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

76532 

Vol. 81, No. 213 

Thursday, November 3, 2016 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0603; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–026–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Meggitt 

(Troy), Inc. Combustion Heaters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for 

certain Meggitt (Troy), Inc. (previously 

known as Stewart Warner South Wind 

Corporation and as Stewart Warner 

South Wind Division) Model Series (to 

include all the variants) 921, 930, 937, 

940, 944, 945, 977, 978, 979, 8240, 8253, 

8259, and 8472 combustion heaters that 

proposed to supersede airworthiness 

directive (AD) 81–09–09. The NPRM 

proposed to retain most actions from AD 

81–09–09, add a calendar time to the 

repetitive inspections, add more 

detailed actions to the inspections, and 

add a pressure decay test. The NPRM 

was prompted by an airplane accident 

and reports we received of the heater 

malfunctioning. This action revises the 

NPRM by adding combustion heater 

models series to the applicability and 

modifying the compliance times. We are 

proposing this SNPRM to correct the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the NPRM, we are reopening the 

comment period to allow the public the 

chance to comment on these proposed 

changes. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 

49249) is reopened. We must receive 

comments on this SNPRM by December 

19, 2016. 

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 Meggitt 

Control Systems, 3 Industrial Drive, 

Troy, Indiana 47588; telephone: (812) 

547–7071; fax: (812) 547–2488; email: 

infotroy@meggitt.com; Internet: 

www.stewart-warner.com. You may 

view this referenced service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 

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–2014– 

0603; 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. 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: 

Chung-Der Young, Aerospace Engineer, 

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 

60018–4696; telephone (847) 294–7309; 

fax (847) 294–7834 email: chungder.young@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0603; Directorate Identifier 

2013–CE–026–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD 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 proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On April 16, 1981, we issued AD 81– 

09–09, Amendment 39–4102 (46 FR 

24936, May 4, 1981) (‘‘AD 81–09–09’’), 

for certain Meggitt (Troy), Inc. 

(previously known as Stewart Warner 

South Wind Corporation and as Stewart 

Warner South Wind Division) Model 

Series 8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472 

combustion heaters. AD 81–09–09 

resulted from a hazardous condition 

caused by deterioration of the 

combustion heater. AD 81–09–09 

currently requires repetitive inspections 

of the combustion heater; repetitive 

installation inspections of the 

combustion heater; and, for combustion 

heaters having 1,000 hours or more 

time-in-service (TIS), overhaul of the 

combustion heater. 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede AD 

81–09–09 on August 13, 2014, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49249). The 

NPRM was prompted by an airplane 

accident and reports we received of the 

heater malfunctioning. The NPRM 

proposed to retain most actions from AD 

81–09–09, add a calendar time to the 

repetitive inspections, add more 

detailed actions to the inspections, and 

add a pressure decay test. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we 

received comments from the public 

during the comment period that resulted 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76533 

in our decision to issue this SNPRM. 

This SNPRM proposes to increase the 

applicability and modify the 

compliance time. We also completed an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis to 

determine the impact of the proposed 

AD on small entities (this was at the 

request of one of the comments received 

on the NPRM). Adopted on September 

5, 2014, the National Transportation 

Safety Board issued the probable cause 

for the airplane accident that initiated 

this investigation. The probable cause 

was identified as malfunction of the 

cabin heater, which resulted in an 

inflight fire and smoke in the airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM. The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Allow Repair of the 

Combustion Tube 

James W. Tarter Jr. from Meggitt 

(Troy), Inc. identified that the Meggitt 

Inspection Procedure, Document No. 

IP–347, dated May 17, 2014, allows 

repair of combustion tubes that do not 

pass the pressure decay test (PDT); 

however, the proposed AD required a 

combustion tube replacement. We infer 

that the commenter wants to allow the 

repair of the combustion tube when it 

fails the PDT. 

We disagree with allowing repair of 

the combustion tube when it fails the 

PDT. The cracked combustion tube 

metal wall becomes oxidized and the 

cross-section of the crack is 

contaminated by combusted fuel 

residuals; therefore, there is no way to 

make a reliable repair. The welding will 

crack again in an unpredictable period 

of service time. 

We did not make any changes to this 

SNPRM as a result to this comment. 

Request To Delay Issuance of AD Until 

PDT Procedure Is Publically Available 

Anthony Saxton requested we delay 

the issuance of the final rule until the 

PDT procedure is publicly available. He 

stated that he had a difficult time getting 

a copy of the procedure. 

We do not agree with the commenter 

about delaying the rule. By policy, the 

FAA cannot post to the public docket 

service information that is part of the 

proposed action until the publication of 

the final rule unless there is written 

permission from the design approval 

holder. The FAA does not currently 

have such written permission. We 

encourage the commenter to obtain a 

copy of this document from the design 

approval holder. After the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register, the 

PDT procedure will be readily available 

to the public in the docket. 

We did not make changes to this 

SNPRM based on this comment. 

Request To Change Number of 

Airplanes Affected and Number of 

Labor Hours Required To Comply 

Anthony Saxton commented that the 

number of airplanes affected was too 

low and the labor cost was too low. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. We agree the number of 

airplanes affected was not complete, but 

was the FAA’s best estimate at the time. 

We obtained our initial information 

from the FAA aircraft registry, and the 

registry does not identify which 

airplanes have combustion heaters. An 

FAA economist has completed a more 

complete assessment of the number of 

affected aircraft during the development 

of the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The estimated number of 

affected airplanes has been modified 

based on the initial regulatory 

flexability analysis. 

We disagree with modifying the labor 

hours to perform the labor without more 

substantive information to support a 

different number. 

Request To Withdraw the NPRM 

William West commented that AD 

action is not needed. He requested we 

withdraw the NPRM and provide 

guidance to owners/operators reminding 

them that if the heater malfunctions to 

not use it until it has been properly 

inspected. 

We disagree with this comment. We 

completed a review of the accident/ 

incident data as well as service 

difficulty reports over several years. The 

level of risk identified in the data 

review shows that we should address 

this unsafe condition through 

mandatory action rather than guidance. 

This proposed AD action is consistent 

with AD actions taken against other 

similar products. We have no way of 

assuring that the unsafe condition has 

been mitigated through voluntary 

guidance action. 

We did not make changes to this 

SNPRM based on this comment. 

Request To Allow Limited Decay in the 

PDT 

Harold Haskins commented that we 

should do a PDT that allows some 

leakage as per AD 2004–21–05 (69 FR 

61993, October 22, 2004). He 

commented that the test identified in 

the Meggitt (Troy), Inc. procedure is not 

really a pressure decay test because no 

decay is allowed. Allowing a certain 

amount of decay/leakage is consistent 

with other AD actions. 

We agree with the commenter that 

there are other ADs where the required 

pressure decay tests allow a certain 

amount of leakage; however, we 

disagree with modifying the SNPRM 

because Meggitt (Troy), Inc., as the 

design approval holder, has the 

responsibility to develop what they 

believe is appropriate procedures to 

maintain their combustion heaters. 

Owners/operators may provide 

substantiating data and request approval 

of an alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) using the procedures found in 

14 CFR 39.19 and specified in paragraph 

(m) of this SNPRM. 

We did not make changes to this 

SNPRM based on this comment. 

Request To Change the Listing of the 

Part Numbers or Model Numbers 

Affected 

Sin Kwong Chew, Anthony Saxton, 

and the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) commented that we 

should use the part numbers or more 

detailed model numbers for the affected 

heaters. Another commenter suggested 

we use the four upper level model series 

number. 

We agree with changing how the 

model and series numbers are listed in 

the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this 

proposed AD. We want to ensure that 

the applicability of the proposed AD 

will address all affected model/part 

number heaters. 

We modified the Applicability, 

paragraph (c) of this proposed AD, to 

state the upper level model number of 

the heaters and to specify that all the 

part number heaters and dash numbers 

are included under that higher level 

designation. 

Request Change to Procedures 

William Sandmann requested we 

change the heater disconnect 

procedures to cap off the fuel supply as 

near to the fuel source as possible to 

reduce the possibility that fuel may leak 

from the fuel line. 

We disagree with this comment. The 

manufacturer’s instructions are FAA 

approved and acceptable. The 

commenter’s suggestion may be an 

improvement on the manufacturer’s 

instructions, but it is not required and 

is too detailed a level to include in this 

proposed AD. 

We did not make changes to this 

SNPRM as a result of this comment. 

Request Change to Credit for Previous 

Inspections 

Chris (no last name or company 

affiliation given) requested we allow 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

credit for PDTs previously done using 

the manufacturer’s instructions within 

the last 2 years/250 hours. The 

commenter also requested that we do 

not allow credit for the general 

inspection of the combustion heater 

because previous instructions are not 

sufficient to meet the new inspection 

criteria. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

suggestions. The proposed AD contains 

the language ‘‘unless already done’’ in 

paragraph (f) Compliance. That language 

allows credit for any of the actions 

required by the AD that were performed 

before the effective date of the AD using 

the instructions required by the AD. 

That language does not allow credit for 

the previous instructions in AD 81–09– 

09 since we agree that they are not 

sufficient to meet the inspection criteria. 

We did not make changes to the 

SNPRM based on this comment. 

Request Replacement of Combustion 

Heater Instead of Overhaul 

Anthony Saxton and the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilot’s Association (AOPA) 

requested we require replacement of the 

combustion heater tube instead of an 

overhaul of the combustion heater if a 

combustion heater fails the PDT. An 

overhaul is a costly requirement that 

adds no additional safety benefit. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

suggestion. Additional inspections in 

the proposed AD would require 

inspection and possible replacement of 

individual components of the 

combustion heater. Therefore, if the 

heater fails the PDT, replacement of the 

combustion heater tube would be a 

better option rather than heater 

overhaul. 

We have modified the corrective 

action language for a PDT failure to 

replacement, disable, or remove the 

combustion heater. 

Request Removal of Combustion Heater 

Model 8248 

Harold Haskins and William 

Sandmann commented they were 

unaware of a Model 8248 combustion 

heater. 

We agree with this comment. The 

Model 8248 was included based on the 

FAA technical standard order (TSO) 

database. After further research, Meggitt 

(Troy), Inc. verified that the Model 8248 

was included in the database in error 

and did not exist. 

We have removed the Model 8248 

combustion heater from the 

Applicability, paragraph (c) of this 

proposed AD. 

Request the Addition of Service 

Information 

Harold Haskins requested we add the 

service information for the Model 8240 

and 8259 combustion heaters. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

suggestion. 

We have added South Wind Service 

Manual for Stewart Warner South Wind 

Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 8240–C, 8259– 

A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–FL1, 8259– 

GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998 (Rev. 

12–69) to the service information 

required for this proposed AD. 

Request To Delete Piper From Possible 

Combustion Heater Installation 

Harold Haskins requested that we 

delete Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) 

airplanes from possible airplanes that 

may have the affected combustion 

heaters installed. He does not know of 

any Piper airplanes that have the 

affected heaters installed. 

We disagree with this comment. The 

proposed AD addressed the combustion 

heaters at the component level, and they 

have the potential for installation on 

various airplanes. Also, this AD as 

proposed in this SNPRM would expand 

the applicability to include combustion 

heaters that are installed on Piper 

airplanes as well as any other airplanes 

not listed, thus the reason for the phrase 

‘‘are installed on, but not limited to’’ in 

the applicability. 

Request Increasing the Time Allowed 

for Initial Compliance Time 

Anthony Saxton and AOPA requested 

modifying the initial compliance time to 

provide a longer period of time to 

comply. Two commenters suggested 

modifing the compliance time to better 

coincide with a normal maintenance 

schedule—within the next 10 hours of 

time-in-service of the combustion heater 

or at the next scheduled 100-hour 

inspection, annual inspection, or phase 

inspection. This would allow 

maintenance shops to better 

accommodate owners/operators in 

complying with the AD. 

We agree with the commenters. Since 

the NPRM, this SNPRM adds 

combustion heater models to the 

Applicability, paragraph (c) of this 

proposed AD. It would be appropriate to 

allow more time to assure that 

maintenance facilities are able to 

support doing the work required by the 

AD. 

We have modified the wording for the 

initial inspection compliance times for 

the combustion heater inspection, 

combustion heater installation 

inspection, and the PDT to better 

coincide with regularly scheduled 

maintenance. 

Request Adding Document Number to 

Service Information 

James W. Tartar Jr. and Meggitt (Troy), 

Inc. requested adding the document 

number for the Meggitt (Troy), Inc. 

inspection procedure for the PDT for 

clarity. 

We agree with this comment. In this 

proposed AD, we cite the Meggitt 

(Troy), Inc. inspection procedure for the 

PDT as Meggitt Inspection Procedure, 

Document No. IP–347, dated May 17, 

2014. 

Request the AD Include an Analysis of 

the Impact on Small Businesses 

Anthony Saxton requested that we 

include in the AD an analysis of the 

AD’s impact on small businesses. The 

commenter stated they are aware of a 

number of small businesses that operate 

the affected airplanes. 

We agree with this comment. The 

commenter has a good understanding of 

the usage of the airplanes affected by 

this SNPRM. Also, this proposed AD 

adds combustion heater models to the 

Applicability, paragraph (c) of this 

proposed, that will affect additional 

airplanes over that affected in the 

proposed rule. 

We have completed an initial 

regulatory flexability analysis that we 

have included in its entirety in this 

SNPRM. 

Support of Proposed AD 

AOPA, NTSB, William Sandmann, 

and Anthony Saxton all supported the 

general intent of the proposed AD 

action. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed the following service 

information that applies to this 

proposed AD: 

—Stewart-Warner South Wind 

Corporation South Wind Service 

Manual for Stewart Warner South 

Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 8240– 

C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259– 

FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 

09–998, revised: December 1969; 

—South Wind Division Stewart-Warner 

Corporation Service Manual Beech 

Aircraft Corporation PM–20688, Part 

No. 404–001039 Heater Assy. (SW 

8253–B), revised: April 1965; 

—South Wind Division Stewart-Warner 

Corporation Service Manual South 

Wind Aircraft Heater 8472 Series, 

Form No. 09–1015, issued: April 

1975; and 

The service information above 

describes procedures for inspection of 

the combustion heater and inspection of 

the installation of the combustion heater 

for the applicable heater models. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76535 

We also reviewed Meggitt Inspection 

Procedure, Pressure Decay Test, Aircraft 

Heaters, dated May 17, 2014. This 

service information describes 

procedures for the PDT for airplane 

combustion heaters for all heater 

models. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

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 expand the scope of 

this rulemaking. 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 repetitive 

inspections of the combustion heater 

and repetitive general inspections of the 

combustion heater installation, 

replacing any parts or components as 

necessary. This SNPRM would also 

require repetitive PDTs, with 

replacement of the combustion heater 

tube, disabling, or removal of the 

combustion heater in the event of PDT 

failure. This SNPRM also modifies the 

inspection and PDT compliance times 

allowing for the inspections to coincide 

with regularly scheduled maintenance. 

This SNPRM would not allow repair of 

the combustion heater tube. 

For combustion heater models other 

than Models 8240, 8253, 8259, and 

8472, this SNPRM does not have 

referenced service information 

associated with certain required 

inspections and the PDT and, if 

necessary, any replacement(s) that may 

be required. Appendix 1 of this SNPRM 

contains a listing of service information 

that provides specific instructions, for 

certain inspections and replacements, 

that may be used to apply for an AMOC. 

However, the listing in appendix 1 to 

this SNPRM does not include any 

instructions for the required PDT 

because these procedures do not exist. 

If you are unable to obtain instructions 

for the PDT, you must disable or remove 

the combustion heater. 

The service information listed in 

appendix 1 of this SNPRM did not meet 

Office of the Federal Register regulatory 

requirements for incorporation by 

reference approval due to the condition 

of the documents. 

We are evaluating the actions required 

in AD 69–13–03 (38 FR 33765, 

December 7, 1973) and may take further 

AD action in the future. 

Differences Between This SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

The proposed AD would prohibit 

repair of any defective combustion tube 

while the service information does not 

specify this. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 6,300 combustion heaters 

installed on, but not limited to, certain 

Beech, Britten-Norman, Cessna Aircraft 

Company, and Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspections and pressure decay test of the combustion heater.7 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $595.

Not applicable .................. $595 $3,748,500 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary combustion heater 

disable/removal/related replacement 

that would be required based on the 

results of the proposed inspections/test. 

We have no way of determining the 

number of aircraft that might need a 

combustion heater disable/removal/ 

related replacement: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replace combustion heater tube .......................... 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 ................... $3,900 ........................... $4,580 

Replace temperature switches .............................. 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ....................... $320 .............................. 405 

Repair pump .......................................................... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ................... $470 .............................. 640 

Disable heater ....................................................... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ................... Not Applicable ............... 170 

Remove heater ...................................................... 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 ................... Not Applicable ............... 255 

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. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This section presents the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

that was done for this action. We have 

reworded and reformatted for Federal 

Register publication purposes. The 

IRFA in its original form can be found 

in the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

seriously considered.’’ The RFA covers 

a wide-range of small entities, including 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as 

described in the RFA. The FAA finds 

that the proposed AD would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, in the following sections 

we discuss the compliance requirements 

of the proposed AD, the cost of 

compliance, and the economic impact 

on small entities. 

Section 603(a) of the RFA requires 

that each initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis contain: 

—A description of the reasons action by 

the agency is being considered; 

—A succinct statement of the objectives 

of, and legal basis for, the proposed 

rule; 

—A description of and, where feasible, 

an estimate of the number of small 

entities to which the proposed rule 

will apply; 

—A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed 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 to the extent 

practicable, an identification of all 

relevant Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap or conflict with the 

proposed rule; and 

—A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule 

which accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statues and 

which minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities. 

1. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

Title 49 of the U.S. 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 FAA’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 the 

airplanes identified in this proposed 

AD. 

2. A Description of the Reasons Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered 

This proposed AD stems from the 

crash of a Cessna 401 near Chanute, 

Kansas, on May 11, 2012, killing the 

pilot and three of the four passengers 

aboard, and seriously injuring the fourth 

passenger. According to the NTSB 

report, the crash occurred after dark 

smoke emanated from the cabin heater 

and entered the cabin obscuring the 

occupants’ vision. According to the 

Report: ‘‘The smoke likely interfered 

with the pilot’s ability to identify a safe 

landing site.’’ When the pilot attempted 

an emergency landing in a field, the 

airplane’s wing contacted the ground 

and the airplane cartwheeled. 

The NTSB determined the probable 

cause of the accident to be: 

The malfunction of the cabin heater, which 

resulted in an inflight fire and smoke in the 

airplane. Contributing to the accident was the 

pilot’s lack of understanding concerning the 

status of the airplane’s heater system 

following an earlier overheat event and the 

risk of its continued use. Also contributing 

were the inadequate inspection criteria for 

the cabin heater. 

As result of this accident, the FAA is 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

a hazardous condition caused by 

deterioration of the combustion heater, 

a condition that could lead to ignition 

of heater components and result in 

smoke and fumes in the airplane cabin. 

3. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities To Which 

the Proposed Rule Will Apply 

This proposed AD would supersede 

AD 81–09–09, which applies to 8000 

series Meggitt combustion heaters 

installed on certain twin-engine piston 

airplanes, primarily Cessna 300 and 400 

series airplanes, but also installed on 

the Beech D18S twin-engine airplane 

and some Britten Norman twin-engine 

piston airplanes. The proposed AD 

would extend applicability to 900 series 

Meggitt combustion heaters installed on 

certain Cessna single-engine piston 

airplanes, Cessna 310 twin-engine 

airplanes, Lake LA–4 and LA–250 

airplanes, certain Ryan Navion singleengine piston airplanes and certain 

Piper PA–23 and PA–30 airplanes. The 

FAA estimates that there are 4,121 

airplanes equipped with 8000 series 

Meggitt combustion heaters, and 2,123 

airplanes equipped with 900 series 

Meggitt combustion heaters. Since many 

of these airplanes are registered to 

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), 

Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) 

and other company forms typically 

suited for single proprietors, small 

partnerships, etc., we conclude that the 

proposed rule would affect a substantial 

number of small entities. 

4. Duplicative, Overlapping or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The FAA is unaware of any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this proposed AD. 

5. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

Because of an unsafe condition that is 

likely to exist or develop on the 

airplanes identified in this proposed 

AD, there is no feasible significant 

alternative to requiring the actions of 

this proposed AD. The FAA invites 

public comment on this determination. 

The FAA considered allowing more 

flight hours or calendar time before 

requiring compliance, but this 

alternative would increase the risk of 

another fatal accident. This proposed 

AD allows the combustion heater to be 

disconnected or removed, but, as noted 

above, operating without a heater is 

unlikely to be viable. 

6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Small entities would incur no new 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements as a result of this rule. 

Compliance Requirements 

This proposed AD would carry over 

the following requirements from AD 81– 

09–09: 

—Conduction of the 250-hour heater 

inspection every 250 hours of heater 

operation, in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s service manual. We 

estimate the labor cost of this action 

to be 2 hours × $85 = $170. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76537 

—General inspection of the heater 

installation at the same time as the 

250-hour inspection. We estimate the 

labor cost of this action to also be 2 

hours × $85 = $170. 

Since the proposed rule would extend 

applicability to 900 series heaters 

Meggitt combustion heaters, which are 

installed on certain airplanes, there is 

an incremental cost associated with the 

existing requirement for these two 

inspections. There is no incremental 

cost associated with applicability to 

8000 series heaters, installed on certain 

airplanes, as the current rule already 

applies to these heaters. 

This proposed AD would add the 

following new provisions, which will 

apply to both 900 and 8000 series 

heaters installed on certain airplanes: 

—During each 250-hour inspection 

more detailed actions would be 

required, namely inspection of the 

thermostat and upper limit switches, 

and inspection of the solenoid valve 

and fuel pump. In conjunction with 

the 250-hour and installation 

inspections already required, the 

labor cost of these more detailed 

actions would be one hour of labor at 

$85. ‘‘On-condition’’ costs to replace 

the temperature switches would be an 

additional hour of labor ($85) and 

$320 in materials cost, for a total of 

$405. On-condition costs to repair/ 

overhaul the pump would be an 

additional two hours of labor ($170) 

and $470 in materials cost for a total 

of $640. 

—Operators would be required to 

replace defective combustion tubes 

with new tubes as repair of 

combustion tubes would be 

prohibited. We estimate the cost of 

prohibiting repair of combustion 

tubes to be minimal as industry 

reports that the Meggitt heater 

combustion tubes are effectively nonrepairable. 

—At the same time as the 250-hour and 

installation inspection, a combustion 

heater pressure decay test (PDT) 

would be required. The PDT would 

cost $170. If the combustion heater 

fails the PDT, the operator would be 

required to replace the combustion 

tube at an installed cost of $4,580. 

—Operators have the options of 

disabling the heater at an estimated 

cost of $170 or removing it at 

estimated cost of $255. 

Cost of Compliance 

In calculating the cost of compliance, 

we assume that operating without a 

heater is unlikely to be viable. We 

estimate the ten-year cost of the 

proposed rule. Based on data in the 

2014 GA Survey, we can somewhat 

conservatively assume that average 

flight hours per airplane per year are 

about 100 hours. We estimate heater 

time to be 50 percent of airplane flight 

hours so, on average, flight hours will 

accumulate to about 1,000 hours in ten 

years and heater time will accumulate to 

about 500 hours. Since requirements for 

inspection internals are ‘‘250 hours of 

combustion heater operations or two 

years, whichever occurs first,’’ we 

expect inspections to usually occur 

every two years. As will be seen below, 

compliance costs are dominated by the 

almost immediate requirement for the 

PDT test. 

Pressure Decay Test 

The FAA estimates that 90 percent of 

combustion tubes tested will fail the 

first PDT test. Since replacing the 

combustion tube, like an overhaul, 

requires complete disassembly of the 

combustion heater, we somewhat 

conservatively assume that operators 

will overhaul their combustion heaters 

at $4,580, rather than simply replace the 

combustion tube, at $4,900. Major 

components such as the combustion 

tube, fuel pump, and temperature 

switches that are typically replaced or 

overhauled in a combustion heater 

overhaul have service lives of 750 heater 

hours, equivalent to about 1,500 flight 

hours or 15 years. Therefore, we assume 

that once replaced or overhauled, these 

components will not need to be 

replaced during our 10-year period of 

cost estimation. So aside from the initial 

tube replacement, we estimate that, for 

inspections required by this proposed 

AD, ‘‘on-condition’’ costs would be 

minimal. 

Table 1 below shows our calculation 

of compliance cost for airplanes with 

the affected Meggitt combustion heaters. 

We assume the rule to be effective in 

2017 and, as discussed above, in the 

first year we assume the combustion 

heater fails the PDT resulting in a 

subsequent overhaul. For the 8000 

series heaters note that the $935 labor 

cost for 2017 includes three hours of 

labor ($255) for the detailed inspection 

and the PDT in addition to eight hours 

of labor for the overhaul ($680). 

As the table shows, we estimate the 

present value cost of compliance to be 

$6,020 for airplanes equipped with 8000 

series Meggitt combustion heaters and 

$7,514 for airplanes equipped with 900 

series Meggitt combustion heaters. The 

lower cost for airplanes with 8000 series 

combustion heaters reflects the 

previously noted fact that 8000 series 

heaters are currently subject to the 250- 

hour inspection and installation 

inspection requirements, and, therefore, 

the incremental cost would be 

correspondingly less for airplanes with 

8000 series combustion heaters 

compared to airplanes with 900 series 

heaters. 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

If the cost of compliance is greater 

than 2 percent of the value of an 

operator’s airplane, the FAA considers 

the cost impact to be significant. So if 

the value of an airplane equipped with 

an affected Meggitt combustion heater is 

less than 50 times the cost of 

compliance, we consider that the 

operator of the airplane would incur a 

substantial economic impact. With a 

present value cost of about $6,000 for 

airplanes equipped with 8000 series 

Meggitt combustion heaters, the FAA 

considers the cost impact to be 

significant for all such airplanes with 

values below about $300,000. With a 

present value cost of about $7,500 for 

airplanes equipped with 900 series 

Meggitt combustion heaters, the FAA 

considers the cost impact to be 

significant for all such airplanes with 

values below about $350,000. The 

airplanes equipped with the affected 

heaters are single- and twin-engine 

piston airplanes that, for the most part, 

were manufactured from the 1940s to 

the 1980s, and range in price from about 

$350,000 for a Cessna 221C Golden 

Eagle down to a price as low as $30,000 

for a Piper 23–150 Apache. Accordingly, 

most of the 6,244 airplanes equipped 

with Meggitt combustion heaters have 

values low enough to consider that the 

airplane operators would incur a 

significant economic impact. As noted 

above, many of these airplanes are 

registered to LLCs and other small 

companies. 

The FAA therefore concludes that this 

proposed AD would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—COSTS OF COMPLIANCE

Year Materials cost Labor cost Mtls + labor 

cost Actions Discount factor (@7%) PV Cost 

Airplanes with 8000 Series Meggitt Combustion Heaters 

2017 ....................... $4,220 $935 $5,155 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor)—Overhaul 

after assumed failure (8 hrs 

labor, $4,220 materials).

1.000 $5,155 

2019 ....................... ........................ 255 255 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT inspection (2 hrs labor).

0.873 223 

2021 ....................... ........................ 255 255 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT inspection (2 hrs labor).

0.763 195 

2023 ....................... ........................ 255 255 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT inspection (2 hrs labor).

0.666 170 

2025 ....................... ........................ 255 255 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT inspection (2 hrs labor).

0.582 148 

2027 ....................... ........................ 255 255 Detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT inspection (2 hrs labor).

0.508 130 

Total PV Cost ........................ ........................ ........................ .......................................................... ........................ 6,020 

Airplanes with 900 Series Combustion Meggitt Heaters 

2017 ....................... 4,220 1,275 5,495 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor)—Overhaul 

after assumed failure (8 hrs 

labor, 4,220 materials).

1.000 5,495 

2019 ....................... ........................ 595 595 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor).

0.873 520 

2021 ....................... ........................ 595 595 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor).

0.763 454 

2023 ....................... ........................ 595 595 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor).

0.666 396 

2025 ....................... ........................ 595 595 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor).

0.582 346 

2027 ....................... ........................ 595 595 250-hr inspection (2 hrs labor), installation inspection (2 hrs labor), 

detailed inspection (1 hr labor), 

PDT (2 hrs labor).

0.508 302 

Total PV Cost ........................ ........................ ........................ .......................................................... ........................ 7,514 

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, 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 

removing AD 81–09–09, Amendment 

39–4102 (46 FR 24936, May 4, 1981) 

and adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 76539 

Meggitt (Troy), Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0603; Directorate Identifier 2013–CE– 

026–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

19, 2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 81–09–09, 

Amendment 39–4102 (46 FR 24936, May 4, 

1981). 

(c) Applicability 

(1) This AD applies to Meggitt (Troy), Inc. 

(previously known as Stewart Warner South 

Wind Corporation and as Stewart Warner 

South Wind Division) Models (to include all 

dash number and model number variants) 

921, 930, 937, 940, 944, 945, 977, 978, 979, 

8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472 combustion 

heaters that: 

(i) Are installed on, but not limited to, 

certain Beech, Britten-Norman, Cessna 

Aircraft Company, and Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

airplanes; and 

(ii) certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2140; Heating System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an airplane 

accident and reports we received that the 

combustion heater was malfunctioning. We 

are issuing this AD to detect and correct a 

hazardous condition caused by deterioration 

of the combustion heater, which could lead 

to ignition of components and result in 

smoke and fumes in the cabin. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD by doing one of the 

actions in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this 

AD at the compliance times indicated, unless 

already done. If the hours of combustion 

heater operation cannot be determined, use 

50 percent of the airplane’s hours time-inservice (TIS): 

(1) Perform the actions specified in 

paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD; 

(2) Disable the heater following the 

instructions in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD; or 

(3) Remove the heater following the 

instructions in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. 

(g) Inspections and Pressure Decay Test 

(PDT) of the Combustion Heater 

Within the next 10 hours TIS of the 

combustion heater after the effective date of 

this AD or the next scheduled 100-hour 

inspection, annual inspection, or phase 

inspection that occurs 30 days after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 250 hours of combustion heater 

operation or two years, whichever occurs 

first, do the following inspections and PDT 

listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

AD. You may do one of the actions in 

paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD in lieu of 

doing the inspections required by paragraph 

(g). 

(1) Inspections using the instructions in 

paragraph (i)(1) or (j) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(2) Inspections using the steps listed in 

paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (v) of this AD: 

(i) Inspect the thermostat switch (external 

from heater) and upper limit switch (located 

on the heater). In cold static condition, both 

switches should be in closed position; in 

operation (hot) condition, both switches 

should regulate their sensed temperatures 

within +/¥10 degrees F. 

(ii) Inspect the solenoid valve and fuel 

pump for fuel leak, corrosion, diaphragm 

crack, metal shavings, and excess grease. 

(iii) With the heater operating, inspect the 

fuel pump output pressure for proper gauge 

hook up and pressure range readings. 

(iv) Inspect the combustion heater’s fuel 

pump operating pressure to assure it is not 

affected by other on-board pumps. 

(v) Inspect the heater to assure it instantly 

responds to the on/off switch. 

(3) Installation inspections and checks 

using the steps listed in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) 

through (iv) of this AD: 

(i) Inspect ventilating air and combustion 

air inlets and exhaust outlet correcting any 

restrictions and ensure attachment security. 

(ii) Inspect drain line and ensure it is free 

of obstruction. 

(iii) Check all fuel lines for security at 

joints and shrouds, correcting/replacing 

those showing evidence of looseness or 

leakage. 

(iv) Check all electrical wiring for security 

at attachment points, correcting conditions 

leading to arcing, chafing or looseness. 

(4) Pressure decay test using the 

instructions in paragraph (i)(2) or (j) of this 

AD, as applicable. 

(h) Replacement of the Heater Tube and/or 

Correct or Replace Other Assemblies 

If any discrepancies are found during any 

of the inspections/tests required in 

paragraphs (g)(1), (2), (3), and/or (4) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the 

defective heater tube and/or correct or 

replace other defective assemblies as 

necessary. You must use the instructions in 

paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, 

to do any necessary replacements. This AD 

does not allow repair of the combustion tube. 

You may do one of the actions in paragraph 

(k)(1) or (2) of this AD in lieu of doing the 

replacements required by paragraph (h). 

(i) Procedures for Inspection, PDT, and 

Replacement for Models 8240, 8253, 8259, 

and 8472 

(1) For the inspections required in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and the 

replacement(s) that may be required in 

paragraph (h) of this AD, use the service 

information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this AD, as applicable, or do 

one of the actions in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) 

of this AD. 

(i) Stewart-Warner South Wind 

Corporation South Wind Service Manual for 

Stewart Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 

8240–A, 8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 

8259–FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 

09–998, revised: December 1969; 

(ii) South Wind Division Stewart-Warner 

Corporation Beech Aircraft Corporation 

Service Manual PM–20688, Part No. 404– 

001039 Heater Assy. (SW 8253–B), revised: 

April 1965; or 

(iii) South Wind Division Stewart-Warner 

Corporation Service Manual South Wind 

Aircraft Heater 8472 Series, Form No. 09– 

1015, issued: April 1975. 

(2) For the pressure decay test (PDT) 

required in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, use 

Meggitt Inspection Procedure, Pressure Decay 

Test, Aircraft Heaters, IP–347, dated May 17, 

2014, or do one of the actions in paragraph 

(k)(1) or (2) of this AD. 

(j) Procedures for Inspection, PDT, and 

Replacement for Models Other Than Models 

8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472 

This AD does not have referenced service 

information associated with the mandatory 

requirements of this AD for models other 

than Models 8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472. For 

the required inspections and PDT specified 

in paragraphs (g)(1) and (4) of this AD and, 

if necessary, any replacement(s) specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD, you must contact 

the manufacturer to obtain FAA-approved 

inspection, replacement, and PDT procedures 

approved specifically for this AD and 

implement those procedures through an 

alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or 

do one of the actions in paragraph (k)(1) or 

(2) of this AD. You may use the contact 

information found in paragraph (n)(2) to 

contact the manufacturer. Appendix 1 of this 

AD contains a listing of service information 

that provides specific instructions, for certain 

inspections and replacements, that you may 

use to apply for an AMOC following 

paragraph (m) of this AD. The service 

information listed in appendix 1 of this AD 

did not meet Office of the Federal Register 

regulatory requirements for incorporation by 

reference approval due to the condition of 

the documents. However, the listing in 

appendix 1 to this AD does not include any 

instructions for the PDT required in 

paragraph (g)(4) because these procedures do 

not exist. 

(k) Disable or Removal of the Combustion 

Heater 

As an option to the inspection and 

replacement actions specified in paragraphs 

(g) and (h) of this AD, within the next 10 

hours TIS of the combustion heater after the 

effective date of this AD or the next 

scheduled 100-hour inspection, annual 

inspection, or phase inspection that occurs 

30 days after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first, do one of the 

following actions: 

(1) Disable the heater by the following 

actions: 

(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel 

supply; 

(ii) Disconnect circuit breakers; 

(iii) Tag the main switch ‘‘Heater 

Inoperable’’; and 

(iv) The ventilation blower can stay 

functional. 

(v) If you re-enable the combustion heater, 

you must perform one of the actions in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD. 

(2) Remove the heater by the following 

actions: 

(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel 

supply; 

(ii) Disconnect/remove circuit breakers; 

(iii) Remove exhaust pipe extension; 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

76540 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Cap the exhaust opening; 

(v) Remove the heater; and 

(vi) Do weight and balance for the aircraft. 

(vii) If you install an applicable 

combustion heater, you must perform one of 

the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of 

this AD. 

(l) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits are permitted in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.23 with the 

following limitation: Use of the heater is not 

allowed. 

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Chicago 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 

paragraph (o)(1) 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. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 81–09–09 (46 

FR 24936, May 4, 1981) are not approved as 

AMOCs for this AD. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Chung-Der Young, Aerospace 

Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 

60018–4696; telephone (847) 294–7309; fax 

(847) 294–7834 email: chung-der.young@

faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Meggitt Control Systems, 3 

Industrial Drive, Troy, Indiana 47588; 

telephone: (812) 547–7071; fax: (812) 547– 

2488; email: infotroy@meggitt.com; Internet: 

www.stewart-warner.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA–2016–0603 

The following service information applies 

to certain combustion heater models affected 

by this AD, but the service information can 

not be required by the AD. You may use this 

service information for procedural guidance 

when applying for an alternative method of 

compliance. 

—South Wind Service Manual P.M. 35710 

Aircraft Heaters 8240–E, 8259–HL1, HL2, 

-L, supplements attached HR2.JR2.M; 

—South Wind Service Manual PM35710 

Aircraft Heaters 

—Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind 

Division Service Manual South Wind 

Aircraft Heaters Series 921 and 930, Ind506, Revision 4–53; 

—Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind 

Division Service Manual SouthWind Series 

940 Heater, PM–10035, Revision 3–82; 

—Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind 

Division Service Manual South Wind 

Model 978 Personal Heater, Form No. 

PM6348 (12–56); 

—South Wind Service Manual Model 979–B1 

Aircraft Heater, South Wind Division of 

Stewart-Warner Corporation, (3–51); 

—Navion Model 977–B Installation Manual 

Section I, Section II, Section III, and 

Section IV. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 27, 2016. 

Pat Mullen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26428 Filed 11–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0165; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NE–02–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2015–15– 

03, which applies to all General Electric 

Company (GE) GEnx turbofan engine 

models. AD 2015–15–03 precludes the 

use of certain full authority digital 

engine control (FADEC) software on 

GEnx turbofan engines. Since we issued 

AD 2015–15–03, GE implemented final 

design changes that remove the unsafe 

condition. This proposed AD would 

require removing a specific part and 

replacing it with a part eligible for 

installation and specifying the FADEC 

software version for the affected GEnx 

turbofan engines. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent engine failure, loss of 

thrust control, and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 3, 2017. 

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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact General Electric 

Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 

Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; 

phone: 513–552–3272; email: geae.aoc@

ge.com. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 1200 District 

Avenue, 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–2015– 

0165; 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. 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: 

Christopher McGuire, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7120; fax: 781– 

238–7199; email: chris.mcguire@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2015–0165; Directorate Identifier 

2015–NE–02–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM 

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 NPRM. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS