Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15133

M3K 1Y5 Canada; or may examine this

document at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

(g) This amendment supersedes AD 78–26–

02, Amendment 39–3370.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March

24, 1997.

Henry Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7967 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–ANE–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne

Continental Motors IO–360, TSIO–360,

LTSIO–360, IO–520, and TSIO–520

Series, and Rolls-Royce plc IO–360

and TSIO–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),

applicable to certain Teledyne

Continental Motors (TCM) IO–360,

TSIO–360, LTSIO–360, IO–520, and

TSIO–520 series reciprocating engines.

Airworthiness directive 87–23–08

currently requires ultrasonic inspection

for subsurface fatigue cracks in

crankshafts installed in TCM IO–520

and TSIO–520 series engines and

replacement of the crankshaft if a crack

is found. The proposed AD would have

superseded AD 87–23–08 by expanding

the applicability of the AD to include

IO–360, TSIO–360 and LTSIO–360

series engines, requiring the removal of

all crankshafts manufactured using the

airmelt process on all of the affected

engine models and replacement with

crankshafts manufactured using the

vacuum arc remelt (VAR) process. That

proposal was prompted by reports of

crankshaft failures due to subsurface

fatigue cracking on engines that had

been inspected in accordance with the

current AD. This action revises the

proposed rule by superseding AD 87–

23–08, making the new AD applicable to

TCM IO–360, TSIO–360, LTSIO–360,

IO–520, LIO–520, TSIO–520, LTSIO–

520 and Rolls-Royce, plc IO–360 and

TSIO–360 series engines, incorporating

new ultrasonic inspection criteria in the

AD and revising the economic impact

analysis. The proposed action would

still require removal of crankshafts

manufactured using the airmelt process

and replacement with crankshafts

manufactured using the VAR process.

The actions specified by this proposed

AD are intended to prevent crankshaft

failure and subsequent engine failure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 30, 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.

93–ANE–08, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: ‘‘9-

ad-engineprop@dot.faa.gov’’. Comments

sent via the Internet must contain the

docket number in the subject line.

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

Teledyne Continental Motors, P.O. Box

90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone (334)

438–3411. 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: Jerry

Robinette, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Campus Building,

1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2–160,

College Park, GA 30337–2748;

telephone (404) 305–7371, fax (404)

305–7348.

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 93–ANE–08.’’ 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. 93–ANE–08, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to add an airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) IO–

360, TSIO–360, LTSIO–360, IO–520 and

TSIO–520 series reciprocating engines

was published as a supplemental notice

of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the

Federal Register on August 24, 1995 (60

FR 43995). That proposal would have

superseded AD 87–23–08, Amendment

39–5735 (52 FR 41937, October 30,

1987), which currently requires

ultrasonic inspection of TCM IO–520

and TSIO–520 series engines for subsurface fatigue cracks in the crankshaft

and replacement of the crankshaft, if a

crack is found. The proposed AD would

have retained the ultrasonic inspection,

but would have required the removal of

crankshafts manufactured using the

airmelt process and required

replacement with crankshafts that were

manufactured using the vacuum arc

remelt (VAR) process. The proposed AD

would have also expanded the affected

population of engines to add the TCM

IO–360, TSIO–360 and LTSIO–360

series engines to the IO–520 and TSIO–

520 series engines affected by AD 87–

23–08. That proposal was prompted by

reports of crankshaft failures due to

subsurface fatigue cracking on engines

that had been inspected in accordance

with AD 87–23–08. That condition, if

not corrected, could result in crankshaft

failure and subsequent engine failure.

Since the issuance of that SNPRM, the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

has determined that TCM LIO–520 and

LTSIO–520 and Rolls-Royce, plc IO–360

and TSIO–360 series engines are also

affected and should be included in this

proposal as they are identical in design

and manufacturing process. The number
15134 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

of engines to be added is small,

estimated to be 500 worldwide. In

addition, TCM has revised and

improved the ultrasonic test procedure

and the proposed AD should reference

this new procedure. The FAA received

numerous unfavorable comments

centering on the FAA’s data and the

economic impact of the proposed AD on

small entities. Additional data was

presented in the SNPRM and will not be

repeated here. Since the issuance of the

SNPRM, there have been additional

crankshaft failures due to subsurface

fatigue cracking. The following table

presents crankshaft failure data

available to date for each of the last

eleven years, showing the number of

airmelt failures versus the number of

VAR failures (airmelt/VAR):

Airmelt VAR

Engine

model

360

Engine

model

520

Total

Engine

model

360

Engine

model

520

Total

Year:

1986 ................................................................................................... 0 7 7 0 2 2

1987 ................................................................................................... 2 6 8 0 1 1

1988 ................................................................................................... 0 2 2 0 0 0

1989 ................................................................................................... 3 6 9 0 0 0

1990 ................................................................................................... 3 9 12 0 0 0

1991 ................................................................................................... 0 5 5 1 0 1

1992 ................................................................................................... 0 5 5 0 0 0

1993 ................................................................................................... 0 6 6 0 0 0

1994 ................................................................................................... 0 2 2 0 0 0

1995 ................................................................................................... 1 1 2 0 0 0

1996 ................................................................................................... 0 2 2 0 0 0

Total ............................................................................................ 9 51 60 1 3 4

In addition, the exchange price of the

VAR crankshaft has increased since the

regulatory process was initiated. The

current price range is $2,143 to $2,599.

The number of crankshafts affected,

even with the Rolls-Royce plc

crankshafts added, has decreased,

primarily because TCM has been

replacing airmelt crankshafts with VAR

crankshafts in rebuilt engines for some

time. The FAA estimates that 10,100

engines are installed on aircraft of U.S.

registry and would need to have the

crankshaft replaced, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per engine

to determine the type of crankshaft

installed and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will cost approximately $2,599 and

shipping will cost approximately $100.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of replacing crankshafts on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $27,865,900

over a 10-year period or $2,786,590

annually.

The FAA further estimates that 59,300

engines with VAR crankshafts installed

would require ultrasonic inspections

and the estimated cost of performing an

ultrasonic inspection is $200. The FAA

estimates that approximately 10%, or

5,930 engines, would need to be

overhauled annually, so the estimated

total cost impact for ultrasonic

inspections is $1,186,000 annually.

Therefore, the FAA estimates the total

cost impact of the AD to be $27,865,900

over a 10-year period, plus an additional

$1,186,000 annually for the repetitive

ultrasonic inspections.

Since this change expands the scope

of the originally proposed rule, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

reopen the comment period to provide

additional opportunity for public

comment.

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 andProcedures (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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [AMENDED]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Teledyne Continental Motors and RollsRoyce, plc: Docket No. 93–ANE–08.

Applicability: Teledyne Continental

Motors (TCM) IO–360, LTSIO–360, TSIO–

360, IO–520, LIO–520, LTSIO–520 and

TSIO–520 series engines built on or prior to

December 31, 1980; rebuilt TCM IO–360,

LTSIO–360, TSIO–360, IO–520, LIO–520,

LTSIO–520 and TSIO–520 series engines

with serial numbers lower than those listed

in TCM Critical Service Bulletin (SB) No.

CSB96–8, dated June 25, 1996; TCM factory

overhauled IO–360, LTSIO–360, TSIO–360,

IO–520, LIO–520, LTSIO–520 and TSIO–520

series engines with serial number of 901203H

and lower; and Rolls-Royce, plc IO–360 and

TSIO–360 series engines with any serial

number. These engines are installed on but

not limited to the following aircraft:

Raytheon (formerly Beech) models 95–C55,

95–C55A, D55, D55A, E55, E55A, 58, 58A,

58P, 58PA, 58TC, 58TCA, S35, V35, V35A,

V35B, E33A, E33C, 35–C33A, 36, A36, F33A,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15135

1Section 5 of the FTC Act declares unfair

methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts

or practices to be unlawful.

2Negative option plans often require subscribers

to purchase a minimum quantity of merchandise,

after which they may cancel their subscriptions.

The Rule refers to a subscriber who has purchased

the minimum quantity of merchandise required by

the terms of the plan as a ‘‘contract-complete

subscriber.’’

F33C and A36TC; Bellanca model 17–30A;

Cessna models 172XP, A185, 188, A188, 206,

T206, 207, T207, 210, T210, P210, 310R,

T310P, T310Q, T310R, 320D, 320E, 320F,

336, 337, T337, P337, 340, 401, 402, 414 and

T41B/C; Colemill conversion of Commander

500A; Goodyear Airship Blimp 22; Maule

model M–4; Mooney model M20–K; Navion

model H; Pierre Robin HR 100; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft

Company) models PA28–201T, PA28R–201T,

PA28RT–201T, PA34–200T and PA34–220T;

Prinair Dehavilland Heron; Reims models

FR172, F337 and FT337; and Swift Museum

Foundation, Inc. models GC–1A and GC–1B

equipped with the IO–360 engine.

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 (d)

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 and

subsequent engine failure, accomplish the

following:

(a) At the next engine overhaul, or

whenever the crankshaft is next removed

from the engine, after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs first, determine if

the crankshaft was manufactured using the

airmelt or vacuum arc remelt (VAR) process

in accordance with the identification

procedure described in TCM Critical SB No.

CSB96–8, dated June 25, 1996. If the

crankshaft was manufactured using the

airmelt process or if the manufacturing

process is unknown, remove the crankshaft

from service and replace with a serviceable

crankshaft manufactured using the VAR

process.

(b) For all TCM IO–360, LTSIO–360, TSIO–

360, IO–520, LIO–520, LTSIO–520 and

TSIO–520 and Rolls-Royce, plc IO–360 and

TSIO–360 engine models that have VAR

crankshafts installed, regardless of serial

number; at the next and every subsequent

crankshaft removal from the engine case or

installation of a replacement crankshaft, prior

to crankshaft installation in the engine,

conduct an ultrasonic inspection of the

crankshaft in accordance with the procedures

specified in TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96–

10, dated August 15, 1996, and, if necessary,

replace with a serviceable part.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the ultrasonic

inspection required by this AD does not

fulfill any requirements for magnaflux or any

other inspections specified in TCM or RollsRoyce, plc overhaul manuals.

(c) The ultrasonic inspection of the

crankshaft must be performed by a nondestructive test (NDT) ultrasonic (UT) Level

II inspector who is qualified under the

guidelines established by the American

Society of Nondestructive Testing or MIL–

STD–410 or FAA-approved equivalent, or

must be trained by TCM personnel or their

designated representative on how to

accomplish and conduct this inspection

procedure. The person approving the engine

for return to service is required to verify that

the UT inspection was accomplished in

accordance with the requirements of this

paragraph.

(d) 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, Atlanta

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,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office.

(e) 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

March 12, 1997.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7978 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 425

Request for Comments Concerning

Rule Regarding Use of negative Option

Plans by Sellers in Commerce

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) requests

public comments about the overall costs

and benefits and the continuing need for

its Trade Regulation Rule regarding the

Use of Negative Option Plans by Sellers

in Commerce (‘‘the Negative Option

Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’), as part of the

Commission’s systematic review of all

current Commission regulations and

guides.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until June 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth Street

and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments

should be identified as ‘‘Negative

Option Rule, 16 CFR Part 425—

Comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edwin Rodriguez, Attorney, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

20580, telephone number (202) 326–

3147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Negative Option Rule

The Commission promulgated the

Negative Option Rule on February 15,

1973, 38 FR 4896 (1973), under section

5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act

(‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 45.1 The Rule

became effective on June 7, 1974. In

promulgating the Rule following a

rulemaking proceeding, the Commission

made the following findings:

(1) marketers of prenotification

negative option plans had failed to

disclose adequately the provisions of

such plans to the detriment of their

subscribers, Id. at 4899;

(2) subscribers had encounters

difficulties in substantiating that they

were not given adequate time to respond

to the negative option notice supplied

by the merchandiser, Id. at 4900;

(3) marketers of prenotification

negative option plans had delivered

unordered or substituted merchandise

in the place of merchandise specifically

ordered by subscribers, without their

subscribers’ prior consent, Id.;

(4) marketers of prenotification

negative option plans had failed to

honor proper cancellation notices from

contract-complete subscribers 2 and

continued to send them merchandise,

Id. at 4901;

(5) subscribers had been dunned or

billed for unordered merchandise, and

sellers had failed to provide meaningful

service to a large number of their

subscribers in connection with

complaints involving operations,

particularly in regard to billing

problems, Id.; and

(6) marketers of prenotification

negative option plans had operated their

entire systems in such a manner as to

place the burden for correcting ‘‘errors’’

on their subscribers, Id. at 4902.

Based on these findings, the

Commission determined that it was in

the public interest to prescribe