Document ID: FAA-2012-0002-0600
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines
Posted Date: 2015-01-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1008-1013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00152]

 ========================================================================
 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. 80, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1008]]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive 
(AD) for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. (AEC) replacement parts 
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine 
Components International Division (ECi). These cylinder assemblies are 
used on all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 
reciprocating engines, and on all other CMI engine models approved for 
the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies, such as the CMI model 
470 when modified by supplemental type certificate (STC). The NPRM 
proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, replacement of 
cracked cylinder assemblies, 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. The NPRM 
was prompted by reports of multiple cylinder head-to-barrel separations 
and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. This supplemental NPRM 
(SNPRM) modifies the schedule for removal of the affected cylinder 
assemblies, adds that overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be 
removed within 80 hours, eliminates a reporting requirement, and 
removes the requirement for initial and repetitive inspections. We are 
proposing this SNPRM to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, 
which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss 
of control of the airplane. We are reopening the comment period to 
allow the public the chance to comment on the proposed changes to the 
NPRM.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by February 23, 2015.

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 
Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San 
Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx. You may view this service information at the 
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, 
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-2012-
0002; 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 SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, 
and other information. Given the volume of comments received, we are 
not identifying the individual commenters within this SNPRM. However, 
we identify all commenters, other than individuals, in the docket. 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: Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace 
Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 
817-222-5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite your review of the commenter list provided in Docket No. 
FAA-2012-0002. If you submitted a comment to an organization and do not 
see the name of the organization in the commenter list, please submit 
your comment directly to us as provided for in this SNPRM. If you 
submitted as an individual, you will not be listed as a commenter.
    We also invite you to review our responses to comments, and to 
resubmit your comment if you conclude that your comment was not 
responded to below.
    We also invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this SNPRM. 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 SNPRM. We will 
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 
SNPRM 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 SNPRM.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that 
would apply to certain AEC replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed 
by ECi. These assemblies are used on CMI model 520 and 550 
reciprocating engines, and all other CMI engine models approved for the 
use of models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470 
when modified by STC. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on 
August 12, 2013 (78

[[Page 1009]]

FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive 
inspections, immediate replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and 
replacement of cylinder assemblies at reduced times-in-service (TIS) 
since new. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of 
affected cylinder assemblies into any engine.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since the NPRM published on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828), we 
received numerous comments on the proposed rule. We reviewed those 
comments and considered their impact to safety. Some of those comments 
included additional failure information that we subsequently 
incorporated in our updated risk analysis.
    Following our comment review, we determined that we needed to 
review how we proposed to address the unsafe condition. So, we formed a 
multi-directorate/multi-disciplinary team to review the technical basis 
of the proposed rule, as well as the numerous public comments, and the 
additional failure information provided by commenters, to the NPRM. 
This team confirmed that the subject cylinder assemblies are unsafe.
    The team's review of the new data provided by commenters supports a 
lengthier compliance interval. This team therefore recommended several 
changes to the NPRM, which resulted in this SNPRM.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (78 FR 
48828, August 12, 2013). The following presents the comments received 
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are Not 
Unsafe

    Many operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens 
asked that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). The 
commenters claimed that the affected ECi cylinder assemblies have an 
equivalent, or lower, failure rate than that of cylinder assemblies 
manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). We concluded 
that these commenters were requesting that we withdraw the NPRM because 
they believe that the ECi cylinder assemblies are not unsafe.
    We disagree. The rate of separation for the affected ECi cylinder 
assemblies is at least 32 times greater than that of OEM cylinder 
assemblies over the same period. Although there are approximately four 
times as many OEM cylinder assemblies in service than ECi cylinder 
assemblies, the ECi cylinder assemblies suffered more cylinder head 
separations than OEM cylinder assemblies since 2004. This data is 
available for review in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002. We did not withdraw 
the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Airplanes Can Operate Safely With 
a Separated Cylinder Head

    Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private 
citizens commented that we should not issue the AD because airplanes 
can continue to operate safely even after a cylinder head separation. 
Several commenters have also stated that airplane engines are designed 
and certified to safely operate with one failed cylinder. They cited 14 
CFR 33.43 in support of their position.
    We disagree. The safety consequences represented by a cylinder head 
separation in flight are significant, and include multiple secondary 
effects, like fire. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
    We also disagree that Sec.  33.43, Vibration Test, supports the 
commenter's position that airplanes are certified to operate safely 
after a cylinder head separation. Section 33.43(d), addressing the 
engine vibration survey of Sec.  33.43(a), requires assessment of 
crankshaft vibration for an engine that has one cylinder that ``is not 
firing.'' That paragraph, like the rest of Sec.  33.43, does not 
discuss cylinder head separation. We did not withdraw the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Root Cause of Cylinder Failure Is 
Unknown

    Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private 
citizens requested that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 
2013) because the FAA failed to identify the root cause(s) of cylinder 
head separations.
    We disagree. The root cause of the cylinder head separation is not 
the unsafe condition. We have identified the unsafe condition--cylinder 
head separation. Removal of the cylinder assembly resolves the unsafe 
condition. We did not withdraw the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Pilot Error Is Causing Cylinder 
Head Separations

    Numerous organizations, aircraft operators, and private citizens 
commented that cylinder head separations involving the ECi cylinder 
assemblies affected by this NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) were 
caused by pilot error rather than by design deficiencies of the 
cylinder assemblies. They therefore requested that we not issue the AD.
    We disagree. If pilot error was leading to cylinder head 
separation, then we would expect to see similar damage in engines with 
other than ECi cylinder assemblies installed where the pilots exceeded 
the same limitation(s). However, we do not have any such data. We did 
not withdraw the NPRM.

Request To Adopt Less Stringent Compliance Requirements

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), other 
organizations, numerous aircraft operators, and private citizens 
commented that the compliance requirements in the proposed AD are too 
severe and that we should adopt less stringent requirements.
    We agree that the requirements for removal of the cylinder 
assemblies can be made less severe. Our updated analysis indicates that 
our proposed reduced compliance interval with the attendant removal 
from service of affected cylinder assemblies and lesser impact to 
operators addresses the unsafe condition and is consistent with our 
risk guidelines. We revised the compliance paragraphs in this SNPRM by 
changing the schedule for removal of affected cylinder assemblies to a 
phased removal schedule for all affected cylinder assemblies based on 
total time in service since new.
    The NTSB also recommended in NTSB Safety Recommendation A-12-7 that 
we impose a repetitive inspection requirement for certain ECi cylinder 
assemblies and their removal once they reach the manufacturer's 
recommended time between overhaul (TBO).
    We disagree. Repetitive inspections until TBO as suggested by the 
commenter, is inconsistent with the serious hazard represented by 
cylinder assembly failures. Therefore, we are requiring removal of 
affected cylinder assemblies from service prior to TBO. Also, engine 
overhaul is not a requirement for all operators. Therefore, tying the 
proposed recurrent inspection to engine overhaul would not resolve the 
unsafe condition. We did not change this proposed AD based on this 
comment.
    The NTSB also noted that the proposed rule would affect many more 
cylinder assemblies than the NTSB had included in its safety 
recommendation letter A-12-7, dated February 24, 2012, to the FAA. The 
NTSB commented that the NPRM's proposal to remove Group A cylinder 
assemblies (S/Ns 1 through

[[Page 1010]]

33696) with fewer than 500 hours TIS or more than 1,000 hours TIS 
within 25 hours does not appear to be supported by existing service 
information or discussions between the NTSB and the FAA.
    We disagree. Based on service failure data and known implementation 
of design improvements, this proposed AD must apply to cylinder 
assemblies S/Ns 1 through 61176. We did not change this proposed AD 
based on this comment.

Request for FAA To Follow Its Own Risk Assessment Policies

    Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance 
organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA had not 
followed its own risk assessment policies in issuing the NPRM (78 FR 
48828, August 12, 2013).
    We disagree. The corrective actions proposed in the NPRM, and as 
revised by this SNPRM, are consistent with FAA Order 8040.4A, ``Safety 
Risk Management Policy,'' dated April 30, 2012, and the Monitor Safety/
Analyze Data (MSAD) process defined in FAA Order 8110.107A, ``Monitor 
Safety/Analyze Data,'' dated October 1, 2012. The requirements of this 
proposed AD are also consistent with the guidance of Engine & Propeller 
Directorate memorandum ``Risk Assessment for Reciprocating Engine 
Airworthiness Directives,'' PS-ANE-100-1999-00006, dated May 24, 1999. 
We did not change this SNPRM as a result of this comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of the Risk of Maintenance Errors

    Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private 
citizens commented that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, 
August 12, 2013) because the removal and replacement of affected 
cylinder assemblies before TBO would result in maintenance errors that 
would adversely affect safety.
    We disagree. Our regulatory framework presumes that maintenance 
will be performed correctly by personnel authorized by the FAA to 
return aircraft to service in an airworthy condition. Further, we have 
not observed any negative effects on safety due to removal of these 
cylinder assemblies during maintenance. Also, cylinder removal and 
replacement is a maintenance action addressed in engine maintenance 
manuals. We did not withdraw the NPRM.

Request To Review Repetitive Compression Test and Leak Check

    Some aircraft operators commented that they successfully passed the 
compression test with the piston at top-dead-center, while still 
finding the cylinders cracked. We interpret the comment to be that the 
proposed inspection and test was inadequate to detect a cracked 
cylinder assembly.
    We agree. The inspection and test may not detect cracks. Also, we 
have received field reports of separated cylinders that occurred within 
the repetitive 50-hour compression test and leak check inspection 
intervals proposed by the NPRM. We therefore concluded that these tests 
are not sufficiently reliable and the cost associated with such ongoing 
tests outweighs the safety benefit. We changed this SNPRM by removing 
the requirement for repetitive compression and leak inspection tests.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of Excessive Cost

    Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance 
organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA should 
withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) because the cost of 
compliance is excessive to owners and operators of aircraft with 
engines that have affected cylinder assemblies.
    We disagree. We find that the safety benefits of the proposed rule, 
as changed by this SNPRM, outweigh its estimated cost. Further, we 
recalculated the cost of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). Our 
previous estimate was based on 36,000 cylinder assemblies. Based on 
data available to the FAA, we subsequently reduced the number affected 
cylinder assemblies to 28,874.
    We also determined that a replacement cost based on a pro-rated 
life of the cylinder assemblies more accurately reflects the true cost 
of replacing the cylinder assemblies. In the NPRM, we used $1,700 per 
cylinder assembly for the entire affected cylinder assembly population. 
We recalculated the total value for loss of the part based on a pro-
rated estimate of usage for the cylinder assembly population over their 
current accumulated time in service. This recalculated loss is 
$19,867,882 for the entire affected cylinder assembly population.
    Finally, since we issued the NPRM, we eliminated those inspections 
and their associated cost from this SNPRM. For further information on 
the estimated cost of this AD, please see our Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the text of this SNPRM. We did not 
withdraw the NPRM.

Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM

    We received several comments on the rulemaking process, including 
several who supported the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) as 
proposed. Several commenters stated that hundreds of failures of the 
affected cylinder assemblies had been reported to the FAA and ECi.
    We thank the commenters for their participation in the rulemaking 
process.

Summary of Changes to the NPRM

    First, we removed the 50 hour repetitive inspection requirement in 
the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). We did so because we 
determined that the inspection, compression test, and leak check 
proposed by the NPRM was not effective in detecting cracked cylinders. 
Based on further review of service information, we determined that a 
compression test and leak check will not identify a crack until the 
crack has propagated all the way through the cylinder wall to some 
detectable location. Therefore, we are relying on the phased removal of 
the cylinders along with annual or 100-hour inspections already 
required by other regulations to provide an adequate level of safety.
    We eliminated the requirement to report details of all cylinder 
assemblies removed per the requirements of the AD to the FAA. This 
information is no longer needed since we will rely on our established 
reporting channels, e.g., Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) and 
Malfunction/Defect (M/D) reports, to report future cylinder head 
failures.
    We reduced the estimated population of affected cylinder assemblies 
from 36,000 to 28,874.
    We used a pro-rated loss of cylinder life which more accurately 
reflects the cost of replacing the affected cylinder assemblies.
    We removed the cost of inspection from this SNPRM since the 
recurrent visual inspections and compression/leak tests proposed by the 
NPRM were ineffective in detecting the unsafe condition.
    We changed the compliance paragraphs by removing references to 
``Group A'' (serial numbers (S/Ns) between 1 and 33696) and ``Group B'' 
(S/Ns between 33697 and 61176). We determined that TIS and serial 
number (S/N) are sufficient to identify and correct the suspect 
cylinder assembly population.
    We modified the compliance schedule for removal of affected 
cylinder assemblies from 500 or 1,000 operating

[[Page 1011]]

hours for all affected cylinder assemblies to a phased removal schedule 
based on total hours TIS since new. We determined that information 
submitted by commenters to the proposed rule justified a phased 
drawdown of the assemblies from service.
    Finally, we specified in this SNPRM that overhauled cylinder 
assemblies should be removed within 80 hours after the effective date 
of this AD. We concluded that overhauling of the cylinder assembly does 
not diminish the fatigue damage that has already accumulated in the 
cylinder head.

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 revise the scope of the NPRM (78 FR 
48828, August 12, 2013). 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 removal of the affected cylinder 
assemblies, including overhauled cylinder assemblies, according to a 
phased removal schedule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 CMI 
models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and 
all other CMI engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 
550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by 
STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate 
is $85 per hour. We estimate that about 18 hours would be required to 
replace all six cylinder assemblies during overhaul maintenance. We 
estimate the pro-rated value of the cost of replacement of six cylinder 
assemblies to be about $4,202 per engine. Based on these figures, we 
estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to change 
all ECi cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. Our cost estimate is 
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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 
business, 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.
    This proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities of part 135 operators and smaller air services 
businesses.
    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) 
which would be affected by this proposed rule. Of these 609, the FAA 
identified 209 small part 135 operators on which the rule would have a 
significant economic impact. We consider this a substantial number of 
small entities. In addition, we estimate that more than 2,000 smaller 
air services businesses would be affected by this proposed rule. This 
business segment also has a substantial number of small entities. The 
FAA is unaware of the assets or financial resources of these 
businesses. The FAA requests comments from these businesses regarding 
their economic impact.
    The FAA estimates the compliance cost from this AD to be the sum of 
the replacement cost per aircraft, plus the loss of use due to earlier 
replacement, plus minor paperwork cost. The labor cost to replace all 
six cylinder assemblies is the average labor rate $85 per hour 
multiplied by the estimated 18 hours to complete the task.
    The FAA believes that a pro-rated value of the replacement cost of 
the cylinder assemblies is more accurate and reflects on the true cost 
to replacing the cylinder assemblies. This AD would result in a loss-
of-use as some cylinder assemblies would be replaced sooner than 
current practice. This AD requires removal of the cylinder assemblies 
at an average of 1,000 hours instead of at the average TBO of 1,700 
hours. This means that the allowable life is only 1,000 of the original 
1,700 hours, or at 58.82% of the current life. Therefore the life value 
that is lost equals 0.4118 (1.0-0.5882). We estimate the pro-rated loss 
of life value for six cylinder assemblies to be about $4,200 per engine 
(1,700 x 6 x .4118). The loss-of-use expense implicitly includes the 
earlier purchase of the replacement cylinder assemblies.
    Therefore the AD cost per aircraft equals the labor costs of $1,530 
and the loss-of-service cost of $4,202, or about $6,000. Based on the 
number of aircraft owned by the operators impacted, total compliance 
costs range between $6 thousand to $525 thousand per small entity 
encompassing one to eighty-eight aircraft.
    To determine whether the compliance cost would be a significant 
economic impact, we measured the annualized compliance cost relative to 
the value of the aircraft. The estimated value of their aircraft ranges 
between $22 thousand to $21 million. Using the preceding information, 
the FAA estimates that their ratio of annualized cost to asset value is 
higher than 5 percent for many of these operators. Based on this 
information the FAA decided that the rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of entities. Therefore, we have 
performed a regulatory flexibility analysis for these small entities.

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;

[[Page 1012]]

    (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.

Description of Reasons the Agency is Considering the Action

    This proposed AD was prompted by failure reports of multiple 
cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum 
cylinder heads. This AD would apply to certain Airmotive Engineering 
Corp. replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi, used on CMI 
model 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 STC.

Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rule Would Apply

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 
Continental Motors, Inc. models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-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 STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA will affect 609 part 135 operators and more than 2,000 air 
service businesses for which the rule will have an economic impact. The 
affected entities fly fixed wing aircraft; employ less than 1,500 
employees; and conduct a variety of air services such as fly passengers 
and cargo for hire. We estimate that the small part 135 operators have 
assets valued between $22 thousand to $21 million (range of 1 to 88 
aircraft).

Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of 
the Proposed Rule

    Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to 
be approximately 5 minutes per response at an hourly wage rate of $85 
per hour, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. The paperwork cost for them is 
between $7 and $616.

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

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

Description of Alternatives Considered

    The FAA received comments concerning this AD. Some commenters 
requested withdrawal of this NPRM because of excessive cost with only 
negligible safety gains. In response to comments about problems with 
repetitive compression/soap test, the FAA agrees that these tests are 
not reliable and the costs associated with such ongoing tests outweigh 
the safety benefit. This SNPRM has removed the requirement for 
repetitive compression/soap inspection tests. We also considered these 
following alternatives:
    (1) Do nothing--This option is not acceptable due to the number of 
failures of ECi cylinder assemblies and the consequences of the 
failures.
    (2) Periodic inspections only (no forced removals)--Though the NTSB 
recommends this option, the service history has shown that such 
inspections may not reliably detect existing cracks and the rate of 
crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.
    (3) Forced removal with periodic inspections--As stated above, such 
periodic inspections may not reliably detect cracks and the rate of 
crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.

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 to the extent 
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors, 
Inc., formerly Continental): Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate 
Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 23, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 
and 550 reciprocating engines, and to all other CMI engine models 
approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such 
as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate 
(STC), with Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts 
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, marketed by Engine 
Components International Division (hereinafter referred to as ECi), 
part number (P/N) AEC631397, with ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial 
number (S/N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple failure reports of cylinder 
head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder 
heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cylinder 
assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight 
shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.
    (1) Review the engine maintenance records to determine if any 
affected cylinder assemblies are installed.
    (2) If you cannot determine based on review of engine 
maintenance records if any affected cylinder assemblies are 
installed, comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.
    (3) If you do not have any of the affected ECi cylinder 
assemblies installed on your engine, no further action is required.

[[Page 1013]]

(4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number Location

    (i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and Class number. The ECi 
cylinder assembly, P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is stamped 
on the bottom flange of the cylinder barrel. Guidance on the P/N and 
Class number description and location can be found in ECi Service 
Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.
    (ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly P/N when the 
cylinder assembly is installed on the engine, you may use the 
following alternative method of identification:
    (A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker box cover.
    (B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the cylinder head between 
the valve stems.
    (C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. Affected cylinder 
assemblies have the cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast into 
the cylinder head between the valve stems.
    (D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
    (iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured 
through 2008, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on the intake 
port boss two inches down from the top edge of the head.
    (iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured on 
or after January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped 
just below the top edge of the head on the exhaust port side.

(5) Removal From Service

    (i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer 
operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new on the effective 
date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service before 
reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new.
    (ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 680 
operating hours TIS since new and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS 
since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder 
assembly from service within the next 320 operating hours TIS or 
within 1,160 operating hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 1,000 
operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD, 
remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 160 
operating hours or at next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.
    (iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that has been 
overhauled, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the 
next 80 operating hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(f) Installation Prohibitions

    After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any engine, any cylinder 
assembly removed per this AD.
    (2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder assembly that has 
been overhauled, into any engine.
    (3) Do not install any engine that has one or more affected 
overhauled ECi cylinder assemblies, onto any aircraft.
    (4) Do not return to service any aircraft that has an engine 
installed with an ECi cylinder assembly subject to this AD, if the 
cylinder assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours TIS.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Special Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for 
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your 
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jurgen E. 
Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, 
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193; 
phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email: 
jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.
    (2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated 
February 23, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this 
AD, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex 
Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx.
    (3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & 
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, 
call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 23, 2014.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00152 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P