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

13924 

Vol. 79, No. 48 

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0002; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–42–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Continental 

Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines; 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Availability of an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of and request for comments 

on the IRFA for the previously 

published proposed airworthiness 

directive (AD). That AD applied to 

certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. 

replacement parts manufacturer 

approval cylinder assemblies marketed 

by Engine Components International 

Division, used on the Continental 

Motors, Inc. (CMI) models 520 and 550 

reciprocating engines, and all other 

engine models approved for the use of 

CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder 

assemblies such as the CMI model 470 

when modified by supplemental type 

certificate. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 12, 2014. 

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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, 

Special Certification Office, FAA, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 

817–222–5159; fax: 817–222–5785; 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 

48828). The NPRM proposed to require 

initial and repetitive inspections, 

replacement of cracked cylinders, and 

replacement of cylinder assemblies at 

reduced times-in-service. The NPRM 

also proposed to prohibit the 

installation of affected cylinder 

assemblies into any engine. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

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 objective 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 that principle, the RFA 

requires agencies to solicit and consider 

flexible regulatory proposals and to 

explain the rationale for their actions. 

The RFA covers a wide-range of small 

entities, including small businesses, 

not-for-profit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. Based on the 

comments received following 

publication of the NPRM, we have 

completed an IRFA and request 

comments from affected small entities. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

identify the number of small entities 

affected, assess the economic impact of 

the proposed regulation on them, and 

consider less burdensome alternatives 

and still meet the agency’s statutory 

objectives. 

Part 135 Operators 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) classifies 

businesses as small based on size 

standards, typically expressed as 

number of employees. The FAA 

identified 609 part 135 operators that 

meet the SBA definition of a small 

entity (entities with 1,500 or fewer 

employees) out of the 610 part 135 

operators affected by this proposed rule. 

We consider this a substantial number 

of small entities. 

For the 609 part 135 small operators, 

we estimate costs that range between 

$14 thousand and $1.2 million for 

adopting this AD. We also estimated the 

value of their aircraft, which ranges 

between $22 thousand and $21 million. 

Using the preceding information, the 

FAA estimates that the ratio of 

annualized cost to asset value are higher 

than 5 percent for 432 part 135 

operators. 

Smaller Air Services Businesses 

We estimate that more than 5,000 

smaller air services businesses would be 

affected by this proposed rule. We 

consider this a substantial number of 

small entities. For each of these entities, 

we estimated costs of about $14 

thousand although we were unable to 

estimate their asset value. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the 

initial analysis must address: 

(1) Description of reasons the agency 

is considering the action; 

(2) Statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposed rule; 

(3) Description of the record keeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule; 

(4) All federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed rule; 

(5) Description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply; and 

(6) Describe alternatives considered. 

A brief description of each of these 

criteria is discussed below. The 

complete IRFA can be found in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA2012-0002. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13925 

1. A Description of the Reasons Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

failure reports of multiple cylinder 

head-to-barrel separations and cracked 

and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

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. 

3. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Proposed Rule Will Apply 

The FAA identified 432 small part 

135 operators on which the rule will 

have a significant economic impact. We 

estimate that these small part 135 

operators have assets valued between 

$22 thousand and $21 million. 

4. Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Public reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to be 

approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. Total 

paperwork costs range between $7 and 

$623 per small entity. 

5. Duplicative, Overlapping, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The FAA is unaware of any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this rule. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

We have considered the following 

alternatives: 

(1) Do nothing—This option is not 

acceptable due to the number of failures 

of ECi cylinder head assemblies and the 

consequences of the failures. 

(2) Periodic inspections only (no 

forced removals)—Though the National 

Transportation Safety Board 

recommends this option, we do not find 

it acceptable. The rate of crack growth 

to failure is unknown, but has shown 

that it can be more rapid than the 

intervals of part 43 mandated 

inspections. Further, failure events tend 

to group in both low time (<500 hr) 

failure events and high time (≤1000 hr) 

failure events. 

(3) Forced removals only (no periodic 

inspections)—We do not find that this 

option is acceptable. Failure events may 

still occur at times other than the low 

and high times groups described above, 

and periodic inspections may find 

impending failures. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this rulemaking. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2012–0002; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

NE–42–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this rulemaking action. The 

most helpful comments will reference a 

specific portion of the IRFA or related 

rulemaking document, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will address all comments in the final 

rule including those already in the AD 

docket from the NPRM. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about the proposed AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

February 27, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05234 Filed 3–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0139; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–133–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2009–20– 

05 that applies to certain Model A318, 

A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. 

AD 2009–20–05 requires one-time 

inspections for cracking, damage, 

correct installation, and correct 

adjustment of the main landing gear 

(MLG) door hinge and actuator fittings 

on the keel beam, and corrective actions 

if necessary. Since we issued AD 2009– 

20–05, we have received reports of 

cracks on fittings that had successfully 

passed the required inspections. This 

proposed AD would expand the 

applicability, reduce the compliance 

time, and require repetitive inspections 

instead of the one-time inspection. This 

proposed AD would also require 

revising the maintenance or inspection 

program to remove a certain 

airworthiness limitations item (ALI) 

task. We are proposing this AD to detect 

and correct such cracking, which could 

lead to in-flight detachment of an MLG 

door, possibly resulting in injury to 

persons on the ground and/or damage to 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS