Document ID: FAA-2011-0562-0029
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Posted Date: 2012-10-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59873-59875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24129]

 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 59873]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0562; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes; 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Availability of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of and request for 
comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the 
previously published proposed airworthiness directive (AD) on Cessna 
Aircraft Company 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411, 414, and 421 airplanes 
regarding the installation of placards requiring flight limitations in 
icing conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2012.

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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Brys, Flight Test Engineer, FAA, 
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, 
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4100; fax: (316) 946-4107; 
email: jason.brys@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. 
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 
32103). That NPRM proposed to require you to install a placard that 
prohibits flight into known icing conditions and install a placard that 
increases published speed on approach 17 miles per hour (mph) (15 
knots) in case of an inadvertent encounter with icing.

Reason for This Action

    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. In accordance with Section 608 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency head may waive or delay 
completion of some or all of the requirements of Section 603 by 
providing a written finding that this final rule is being promulgated 
in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance 
with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable.
    Based on the comments received following publication of the NPRM, 
we have re-evaluated our certification under the RFA that the proposed 
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on our re-evaluation, we 
have determined that the proposed rule will, if promulgated, have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Consequently, we have completed an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (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. Section 603(a) of the RFA requires that 
each initial regulatory flexibility analysis contain:
    1. A description of the reasons action by the agency is being 
considered;
    2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    5. To the extent practicable, an identification of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and
    6. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statues and 
that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities.

A brief description of each of these criteria is discussed below. A 
full discussion, footnote references, tables, and appendix included in 
the full IRFA can be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2011-0562.

1. A Description of the Reasons Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered

    For the airplanes listed in Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 
Service Bulletin MEB97-4, the actions required by the proposed rule 
will prohibit flight into known icing conditions. An investigation of 
the airplanes affected by the proposed rule showed 52 icing-

[[Page 59874]]

related incidents and accidents over the last 30 years resulting in 36 
fatalities. The non-fatal accidents have usually resulted in injuries 
and substantial aircraft damage.
    Although many of these airplanes are equipped with optional deicing 
boots and other deicing (or icing prevention) equipment, the 
manufacturer never intended that they should be flown into known icing. 
However, the original certification basis for these airplanes did not 
incorporate Amendment 7 (May 3, 1962) of CAR 3, requiring manufacturers 
to provide a placard specifying the types of operations and 
meteorological conditions (e.g. icing conditions) to which the 
operation of the aircraft is limited by the equipment installed (CAR 3 
Sec.  3.772). As a result, with operational deicing equipment these 
airplanes may be qualified to fly into known light or moderate icing 
condition under 14 CFR 135.227(c)(1) and may even be allowed to fly 
into known icing conditions under 14 CFR 91.9. In 1973, new part 23 
certification rules became effective. Some of the later production of 
the affected Cessna models added new and improved equipment in order to 
recertify under the new requirements. However, production under 
previous type certificates continued as late as 1976.

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would require owners or operators to install a 
placard prohibiting flight into known icing conditions. With the 
limited deicing equipment of the affected airplanes, flight into known 
icing conditions could result in unusual flight characteristics leading 
to loss of control with consequent accidents. The proposed rule would 
also require owners or operators to install a second placard that 
increases published speed on approach by 17 mph (15 knots) in case of 
an inadvertent encounter with icing. Many of the Cessna accidents were 
the result of high sink speeds, which may have been related to icing, 
resulting in hard landings. Failure to mandate an increased published 
speed may result in continuing occurrences of this unusual flight 
characteristic with consequent accidents.
    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 the 
NPRM.

3. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    The airplanes affected by the proposed AD are the 4,206 U.S.-
registered Cessna twin-engine airplanes with certain serial numbers 
among Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411, 414, and 421 specified in 
Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4.
    To obtain information on small entities affected by the AD, we 
emailed a questionnaire directly to seven firms with the largest number 
of airplanes listed in Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4 and received 
responses from six of these firms--the Small Sample. Separately, the 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) conducted an online 
survey and received 198 responses from owners with affected airplanes. 
This sample was reduced to 104 entities--the Large Sample--by 
eliminating 94 responses from individuals who used their airplanes for 
personal use only.
    Employment size in the Small Sample ranges from 6 to 48, with a 
median of 16.75. For the Large Sample 84 out of 104 respondents 
reported employment size, ranging from 1 to 1,000, with a median of 6. 
Since, as noted, personal use appears to account for about half of the 
airplanes listed in Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4, we estimate the 
number of small entity airplanes affected by the AD to be half of 1,608 
or 804.
    As to type of operations, the Large Sample indicates only if the 
owner's airplane(s) are for ``Corporate'' or ``Charter'' use. All of 
the firms in the Small Sample engage in part 135 operations of one kind 
or another--on demand air charter, cargo and/or passenger, or scheduled 
freight. The Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies part 135 
operations into NAICS industries 481111, Scheduled Passenger Air 
Transportation; 481112, Scheduled Freight Air Transportation, 481211, 
Nonscheduled Passenger Air Transportation; and 481212, Nonscheduled 
Freight Air Transportation.
    For all of these industries, the SBA maximum small business size is 
1,500 employees. All of the entities in both samples are well below 
1,500 employees. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed rule would 
affect a substantial number of small entities.

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the 
Proposed Rule

    Small entities will incur no new reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements as a result of this rule.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not undertaken prior 
to issuance of the NPRM (76 FR 32105), June 3, 2011, as the FAA 
initially determined that the cost of the proposed rule was minimal, 
being just the cost of placard installation. However, as a result of 
comments to the NPRM docket, it became apparent to the FAA that there 
may be significant additional costs for the subset of the affected 
airplanes with optional deicing equipment. Several commenters to the 
NPRM docket argue that affected airplanes with deicing equipment can be 
safely operated in light or moderate icing conditions. They further 
argue that to be prohibited from doing so would severely restrict their 
operations and impose significant costs.
    As a result of these comments, we surveyed Cessna Twin operators 
and independently estimated the cost on operators by the proposed 
prohibition on flight into known icing. We approximated this cost by 
estimating the cost to operators of substituting airplanes certificated 
for flight into known icing for their current airplanes. In response to 
a request from the FAA, Cessna undertook a sample survey and estimated 
that 38.23 percent of the airplanes listed in Cessna Service Bulletin 
MEB97-4 were equipped with deicing boots. Most of these airplanes also 
have deicing propellers. Applying that percentage to our airplane count 
of 4,206, we obtain an estimate of 1,608 AD-affected airplanes whose 
operators would be affected by the prohibition on flight into known 
icing, half of which, 804, are entities (commercial operators).
    Our estimate per airplane of the present value cost of the proposed 
rule is $60,277, with an annualized cost estimate to be $8,582. The 
IRFA provides further cost information, which can be found in the 
docket.

5. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this proposed rule.

[[Page 59875]]

6. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    Owing to the existing unsafe conditions, however, there is no 
feasible significant alternative to prohibiting the affected airplanes 
from flying into known icing conditions. And there is no significant 
alternative to mandating an increase in published speed on approach.

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-2011-0562; 
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-015-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 docket from the NPRM. We will also post a report summarizing each 
substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 24, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-24129 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P