Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 343

(c) The total value of production to count

from all insurable acreage on the unit will

include:

(1) Not less than the amount of insurance

per acre for the stage for any acreage:

(i) That is abandoned;

(ii) Put to another use without our consent;

(iii) That is damaged solely by uninsured

causes; or

(iv) For which you fail to provide

acceptable production records;

(2) The value of the following appraised

production will not be less than the dollar

amount obtained by multiplying the number

of boxes of appraised peppers times the

minimum value per box shown in the Special

Provisions for the planting period:

(i) Potential production on any acreage that

has not been harvested the third time;

(ii) Unharvested mature bell peppers

(unharvested production that is damaged or

defective due to insurable causes and is not

marketable will not be counted as production

to count);

(iii) Production lost due to uninsured

causes; and

(iv) Potential production on insured

acreage that you intend to put to another use

or abandon, if you and we agree on the

appraised amount of production. Upon such

agreement, the insurance period for that

acreage will end when you put the acreage

to another use or abandon the crop. If

agreement on the appraised amount of

production is not reached:

(A) We may require you to continue to care

for the crop so that a subsequent appraisal

may be made or the crop harvested to

determine actual production (If we require

you to continue to care for the crop and you

do not do so, the original appraisal will be

used); or

(B) You may elect to continue to care for

the crop, in which case the amount of

production to count for the acreage will be

the harvested production, or our reappraisal

if the crop is not harvested.

(3) The total value of all harvested

production from the insurable acreage will be

the dollar amount obtained by subtracting the

allowable cost contained in the Special

Provisions from the price received for each

box of peppers (this result may not be less

than the minimum value shown in the

Special Provisions for any box of peppers),

and multiplying this result by the number of

boxes of peppers harvested. Harvested

production that is damaged or defective due

to insurable causes and is not marketable,

will not be counted as production to count.

15. Written Agreements.

Designated terms of this policy may be

altered by written agreement in accordance

with the following:

(a) You must apply in writing for each

written agreement no later than the sales

closing date, except as provided in section

15(e);

(b) The application for a written agreement

must contain all variable terms of the

contract between you and us that will be in

effect if the written agreement is not

approved;

(c) If approved, the written agreement will

include all variable terms of the contract,

including, but not limited to, crop type or

variety, and premium rate;

(d) Each written agreement will only be

valid for one year (If the written agreement

is not specifically renewed the following

year, insurance coverage for subsequent crop

years will be in accordance with the printed

policy); and

(e) An application for a written agreement

submitted after the sales closing date may be

approved if, after a physical inspection of the

acreage, it is determined that no loss has

occurred and the crop is insurable in

accordance with the policy and written

agreement provisions.

16. Minimum Value Option.

(a) The provisions of this option are

continuous and will be attached to and made

a part of your insurance policy, if:

(1) You elect either Option I or Option II

of the Minimum Value Option on your

application, or on a form approved by us, on

or before the sales closing date for the initial

crop year in which you wish to insure fresh

market peppers under this option, and pay

the additional premium indicated in the

Actuarial Table for this optional coverage;

and

(2) You have not elected coverage under

the Catastrophic Risk Protection

Endorsement.

(b) In lieu of the provisions contained in

section 14(c)(3), the total value of harvested

production will be determined as follows:

(1) If you selected Option I of the

Minimum Value Option, the total value of

harvested production will be as follows:

(i) For sold production, the dollar amount

obtained by subtracting the allowable cost

contained in the Special Provisions from the

price received for each box of peppers (this

result may not be less than $2.75 for any box

of peppers), and multiplying this result by

the number of boxes of peppers sold; and

(ii) For marketable production that is not

sold, the dollar amount obtained by

multiplying the number of boxes of such

peppers on the unit by the minimum value

shown in the Special Provisions for the

planting period (harvested production that is

damaged or defective due to insurable causes

and is not marketable will not be counted as

production).

(2) If you selected Option II of the

Minimum Value Option, the total value of

harvested production will be as provided in

section 16(b)(1), except that the dollar

amount specified in section 16(b)(1)(i) may

not be less than zero.

(c) This option may be canceled by either

you or us for any succeeding crop year by

giving written notice on or before the

cancellation date preceding the crop year for

which the cancellation of this option is to be

effective.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on December

24, 1996.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance.

[FR Doc. 97–61 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–FA–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–ANE–44]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Certain

Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 Series

Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice revises an earlier

proposed airworthiness directive (AD),

which would have been applicable to all

Textron Lycoming 235 series and 290

series, and certain 320 and 360 series

reciprocating engines, that would have

required initial and repetitive

inspections of the crankshaft inner

diameter (ID) for corrosion and cracks,

and replacement of cracked crankshafts

with a serviceable part. In addition, that

proposed AD would have permitted

operation of engines with crankshafts

that were found to have corrosion pits

but were free of cracks, provided

repetitive inspections were performed

by only certain qualified individuals

until the next engine overhaul or 5 years

after the initial inspection, whichever

occurred first, at which time the

proposed AD would have required those

crankshafts with corrosion pits but no

cracks to be replaced with serviceable

crankshafts. That proposal was

prompted by reports of crankshaft

breakage originating from corrosion pits

on the inside wall. This action revises

the proposal by limiting the

applicability of the proposed AD to only

certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360

series reciprocating engines, excluding

additional engines installed in

helicopters; permitting any certificated

mechanic holding an airframe or

powerplant rating to perform the

Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI);

permitting continued use of a pitted

crankshaft as long as repetitive FPI

inspections are performed; and deleting

the five year limit on the use of

crankshafts that are pitted but not

cracked. Also, the FAA has received

new cost information, and has revised

the economic analysis with respect to

the initial inspection time, the time to

remove and replace crankshafts, the cost

of the replacement crankshafts, and the

cost for repetitive FPI inspections.

Finally, this revised proposal introduces

a public reporting survey to provide the

FAA with a broader database on the
344 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

condition of crankshafts when observed

during the initial inspections. The

actions specified by this proposed AD

are intended to prevent crankshaft

failure, which can result in engine

failure, propeller separation, forced

landing, and possible damage to the

aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–ANE–44, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St.,

Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone

(717) 327–7080, fax (717) 327–7100.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, New England Region, Office of

the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Raymond Reinhardt or Pat Perrotta,

Aerospace Engineers, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St.,

Valley Stream, NY 11581–1200;

telephone (516) 256–7532 or (516) 256–

7534, fax (516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–ANE–44.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 94–ANE–44, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299.

Discussion

On October 18, 1993, the Civil

Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the

airworthiness authority of the United

Kingdom, received a report that a Piper

PA–28–161 aircraft, with a Textron

Lycoming O–320–D3G reciprocating

engine installed, executed a forced

landing due to an engine crankshaft

failure which caused the propeller to

separate from the aircraft. The cause of

the crankshaft failure was determined to

be due to a high cycle fatigue

mechanism that had initiated from a

number of corrosion pits in the

crankshaft bore. After the cracks had

progressed through a substantial

proportion of the crankshaft section, the

rate of advance had increased until the

remaining unseparated portion had

failed as a result of overload. The

cracking occurred in high cycle fatigue

and it had progressed over an extended

period of service. At the time of the

accident the engine had operated for

1,950 hours time in service (TIS) since

overhaul and had accumulated 4,429

hours total time since new over a period

of 16 years. In addition, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

confirmed that four other failures in the

United States and 10 in foreign

countries were due to cracks initiating

from corrosion pits in the crankshaft

bore on certain Textron Lycoming 320

and 360 reciprocating engines with

ratings of 160 horsepower or greater. Of

the 10 failures in foreign countries, four

resulted in the propeller separating from

the aircraft inflight. Three of these four

were from 1993 to 1996. The FAA

utilized metallurgical failure analysis

reports and other information to

conclude that these failures were due to

cracks originating from corrosion pits.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in crankshaft failure, which can

result in engine failure, propeller

separation, forced landing, and possible

damage to the aircraft.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to Textron Lycoming 235 Series

and 290 Series, and certain 320 and 360

series reciprocating engines was

published in the Federal Register on

November 28, 1995 (60 FR 58580); the

comment period was reopened in a

reprinting of the original proposal on

April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15430). That action

proposed to require initial and

repetitive inspections of the crankshaft

inner diameter (ID) for corrosion and

cracks, and replacement of cracked

crankshafts with a serviceable part. In

addition, the proposed AD would have

permitted operation of engines with

crankshafts that were found to have

corrosion pits but were free of cracks

provided repetitive inspections were

performed until the next engine

overhaul or 5 years after the initial

inspection, whichever occurred first, at

which time the proposed AD would

have required those crankshafts with

corrosion pits but no cracks to be

replaced with serviceable crankshafts.

Those proposed actions would be

performed in accordance with Textron

Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin

(MSB) No. 505A, dated October 18,

1994.

The FAA had determined that

Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections (FPI)

were warranted if corrosion pits were

found. The FPI inspection was

developed due to reports from Textron

Lycoming and other approved repair

stations that most of the crankshafts that

are pitted do not contain cracks. The

FAA determined that visual inspections

alone were not sufficient to detect a

crack. The FPI inspection was based on

crack propagation data developed by the

FAA in conjunction with Textron

Lycoming and with consideration of the

technical base in the U.S. for performing

Non-Destructive Inspections. The FPI

process was shown to be reliable for

detection of cracks down to 0.050

inches deep and 0.100 inches in length.

The FPI inspection interval was based

on the crack propagation data such that

a crack could be reliably be detected

before the crankshaft failed. If an

installed engine was found to have a

pitted crankshaft, the FAA did not

propose to allow the removal of metal

to remove the corrosion pits due to

possible contamination of the engine oil

supply with metal filings and to ensure

that the concentricity of the crankshaft

would not be compromised.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Over 200
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 345

comments were received in response to

the initial NPRM. The following

comment groups comprise the

information received from the various

commenters from around the U.S. and

overseas:

A group of commenters state that the

Textron Lycoming Model 0–360–A4A

and other models that incorporate solid

crankshafts should be exempted from

the proposed rule’s applicability. Also,

the commenters state that the Textron

Lycoming Model 0–360–J2A engine,

installed in the Robinson helicopter,

should also be exempted from the

proposed rule’s applicability, as the

–J2A model was not specifically

designed as a helicopter engine. The

FAA concurs. All these engines have

been deleted from the applicability of

the revised proposal.

Another group of commenters state

that inspections are too costly, that there

are not enough failures to justify an AD,

and not enough data and studies were

developed before issuance of the NPRM.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

received data and studies which

substantiated the need for an AD. These

data confirm the crankshaft fracture

occurred at a stress concentration

caused by a corrosion pit on the inside

of the crankshaft. In addition, since the

NPRM was issued, six additional

crankshaft failures on 160 horsepower

Textron Lycoming engines are being

investigated. The FAA has, however,

performed additional analysis to limit

the population of engines impacted by

this proposed AD and has deleted the

five year life limit on pitted crankshafts

undergoing repetitive FPI inspections.

These measures will decrease the cost of

this AD to the public.

Another group of commenters state

that the 5-year limit on the fluorescent

penetrant inspection (FPI) after which

the pitted crankshaft must be removed

from service should be deleted from the

AD. The FAA concurs, and the proposal

AD has been revised to delete the 5-year

life limit on pitted crankshafts

undergoing repetitive FPI inspections.

Another group of commenters state

that the crankshaft failures used to

justify the proposed AD occurred after

a propeller strike, and that the propeller

strike history is the main reason for

crankshaft failures. The commenters

recommend inspecting crankshafts only

after a propeller strike. The FAA does

not concur. There is insufficient

evidence to show that propeller strikes

were the primary cause or even a major

contributing factor in the investigated

crankshaft failures. Severe propeller

strikes are normally associated with

stress rupture or low cycle fatigue

failures, whereas the corrosion failures

addressed in this proposal are

associated with high cycle fatigue.

Another group of commenters state

that any AD should allow airframe or

powerplant rated mechanics to perform

the required FPI inspections, not just

specially rated individuals. The FAA

concurs and the proposed AD has been

revised accordingly.

Another group of commenters state

that instead of the proposed initial and

repetitive inspections, the inspections

should be required at the next overhaul

or 2000 hours TIS since last overhaul,

and reinspection accomplished at

reasonable TIS intervals. The FAA does

not concur. Most overhauls do not

include a detailed examination of the

crankshaft internal bore for corrosion

and cracks. The proposed initial

inspection at 1,000 hours TIS since

remanufacture or overhaul is necessary

due to service failures which have

occurred shortly after 1,000 hours TIS

since new or overhaul. With regard to

the repetitive inspection intervals, the

100 hours TIS interval is based on the

crack propagation rate when the crack,

detectable by FPI, exists in the internal

bore.

Another group of commenters state

that the proposed inspections may cause

more problems by, for example,

improper plug replacement, a rag left in

the shaft bore, improper torque on

propeller bolts, or metal particles falling

into the oil system. The FAA concurs.

The NPRM and Textron Lycoming’s

Mandatory SB cautioned operators

about some of these conditions, and the

proposed AD has been revised to

require, for example, removal of cloths

used during the FPI inspections.

Another group of commenters state

that all new crankshafts should be

exempt from the inspections required by

the proposed AD for 10 years. The FAA

concurs in part. The original proposal

recognized this issue and already

incorporates this provision. Paragraph

(b) of the current proposal allows initial

inspection within 10 years of the

original ship date, or 6 months from the

effective date of the AD, whichever

occurs later. However, there are other

events that may require crankshaft

inspection prior to reaching 10 years, for

example, an overhaul or engine

disassembly as specified in Paragraph

(b) of the proposed AD.

Another group of commenters state

that FPI inspection chemicals may

interfere with corrosion prevention

treatments being initiated. The

commenters recommend delaying FPI

inspection for 1 year. The FAA does not

concur. When corrosion protection

treatments are available, the FAA will

evaluate the need for future rulemaking.

In addition, the FAA has removed

from the proposed AD’s applicability

engines with less than 160 maximum

rated horsepower (hp) because the lower

power engines, which utilize the same

size crankshaft, develop lower stress

levels at the location of the corrosion

pitting. The lower stress levels result in

predicted fatigue life which will not

initiate cracking from the stress

concentrations associated with the

corrosion pitting. In addition, service

history of cracks developing from the

location of corrosion pitting has been

limited to the higher rated power (160

hp and above) engines.

Also, the FAA has determined the

need to acquire more data on the extent

of crankshaft corrosion. A crankshaft

inspection survey has been included as

an appendix to this proposed AD. The

inspection survey will be utilized by the

FAA to determine: the number of

engines under repetitive FPI

inspections, the number of crankshafts

that are found to be cracked, if another

failure mechanism is contributing to the

crankshaft failures, and possible

adjustment of the repetitive inspection

interval. The information obtained by

this survey may lead to future

rulemaking.

Finally, the economic analysis of this

proposed AD is revised to address the

changes in the scope of the proposal.

The total number of engines impacted

worldwide has dropped from 77,100 to

16,357 (11,000, 160 hp, 320 series; and

5,357, 360 Series). The FAA estimates

that 60% of that number, 9,814 engines

are installed on aircraft of U.S. registry,

and would be affected by this proposed

AD. The FAA estimates that it would

take approximately 8 work hours per

engine to accomplish the proposed

initial visual inspection, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour;

therefore the estimated cost impact for

the proposed initial visual inspections

would be $4,710,720. The FAA also

estimates, based on information

received from the UK CAA regarding the

number of engines undergoing repetitive

inspections in the UK due to the UK

CAA AD on the same subject, that 12%,

or 1,178, of the affected engines would

contain crankshafts that require FPI.

The FAA estimates that each FPI would

take approximately 8 hours, and that

operators with corroded crankshafts

would perform one FPI per year. The

estimated cost for the repetitive FPI,

therefore, is $565,286 annually. Lastly,

the FAA estimates that 5 crankshafts

will require replacement per year due to

cracks, and that it would take 38 work

hours per engine to replace cracked

crankshafts. Assuming that a

replacement crankshaft would cost
346 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

approximately $6,000 per engine, the

estimated cost for replacement of 5

crankshafts would be $41,400 annually.

Therefore, the total estimated cost

impact of this proposal is $5,317,406 for

the first year, and $606,686 each year

thereafter.

Since these changes expand the scope

of the originally proposed AD, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

publish this Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking to provide an

opportunity for public comment on the

revised proposal.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Textron Lycoming: Docket No. 94–ANE–44.

Applicability: Textron Lycoming 320 series

limited to 160 horsepower, and 360 series,

four-cylinder reciprocating engines with

fixed pitch propellers; except for the

following installed in helicopters or with

solid crankshafts: HO–360 series, HIO–360

series, LHIO–360 series, VO–360 series, and

IVO–360 series, and Models O–320–B2C, O–

360–J2A, AEIO–360–B4A, O–360–A4A, –4G,

–A4J, –A4K, –A4M, and –C4F. These engines

are installed on but not limited to

reciprocating engine powered aircraft

manufactured by Cessna, Piper, Beech,

American Aircraft Corporation, Grumman

American Aviation, Mooney, Augustair Inc.,

Maule Aerospace Technology Corporation,

Great Lakes Aircraft Co., and Commander

Aircraft Co.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (g)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent crankshaft failure, which can

result in engine failure, propeller separation,

forced landing, and possible damage to the

aircraft, accomplish the following:

(a) For engines shipped new from Textron

Lycoming prior to and including December

31, 1984, and that have never been

overhauled, or any engine remanufactured or

overhauled and that has accumulated 1,000

hours or more time in service (TIS) since

remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect

the inner diameter (ID) of the crankshaft for

corrosion pits within the next 100 hours TIS

after the effective date of this AD, or 6

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, in accordance with

Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service

Bulletin (MSB) No. 505A, dated October 18,

1994.

(1) The propeller must be removed in

accordance with the aircraft manufacturer’s

procedures to perform this inspection.

(2) If corrosion pits are found during this

inspection, prior to further flight perform a

Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

(3) Within 48 hours after these inspections,

report the finding of the inspection in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.

(b) For engines shipped new from Textron

Lycoming after December 31, 1984, and that

have never been overhauled, or any engine

remanufactured or overhauled and that has

accumulated less than 1,000 hours TIS since

remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect

the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits, at

the earliest occurrence of any event specified

in subparagraph (4) of this paragraph, and in

accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No.

505A, dated October 18, 1994.

(1) The propeller must be removed in

accordance with the aircraft manufacturer’s

procedures to perform this inspection.

(2) If corrosion pits are found during this

inspection, prior to further flight perform an

FPI in accordance with paragraph (e) of this

AD.

(3) Within 48 hours after these inspections,

report the finding of the inspection in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.

(4) Visually inspect the ID of the crankshaft

for corrosion pits at the earliest of the

following:

(i) The next engine overhaul or

disassembly.

(ii) Within 10 years of the original shipping

date or 6 months from the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later.

(iii) Within 1,000 hours TIS since

remanufacture or overhaul, or 6 months from

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later.

(c) Thereafter, if no corrosion pits or cracks

are found on the ID of the crankshaft during

the initial visual inspection, perform a visual

inspection at intervals not to exceed 5 years

since last inspection, or at the next engine

overhaul or disassembly, whichever occurs

first, in accordance with Textron Lycoming

MSB No. 505A, dated October 18, 1994. If

corrosion pits but no cracks are found on the

ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual

inspection, repeat the FPI at intervals not to

exceed 100 hours TIS since last FPI

inspection until a serviceable crankshaft is

installed in the engine..

(d) Prior to further flight, remove from

service and replace with a serviceable part

any crankshaft found cracked during FPI

performed in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD.

(e) An engine, installed in the aircraft

having a corroded crankshaft, may be

returned to service without disassembly

provided an FPI confirms the bore to be crack

free. The process and materials utilized for

the FPI must comply with the classification

contained in MIL–I–25135. The FPI must be

fluorescent solvent removable (Method C)

utilizing a Type 1 penetrant system with a

penetrant sensitivity Level 3 or higher and a

Form D-Nonaqueous Developer. Spray

containers of the materials are acceptable for

this inspection. An individual having a

mechanic certificate with at least an Airframe

or Powerplant Rating who has the capability

to perform the FPI inspection method is

authorized to perform the FPI inspection.

This FPI process involves the removal of

penetrant material from the inspection

surface. To ensure that contaminants from

the cleaning process and the FPI do not enter

the engine oil supply, block off the area of

the crankshaft bore that is aft of the area

being inspected by using a clean, dry, lintfree cloth. When the FPI is completed remove

the lint-free cloth from the crankshaft bore

before installing the front crankshaft plug.

The FPI must be performed using the

following steps:

(1) Cleaning—The crankshaft bore surface

must be cleaned of visible corrosion prior to

the FPI process using Scotchbrite or an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 347

equivalent material. Metal-removing

processes must not be used for visible

corrosion cleaning. In addition, clean all

surfaces to be inspected utilizing a cleaner,

such as Magnaflux Spot Check Cleaner/

Remover SKC–NF or equivalent, on the ID of

the crankshaft bore. Let the cleaner/remover

dry for 5 minutes minimum. Wipe clean with

a lint-free cloth.

(2) Penetrant Application—Spray

penetrant, such as ZYGLO ZL–22A

Magnaflux Corp. or equivalent Type 1 with

a penetrant sensitivity Level 3 or higher, on

the ID bore.

(3) Penetrant Dwell—Allow a minimum of

10 minutes dwell. For dwell times exceeding

60 minutes the penetrant shall be reapplied

to prevent drying.

(4) Penetrant Removal—Remove all bulk

surface penetrant by wiping with a clean, dry

lint-free cloth. Make a single wipe and then

fold the cloth to provide a clean surface for

succeeding wipes.

(i) Solvent Wipe—After the bulk of the

surface penetrant has been removed, lightly

moisten a fresh lint-free cloth with cleaner/

remover and again wipe the surface. The

cloth must not be saturated and the

inspection surface must not be flooded with

solvent. Excessive solvent will wash

penetrant from defects.

(ii) During wiping, the inspection surface

shall be illuminated with black light. Repeat

the solvent wipe as necessary until no

residual trace of penetrant remains on the

inspection surface.

(5) Nonaqueous Developer (solvent

suspended)—Following the cleaner/remover

wipe apply nonaqueous developer by

spraying a developer, such as Magnaflux

Spot Check Developer SKD–NF or Form DNonaqueous equivalent, on the ID bore.

Apply a thin uniform layer to the bore

surface. The optimum coating thickness is

indicated by the visibility of the part surface.

If the metallic luster cannot be seen the

developer is too thick.

(6) Dwell—Developer dwell is required to

allow the developer time to draw entrapped

penetrant from any small defects. The

minimum development time shall be 10

minutes. The maximum dwell time for

nonaqueous developer shall be 60 minutes.

(7) Inspection shall be performed within

the allotted dwell time. Components that are

not inspected within the allotted dwell time

must be reprocessed.

(i) Examine crankshaft bore in a darkened

enclosure under ultraviolet (black) light.

Allow 1 minute for eyes to adapt to darkened

environment prior to inspecting crankshaft

bore. Use of photochromic lenses or

permanent darkened lenses is prohibited.

(ii) During inspection make sure that the

black light intensity is a minimum of 1200

microwatts/cm2 at the bore surface. This can

be accomplished by positioning the black

light as close as necessary to the bore to

achieve 1200 microwatts/cm2. White light

background shall not exceed 20 1×/m2 (2

foot-candles). A photographic light meter

may be used to determine the white light

background reading.

(iii) Crankshaft bores having no crack

indications are acceptable.

(iv) Magnification (10X maximum) and/or

white light may be used to determine

discontinuity type. Indications, on parts

exhibiting fluorescent background which

interferes with evaluation of questionable

indications, shall be evaluated as follows:

(A) Lightly wipe the area once with a soft

brush or cotton swab applicator dampened

with ethyl alcohol. Do not permit alcohol to

flood the surface.

(B) After the alcohol evaporates from the

surface, re-inspect. If an indication reappears,

evaluate it immediately. If the indication

does not reappear, reapply developer. The

redevelopment time shall equal the original

development time. Thereafter, re-inspect.

(8) After inspection, clean residual

penetrants and developers from the

crankshaft bore. Remove the lint-free cloth

from the crankshaft bore prior to installing

front crankshaft plug. Failure to do so may

result in oil restriction within the engine and

in turn cause engine failure. Reinstall the

front crankshaft plug in accordance with

Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505A, dated

October 18, 1994. Failure to install the plug

properly may result in engine oil loss and in

turn cause engine failure.

(f) After accomplishing the initial visual

inspection and, if necessary, the FPI,

required by this AD, complete Appendix 1 of

this AD and submit to the Manager, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St.,

Valley Stream, NY 11581; fax (516) 568–

2716. Reporting requirements have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget and assigned OMB control number

2120–0056.

Appendix 1

Textron Lycoming Crankshaft Inspection

Survey

AD DOCKET NO. 94–ANE–44

Date of Inspection llllllllllll

Inspector’s Information

Name llllllllllllllllll

Address llllllllllllllll

State llllll Zip Code llllll

Telephone No. lllllllllllll

Facsimile No. llllllllllllll

Engine Model Number llllllllll

Engine Serial Number (S/N) lllllll

Date of Manufacture llll (M/D/YR)

Total Time (TT) llll hrs

Time Since Major Overhaul (SMOH)

llll hrs

Crankshaft Part Number (located on prop

flange) llll S/N llll

Aircraft Make and Model

lllllllllllllllllllll

Frequency of Flights llll per month

(average) Duration llll hrs per

Flight

How was aircraft being utilized? llll

Training, llll Personal, llll Banner

Towing, llll Glider Towing, llll

Agricultural, Other (please explain)

Qlllllllllllllllllllll

Propeller Make and Model

lllllllllllllllllllll

Has the aircraft ever experienced a

propeller strike during service? llll Yes

llll No

Was propeller ever removed for servicing

or overhaul? llll Yes llll No

If yes, describe reason for removal in

detail.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

What was the condition of the crankshaft

internal bore?

Corroded lll Yes lll No

If corroded, how many pits? ll 1 to 5,

ll 6 to 10, lll More than 10

Was a crack found? lll Yes lll No

If crack was found, complete the following:

lll Distance from crankshaft end (Inches)

lll Crack Length (Inches)

Comments:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

(g) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office. The request

should be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the New York

Aircraft Certification Office.

(h) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

December 26, 1996.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AEA–16]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace; Johnstown, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

establish Class E Airspace at Johnstown,

NY. The development of two new

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures (SIAP) at Fulton County

Airport based on the Global Positioning

System (GPS) has made this proposal

necessary. Additional controlled