between $22 thousand to 

$21 million. Using the preceding 

information, the FAA estimates that 

their ratio of annualized cost to asset 

value is higher than 5 percent for many 

of these operators. Based on this 

information the FAA decided that the 

rule would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of 

entities. Therefore, we have performed a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for these 

small entities. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the 

initial analysis must address: 

(1) Description of reasons the agency 

is considering the action; 

(2) Statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposed rule; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Description of the record keeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule; 

(4) All federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed rule; 

(5) Description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply; and 

(6) Describe alternatives considered. 

Description of Reasons the Agency is 

Considering the Action 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

failure reports of multiple cylinder 

head-to-barrel separations and cracked 

and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. 

This AD would apply to certain 

Airmotive Engineering Corp. 

replacement PMA cylinder assemblies 

marketed by ECi, used on CMI model 

520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and 

all other engine models approved for the 

use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder 

assemblies, such as the CMI model 470 

when modified by STC. 

Description and an Estimated Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Would Apply 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect about 5,000 Continental 

Motors, Inc. models IO–520, TSIO–520, 

IO–550, and IOF–550 reciprocating 

engines and all other engine models 

approved for the use of CMI models 520 

and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as 

the CMI model 470 when modified by 

STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. 

registry. 

The FAA will affect 609 part 135 

operators and more than 2,000 air 

service businesses for which the rule 

will have an economic impact. The 

affected entities fly fixed wing aircraft; 

employ less than 1,500 employees; and 

conduct a variety of air services such as 

fly passengers and cargo for hire. We 

estimate that the small part 135 

operators have assets valued between 

$22 thousand to $21 million (range of 1 

to 88 aircraft). 

Description of the Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Public reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to be 

approximately 5 minutes per response 

at an hourly wage rate of $85 per hour, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. The 

paperwork cost for them is between $7 

and $616. 

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

The FAA is unaware of any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this rule. 

Description of Alternatives Considered 

The FAA received comments 

concerning this AD. Some commenters 

requested withdrawal of this NPRM 

because of excessive cost with only 

negligible safety gains. In response to 

comments about problems with 

repetitive compression/soap test, the 

FAA agrees that these tests are not 

reliable and the costs associated with 

such ongoing tests outweigh the safety 

benefit. This SNPRM has removed the 

requirement for repetitive compression/ 

soap inspection tests. We also 

considered these following alternatives: 

(1) Do nothing—This option is not 

acceptable due to the number of failures 

of ECi cylinder assemblies and the 

consequences of the failures. 

(2) Periodic inspections only (no 

forced removals)—Though the NTSB 

recommends this option, the service 

history has shown that such inspections 

may not reliably detect existing cracks 

and the rate of crack growth to 

separation is unknown and variable. 

(3) Forced removal with periodic 

inspections—As stated above, such 

periodic inspections may not reliably 

detect cracks and the rate of crack 

growth to separation is unknown and 

variable. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(4) Will have a significant economic 

impact, positive or negative, on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne 

Continental Motors, Inc., formerly 

Continental): Docket No. FAA–2012– 

0002; Directorate Identifier 2011–NE– 

42–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by February 

23, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Continental Motors, 

Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating 

engines, and to all other CMI engine models 

approved for the use of model 520 and 550 

cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 

470 when modified by supplemental type 

certificate (STC), with Airmotive Engineering 

Corp. replacement parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, 

marketed by Engine Components 

International Division (hereinafter referred to 

as ECi), part number (P/N) AEC631397, with 

ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial number (S/ 

N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by multiple failure 

reports of cylinder head-to-barrel separations 

and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder 

heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

failure of the cylinder assemblies, which 

could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight 

shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) Review the engine maintenance records 

to determine if any affected cylinder 

assemblies are installed. 

(2) If you cannot determine based on 

review of engine maintenance records if any 

affected cylinder assemblies are installed, 

comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD. 

(3) If you do not have any of the affected 

ECi cylinder assemblies installed on your 

engine, no further action is required. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1013 

(4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number 

Location 

(i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and 

Class number. The ECi cylinder assembly, 

P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is 

stamped on the bottom flange of the cylinder 

barrel. Guidance on the P/N and Class 

number description and location can be 

found in ECi Service Instruction No. 99–8– 

1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009. 

(ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly 

P/N when the cylinder assembly is installed 

on the engine, you may use the following 

alternative method of identification: 

(A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker 

box cover. 

(B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the 

cylinder head between the valve stems. 

(C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. 

Affected cylinder assemblies have the 

cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast 

into the cylinder head between the valve 

stems. 

(D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as 

specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) 

of this AD, as applicable. 

(iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N 

AEC631397, manufactured through 2008, 

find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on 

the intake port boss two inches down from 

the top edge of the head. 

(iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N 

AEC631397, manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly 

S/N stamped just below the top edge of the 

head on the exhaust port side. 

(5) Removal From Service 

(i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 

680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service 

(TIS) since new on the effective date of this 

AD, remove the cylinder assembly from 

service before reaching 1,000 operating hours 

TIS since new. 

(ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with 

more than 680 operating hours TIS since new 

and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS since 

new on the effective date of this AD, remove 

the cylinder assembly from service within 

the next 320 operating hours TIS or within 

1,160 operating hours TIS since new, 

whichever occurs first. 

(iii) For any affected cylinder assembly 

with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS 

since new on the effective date of this AD, 

remove the cylinder assembly from service 

within the next 160 operating hours or at 

next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first. 

(iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that 

has been overhauled, remove the cylinder 

assembly from service within the next 80 

operating hours TIS after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(f) Installation Prohibitions 

After the effective date of this AD: 

(1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any 

engine, any cylinder assembly removed per 

this AD. 

(2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder 

assembly that has been overhauled, into any 

engine. 

(3) Do not install any engine that has one 

or more affected overhauled ECi cylinder 

assemblies, onto any aircraft. 

(4) Do not return to service any aircraft that 

has an engine installed with an ECi cylinder 

assembly subject to this AD, if the cylinder 

assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours 

TIS. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Special Certification Office, 

may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make 

your request. 

(h) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace 

Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, TX 76193; phone: 817–222–5190; 

fax: 817–222–5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@

faa.gov. 

(2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99–8– 

1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009, 

which is not incorporated by reference in this 

AD, contact Engine Components 

International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, 

San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210–820– 

8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/

tech_svcpubs.aspx. 

(3) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

December 23, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00152 Filed 1–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS