[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11681-11690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02636]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2011-0562; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-015-AD;
Amendment 39-17740; AD 2014-03-03]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411,
414, and 421 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an investigation of
recent and historical icing-related accidents and incidents for the
products listed above. This AD requires either having the supplemental
airplane flight manual/airplane flight manual supplement (SAFM/AFMS)
inside the airplane and accessible to the pilot during the airplane's
operation or installing a placard that prohibits flight into known
icing conditions and installing a placard that increases published
airspeed on approach at least 17 mph (15 knots) in case of an
inadvertent encounter with icing. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective April 7, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 7,
2014.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS
67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 517-7271; email:
[email protected]; Internet: http://www.cessna.com/. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.
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-2011-
0562; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Withers, Program Manager, FAA,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4137; fax: (316) 946-4107;
email: [email protected].
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 certain Cessna Aircraft
Company (Cessna) Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411, 414, and 421
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2011
(76 FR 32103). The NPRM proposed to require you to install a placard
that prohibits flight into known icing conditions and install a placard
that increases published airspeed on approach at least 17 mph (15
knots) in case of an inadvertent encounter with icing. We are issuing
this AD to prohibit flight into known icing conditions as well as
increase the approach speed in case of an inadvertent encounter with
icing. This condition, if not corrected, could
[[Page 11682]]
result in unusual flight characteristics that could lead to loss of
control after flight into known icing conditions or an inadvertent
encounter with icing conditions. Based on the data, an example of the
unusual flight characteristics seen in many of the accidents is high
sink speeds that resulted in a hard landing.
After publication of the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011), we re-
evaluated our certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
that the proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our re-
evaluation, we determined that the proposed rule would, if promulgated,
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We
completed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and issued
an availability of the IRFA that invited comments from the public. The
availability of the IRFA published in the Federal Register on October
1, 2012 (77 FR 59873). We received no comments on the IRFA that
pertained to cost and required a change to the IRFA. We completed the
final regulatory flexibility analysis that is partially included in
this AD. You may examine the complete analysis in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2011-0562
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (76
FR 32103, June 3, 2011) and the availability of the IRFA (77 FR 59873,
October 1, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Support for the Proposed AD (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011)
Deborah A.P. Hersman, Chairman of the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) wrote supportive comments for the NPRM (76 FR
32103, June 3, 2011).
Deborah A.P. Hersman agreed that pilots of airplanes that have not
been certificated for flight into known icing conditions may not
realize that, even with deice boots or other similar equipment
installed, the airplanes are not certificated for flight into known
icing conditions. Further, Deborah A.P. Hersman noted the NTSB has
investigated accidents involving the Cessna airplane models identified
in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) that have accreted ice while
operating in atmospheric icing conditions, which led to an increase of
the stall speed.
Deborah A.P. Hersman commented that small amounts of ice on the
protected and unprotected surfaces accreted in inadvertent icing
encounters could result in potentially large increases in the stall
speed and changes to the handling characteristics, to the point of
experiencing aerodynamic stall or loss of control with no stall
warning.
Kim Hackett of Cessna supported FAA's issuance of an AD mandating
accomplishment of Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4. The service bulletin
fulfills the requirements of the AD as outlined in the NPRM (76 FR
32103, June 3, 2011) regarding installation of a placard to prohibit
flight into known icing on airplanes not specifically approved for such
operations.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Use Pilot Training To Address This Safety Concern
Kenneth Sutton, Linda Marlene Honegger of Corporate Aviation
Services, LLC, Ed, Michael Burwell, Gary Thomas O'Toole, Gary Norton,
James Creamer, Clayton Conrad of Squadron 2, Rich Clover, Fred von
Zabern, Walter Embke, Harold Gaier, Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of
Aviation, Inc., Jeffrey Gaier, Kristine Hartzell of the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association (AOPA), John Halbur, Kent William Potter, and
Joeseph M. Lambert of Northern Skies Aviation requested pilot training
be used to address this safety concern.
Gary Thomas O'Toole, Gary Norton, Fred von Zabern, and Alan Nicol
of AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. expressed that the solution to
this issue would be recurrent training for pilots, with Fred von Zabern
stating that this training should be required.
Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. felt that the
training and procedures they developed have resulted in safely
operating in icing conditions; therefore, he believes there is no
unsafe condition. Walter Embke noted that the proposal of increased
approach airspeed in icing is good judgment in any airplane.
William West and Kristin Winter also commented that this safety
concern should be addressed through training and education of pilots.
They further elaborated that airplanes without de-icing equipment can
operate in icing conditions. Kristin Winter reasoned that design of the
airplane and available excess horsepower are greater factors than
installed de-icing equipment. William West also felt the training and
education would benefit pilots on other airplanes in addition to the
Cessna's twin piston-engine airplanes.
We do not agree with these comments. The FAA recognizes that
training and education could benefit all pilots, not just pilots of
Cessna's twin piston-engine airplanes. The FAA sponsored development of
numerous icing training products for general aviation pilots, revised
Advisory Circular (AC) 91-74A, Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions
(rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/
0/4c8192bb0b733862862573d2005e7151/$FILE/AC%2091-74A.pdf), with safety
information, as well as issued Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin (SAIB) CE-11-18, Ice/Rain Protection System--Stall Warning
Stall Warning System Characteristics in Icing Conditions (rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/
eb2e63f033aa98ad8625782200586295/$FILE/CE-11-18.pdf). The FAA wrote
SAIB CE-11-18 to inform pilots of normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category (part 23) airplanes certificated before the year 2000
of the potential hazards associated with stall warning characteristics
in icing conditions. However, there are no mandatory FAA requirements
for a pilot to receive training on icing. Furthermore, training cannot
be relied upon to correct this unsafe condition.
Service history has shown training alone cannot keep a pilot from
inadvertently flying closer to stall. It may be possible, for an
airplane with adequate power, to fly in the middle of the flight
envelope in light icing conditions; however, icing conditions can vary
greatly. Even a light accretion will reduce safety margins, such as
stall warning, and contribute to the unsafe condition.
Training cannot compensate for an airplane not equipped to handle
the icing environment specified in the regulations. The airplane
manufacturer has placed a limitation on the airplane based on the
installed equipment that has not been shown acceptable for flight into
known icing conditions. Therefore, we have determined that an unsafe
condition exists when these airplanes operate in icing conditions.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request Change AD Requirements
Kenneth Sutton, Ed, Michael Burwell, Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage,
Brian Boyter, Clayton Conrad of Squadron 2, Rich Clover, The Honorable
Todd Rokita, Member of Congress, and Kristine Hartzell of AOPA
requested that both placards not be required because the operating
manual already states a limitation or there is no room
[[Page 11683]]
in the cockpit for the additional placards.
The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member of Congress, and Kristine
Hartzell of AOPA wrote that a placard prohibiting flight into known
icing conditions is redundant. One commenter felt that a placard would
not be sufficient to keep a pilot from flying into icing conditions.
Clayton Conrad recommended creating an additional page in the flight
manual.
We partially agree that there may not be enough room for the
placards on the cockpit because of other installed equipment or other
placards. However, we disagree that there is already a limitation on
the airplanes because the certification basis for these airplanes
either requires an FAA-approved flight manual or appropriate placards
that state the required information.
Based on feedback on the lack of space to put placards in the
airplane, we created an SAFM/AFMS to use in lieu of installing both of
the placards and changed the AD's requirements to require either the
SAFM/AFMS or the placards. We included the SAFM/AFMS as Appendix 1 to
this AD.
Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Since Pilots
Know When an Airplane Is Certificated for Flight Into Known Icing
Michael Burwell, Rolf G. Fuchs, Brian Boyter, and John Halbur
commented that the AD is not necessary since pilots know when an
airplane is certificated for flight into known icing conditions.
Michael Burwell wrote that from a practical perspective, a pilot who
has the experience and training to fly multi-engine airplanes is going
to know whether it is certificated for flight into known icing
conditions.
Rolf G. Fuchs noted that, unless otherwise stated, small airplanes
are not certificated for flight into known icing conditions.
Brian Boyter commented that it is already illegal to fly into known
icing conditions unless the airplane is certificated for operation into
known icing conditions. John Halbur stated that the airplanes listed in
Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4, dated March 24, 1997, are not
certificated for flight into known icing conditions, but they are
allowed to be flown into known icing conditions when properly equipped
as stated in part 135.227.
We disagree with these comments because the limitations section of
an FAA-approved AFM or placards are the only legal method in 14 CFR
part 91 operations to prohibit an airplane from flight into known icing
conditions, without permanently grounding the airplanes. The
certification basis for these airplanes either requires an FAA-approved
flight manual or appropriate placards that state the required
information.
In response to Brian Boyter's comments, the answer is complex: In
some cases, the answer is that it is not necessarily illegal to fly
into known icing conditions if the airplane has not been certificated
for known icing. The term certificated for known icing came into being
about the mid-1970s when some of the airplane certification rules and
criteria to install ice equipment on airplanes were changed. So, in
some earlier applications, the manufacturer may have installed what is
commonly referred to today as a ``no-hazard system'' and would not have
been required to specify if the airplanes were intended to fly into
icing conditions.
For airplanes not subject to 14 CFR 91.527 (Subpart F) or 14 CFR
135.227, and not operating under 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 125, 14
CFR 91.9 is applicable. An AFM limitation or placard is required to
prohibit an airplane from flight into known icing conditions. 14 CFR
91.9 would take priority over 14 CFR 91.527 or 14 CFR 135.227, for
example, for an airplane that was equipped but certificated as
specified in those regulations.
Since there is no FAA-approved flight manual for most of the
airplanes identified in this AD, the FAA is mandating either installing
placards or an SAFM/AFMS we created to use in lieu of installing both
of the placards. We included the SAFM/AFMS as Appendix 1 to this AD.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Clarify Definition of ``Icing Conditions''
John Halbur, Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand LLC, Gary Norton,
Brad Hoeltzner, William West, and Tracy A. Schoenrock of Pro Aire Cargo
& Consulting commented that the AD, as written, would ground all
airplanes that are not certificated for flight into known icing
conditions anytime icing conditions are forecast and needlessly limit
the ability to dispatch affected airplanes in the winter months.
William West commented that the FAA has not defined what known
icing conditions are and further noted that this AD will result in
fewer submissions of pilot reports (PIREPS) because of the fear that
pilots will have enforcement action taken against them. Brad Hoeltzner
stated that the definition for flight into known icing conditions is if
there are clouds (visible moisture) and that the temperature is below
32 degrees Fahrenheit. We conclude that commenters want the FAA to
further define ``icing conditions.''
We do not agree with the comments since the AD will prohibit
airplanes from flying into only known icing conditions.
The definition of known icing conditions were defined in a legal
interpretation to AOPA on January 16, 2009, and it is defined in the
FAA-issued Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) (faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/).
Flight in potential icing conditions (visible moisture such as
clouds at freezing temperatures), as well as forecast icing, are not
prohibited, as long as there are no relevant PIREPs. If an applicable
airplane encounters icing in an area with no prior reported icing and
the pilot takes precautions to minimize an encounter and follows an
exit strategy that had been planned on pre-flight, the pilot should not
be concerned about legal action. The FAA does not want to discourage
submission of PIREPs.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Remove AD's Requirement To Increase the Speed on Approach
Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage, William West, Kim Hackett of Cessna,
and Kristine Hartzell of AOPA requested the FAA remove the requirement
to increase the speed on approach. Rolf G. Fuchs commented that having
a mandated speed cannot take into account the real life operating
conditions on a particular flight and there is no factual support for
the speed increase to be stated on the placard.
Rolf G. Fuchs, John W. Savage, William West, and Kim Hackett of
Cessna commented that the placard was not necessary since it was
standard procedure and Cessna has an inadvertent icing encounter
procedure that states to increase airspeed on approach. Kristine
Hartzell stated concerns about the unintended consequence of pilots
having runway overrun accidents due to increased approach speeds.
We agree that having a mandated speed cannot take into account the
real life operating conditions on a particular flight and that landing
distance will increase as the approach speed increases because
variations in the icing conditions could require additional speed.
The FAA recognizes that Cessna has a procedure for inadvertent
icing encounters in their owner's manual and pilot safety and warning
supplements (PSWS), which provides guidance to
[[Page 11684]]
pilots for dealing with inadvertent icing. This procedure for
inadvertent icing encounters provides information for the pilot to
increase airplane speed on approach and increase airplane landing
distance; however, the owner's manual or PSWS are not required to be
carried in the airplane.
Landing distance data is not required by the certification basis
for many of the airplanes identified in this AD. In FAA-H-8083-25A,
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/), there is guidance for what happens to
landing distance when a pilot increases airspeed on approach. It is
assumed that this is general pilot knowledge.
Based on the number of hard landings attributed to these airplane
models, guidance in FAA-H-8083-25A, and feedback received on the NPRM
(76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011), the FAA deemed it appropriate to quantify
how much to increase the approach speed and add clarification to the
procedure specified in the owner's manual and PSWS to avoid high sink
speeds upon landing. We changed the required placard's text to read
``at least 17 mph (15 knots).'' We also inserted in the note section of
Appendix 1 of this AD (the SAFM/AFMS) language that tells the pilot to
increase their landing distance by a factor of at least 1.5. This
factor was calculated based on the change in energy due to the increase
in approach speed (Vapp+17mph)[supcaret]2/Vapp[supcaret]2. Based on
accident history, a runway overrun on this class of airplane has less
chance of being fatal than a stall on approach.
Request FAA Change Placard to State: ``Not Certified for Flight Into
Known Icing Conditions''
Brad Hoeltzner requested the FAA change the placard to state: ``Not
Certified for Flight into Known Icing Conditions.'' Brad Hoeltzner
wrote this would meet the requirements of informing the pilot that his
airplane has not been certificated or tested to meet a standard for
flight into known icing conditions but, when properly equipped, has
been approved or accepted as satisfactory. The airplanes listed in
Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4, dated March 24, 1997, are not
certificated for flight into known icing conditions, but they are
allowed to be used when properly equipped as stated in 14 CFR 135.227.
We disagree with the request. The intent of the placard is to
prohibit flight into known icing conditions for the airplanes
identified since the airplanes are not properly equipped and have not
been shown to be safe to operate in the conditions specified by the
regulations. Based on the guidance in AC 135-9, FAR Part 135 Icing
Limitations (rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3f83f89f0ef9ca17862569eb006cf35c/$FILE/AC135-
9.pdf), the airplane will not meet the requirements of 14 CFR 135.227.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request Applicability Include All Cessna Twin Piston-Engine Airplanes
Brad Hoeltzner commented that this AD should apply to all Cessna
twin-engine airplanes. He reasoned that the performance differences
between airplanes certificated for flight into known icing conditions
and airplanes non-certificated for flight into known icing conditions
is very minor when icing is encountered.
We do not agree with the comments. The airplanes and their system
performance do vary between the certificated and non-certificated
variants identified. As an example, due to performance limitations of
the airplane, Cessna added a de-ice boot on the vertical tail of the
Model 310 airplane to remove the additional ice. For the same reason,
they also had to add de-ice boots on the wing between the engine
nacelle and fuselage of the Model 310 airplane.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request AD Allow Pilot To Install the Placard
John W. Savage commented that the AD should allow the pilot to
install the placard.
We have determined that the pilot should be able to install the
placards provided the airplane is not used in 14 CFR part 119
operations. No special training or tools are required to do this action
and, thus can adequately be done by a pilot or a mechanic. The pilot
must record compliance in the aircraft's maintenance records in
accordance with applicable regulations.
We have changed the final rule to make this allowance.
Request AD's Applicability Not Include the Model 421C Airplane
Gary Norton requested the AD's applicability not include the Model
421C airplane.
We agree with the comments. The NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011)
did not include the Model 421C airplane in paragraph (c), the
Applicability section, and this AD does not include the Model 421C in
paragraph (c), the Applicability section.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Address This Safety Concern in ACs
Clayton Conrad of Squadron 2 requested the FAA use ACs to address
safety concerns for airplanes that may have anti/de-icing systems but
are not approved for flight into known icing.
We do not agree with these comments. This is a special circumstance
where most of the inadvertent icing systems already have a placard
prohibiting flight into known icing conditions; an advisory circular in
this instance would not fully address the unsafe condition since
advisory circulars are advisory in nature and not required actions.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because of
Confusing Data
Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand LLC, and Alan Nicol of AeroFlight
Academy of Aviation, Inc. requested the FAA withdraw the NPRM (76 FR
32103, June 3, 2011). Jeff Veers reasoned that 51 incidents and
accidents during the past 30 years do not appear to be a statistically
significant number to warrant AD action.
Kim Hackett and Joshua Southard of Cessna and Alan Nicol found it
unclear from the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) how many of the 51
reported icing-related accidents and incidents were directly attributed
to continued flight in icing conditions by airplanes not properly
equipped or certificated for flight into these conditions. They noted
it is also unclear how many of these icing-related accidents and
incidents might have been prevented if the placard defined in Cessna
Service Bulletin MEB97-4, dated March 24, 1997, had been installed.
Joshua Southard of Cessna stated that the AD does not specify the
accident rate per 100,000 operating hours.
Jeff Veers asked the FAA the questions: How does this rate of
occurrence compare to other airplane models when considering hours
flown and do airplanes of the same model that are certificated for
flight into known icing conditions have a similar record?
We do not agree with the comments. There were actually more icing-
related accidents for the airplane models identified, but as part of
the analysis in support of this rule, airplanes and their equipment
involved with the incidents were carefully evaluated. The NTSB factual
and probable causes on NTSB's Web site, as well as the NTSB dockets,
[[Page 11685]]
were evaluated to determine that if this AD had been in place, could
the accidents have been prevented.
As part of determining what level of action to take, the FAA used a
risk-based determination assessment. This analysis takes into account
the total number of events, their severity (accident opposed to
incident, fatality opposed to no injuries), the total number of
airplanes, and an estimate of the average number of flight hours per
airplane per year. Based on this analysis and FAA guidelines for risk
acceptance, this AD action is warranted.
In response to Jeff Veers' question of ``how does this rate of
occurrence compare to other airplane models when considering hours
flown?'', we believe that the rate of occurrence cannot be logically
compared to other models that are not affected by this AD since they do
not have the same aerodynamic design nor do they have the same de-icing
equipment.
As to Jeff Veers' question of ``do airplanes of the same model that
are certificated for flight into known icing conditions have a similar
record?'', that analysis was not done since Cessna did not issue a
service bulletin to limit those airplanes from flight into known icing.
In response to Kim Hackett and Alan Nicol, the airplanes in the 51
icing-related accidents and incidents were all believed to have been
equipped with some or all of the de-ice equipment available for these
airplane models.
The FAA filtered the data to not consider icing related accidents
and incidents on airplanes that were not equipped with de-ice equipment
or where the de-ice equipment was not functional. The FAA believes that
all of these accidents could have been avoidable if the placard
specified by Cessna Service Bulletin MEB97-4 had been installed, the
limitations were followed, and/or the pilots had increased their speed
on approach.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Provide a Means To Equip Airplanes To Allow Flight Into
Known Icing
Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand LLC and Walter Embke requested FAA
provide a means to equip airplanes to allow flight into known icing
conditions.
Jeff Veers reasoned that since later models of the airplanes
identified in this AD have been certificated for flight into known
icing, it seemed reasonable that earlier models could be equally
equipped and certificated.
Walter Embke noted the need for the FAA to clarify what equipment
is needed to be added or retrofitted to this class of airplane to meet
equipment requirements to operate in limited icing conditions.
We disagree with the request. It is not the FAA's responsibility to
provide design data; only to review and, if acceptable, approve such
data. If an owner/operator submits substantiating data to support
modifications as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to this
requirement, the FAA will review and consider all AMOC requests we
receive provided they follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this
AD.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Consider All Costs Associated With Compliance
Jeff Veers of Aviation on Demand LLC, Harold Gaier, Jeffery Gaier,
and Alan Nicol of AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. requested the
FAA consider all costs associated with compliance with this AD. They
commented the identified costs in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011)
did not reflect the operational ramifications and the loss of revenue
to companies and/or individuals.
Jeff Veers stated that based on this AD, limiting these airplanes
from flight into known icing conditions, Aviation on Demand LLC would
be affected by tens of thousands of dollars due to the inability to fly
the identified airplanes into known icing conditions.
Alan Nicol stated that the costs directly associated with the NPRM
(76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) as written are minimal; however, the
indirect costs to AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. and other
operators or individuals could easily exceed their ability to continue
operations. Mr. Nicol believes that the inability to operate airplanes
in known icing conditions would be a crippling blow in his region of
the country. Alan Nicol commented that the overall annual losses for
just AeroFlight Academy of Aviation, Inc. could exceed $1,000,000 if
the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) was adopted as proposed. The
commenter feels the company would be unable to continue to meet their
daily contractual obligations due to a lack of operational airplanes,
and further losses would likely follow due to the loss in value of
AeroFlight's assets, primarily the value of the airplanes. Alan Nicol
also noted that this rule violates Executive Order 12866.
We agree with the request. The requirement for the cost section of
an AD is to state the time and cost associated with completing the AD.
This would be installing a placard or incorporating an AFM; not a huge
workload or cost.
The FAA recognizes there is an impact to operations (and loss of
revenue) due to the limitations on the airplanes imposed by this AD.
The FAA completed the IRFA, and its availability was published in the
Federal Register (77 FR 59873, October 1, 2012). We completed the final
regulatory flexibility analysis, partially included in this AD action.
You may examine the complete analysis in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. The FAA determined that the safety
benefit provided by mandating the changes to the airplane operational
limitations outweighs the overall cost of compliance. This
determination is consistent and in compliance with Executive Order
12866.
Based on these comments, we have added some language explaining the
regulatory flexibility analysis to this AD action and have expanded the
cost section to include the operational costs associated with this AD
action.
Request FAA Address Flight Into Known Icing Conditions by Airplanes Not
Approved for Icing as a Global Industry-Wide Issue
Kim Hackett of Cessna wrote that flight into icing conditions by
airplanes not approved for icing is an industry-wide issue, and the FAA
needs to consider it in a much more ``global'' context than is
presented in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011). To this end, Kim
Hackett recommended the FAA address this issue through publication of a
document such as a safety alert for operators (SAFO), information for
operators (InFO), AC, SAIB, or supplement to the AIM (faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/).
We agree that flight into known icing conditions by airplanes not
approved for icing is an industry-wide issue, and we should consider it
in a much more ``global'' context than is presented in the NPRM (76 FR
32103, June 3, 2011). The FAA has issued numerous reference
publications (SAFO, InFO, AC, and SAIBs) to the public, and we will
continue to issue publications and take action as necessary.
This AD is necessary to address and clarify the limitation of the
identified airplane models in this AD as well as to address the large
number of icing-related accidents and incidents that have occurred due
to hard landings related to operations in icing conditions.
The FAA published SAIB CE-11-18 (You may find the SAIB at
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/
eb2e63f033aa98ad8625782200586295/$FILE/CE-11-18.pdf)
[[Page 11686]]
to inform pilots of normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category
(part 23) airplanes certificated before year the 2000 of the potential
hazards associated with stall warning characteristics in icing
conditions. We plan to re-issue this SAIB every two years before the
U.S. winter icing season.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request the FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because
It Will Not Affect Safety
The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member of Congress, requested the FAA
withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011). Todd Rokita commented
that the adoption of this AD will not result in safer air travel.
We do not agree. Based on the accident and incident history, the
FAA estimates that we could prevent 1.5 accidents and/or incidents and
1.2 deaths of the American flying public from occurring every year. The
results of our risk-based analysis show this AD is needed and
warranted.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request the FAA Justify Taking AD Action on Certain Airplanes Made by
Cessna
The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member of Congress, and Kristine
Hartzell of AOPA requested the FAA explain the reasoning behind taking
AD action on the identified airplanes as it appeared we were singling
out the Cessna airplanes identified in this AD.
We disagree that the FAA is singling out the Cessna airplanes.
Cessna issued Service Bulletin MEB97-4, which required the installation
of a placard to prohibit flight into known icing. Based on the accident
history, the FAA believes there is an unsafe condition on the
identified airplanes and requires the completion of the Cessna service
bulletin.
During FAA's review of the accidents and incidents, it was
determined that there was a large number of hard landings due to high
sink speeds. Based on these accidents and incidents, the FAA is
mandating a minimum approach speed increase to avoid these high sink
speeds.
If the FAA identifies similar problems and determines that an
unsafe condition exists on other non-Cessna airplanes, we would take
appropriate action to address the issue.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request the FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Because
It Is an Operational Issue
The Honorable Todd Rokita, Member of Congress, and Kristine
Hartzell of AOPA requested the FAA withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June
3, 2011). They commented that ADs are to be used for airworthiness
issues, not operational issues.
We do not agree with the comments. The airplane limitations and
their flight manuals are part of the airworthiness of the airplane.
Cessna specified the change to add the prohibition of flight into known
icing, and, in order to make those changes legally required, the FAA is
issuing this AD.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) Since Service
Bulletin Addressed Safety Issue
Kristine Hartzell of AOPA requested the FAA withdraw the NPRM (76
FR 32103, June 3, 2011) since Cessna addressed this issue in the
issuance of a mandatory service bulletin in 1997. Kristine Hartzell
wrote that Service Bulletin MEB97-4 was issued to resolve any confusion
regarding the icing certification status of these Cessna twin piston-
engine airplanes. Since the mandatory service bulletin already
addressed this issue, Kristine Hartzell questioned whether or not a
real safety concern exists for these airframes in particular and if the
proposed two placards would have any effect on safety.
We do not agree with the comments. This issue was clarified in
FAA's letter to AOPA, dated Febuary 24, 2004 (aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/News%20Archives/2006/AOPA%20stands%20against%20mandatory%20service%20bulletins%20for%20Part%2091%20aircraft/060614sb-letter.pdf). A company's mandatory service
bulletin only specifies what is to be done; the AD legally requires the
actions.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA Clarify Accident History Spanned 30 Years
Walter Embke commented that the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011)
was trying to imply that all of icing accidents that were evaluated
were recent, when in fact the accident history spanned 30 years.
We do not agree with the comments. We believe the AD is clear that
recent icing-related accidents and incidents led us to investigate
accidents over the past 30 years to get a historical perspective and to
determine that there is an unsafe condition.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Request FAA's Principal Maintenance and Operations Inspectors (PMI and
POI, Respectively) of Affected Operators Make Decision To Operate
Affected Airplanes in Icing Conditions
Tracy A. Schoenrock of Pro Aire Cargo Consulting requested FAA
leave the decision of operating fully-deiced airplanes to the POIs and
PMIs of the operators affected if there are any legitimate safety
concerns involving them.
We do not agree with the request. This is an unsafe condition and
is likely to exist on other airplanes. The FAA is regulatory bound to
mitigate the unsafe condition and a means of doing that is through the
issuance of an AD.
We have made no changes to this AD action based on these comments.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 4,206 airplanes of U.S. registry.
For these airplanes, operators will incur the minimal cost of
placard fabrication and installation.
We estimate that 1,608 of the airplanes affected by this AD were
produced with deicing equipment.
We estimate the operator costs of no longer being able to fly these
airplanes into known icing conditions by the net capital cost of
substituting for the affected airplanes, airplanes in the same or
similar series certificated for flight into known icing conditions.
We limit our cost estimate to a 10-year period to simplify the
analysis. The substituting operator will incur a net increase in
capital costs. We measure the 10-year capital cost of an airplane by
[[Page 11687]]
estimating the decline in its value over the 10-year period. Substitute
airplanes are more expensive, have a higher capital cost, and will
decline more in value than less expensive affected airplanes.
The net cost of this AD per affected airplane will be the net
decline in airplane value incurred by operators substituting newer,
more expensive, airplanes for older, less expensive affected airplanes.
We approximate the decline in airplane value over time. For both the
affected and substitute airplanes, we amortize the 10-year decline in
airplane value to generate a 10-year annual series of declines in
airplane value.
For the affected airplanes, we estimate the 10-year series starting
from average affected airplane value at average age 45 to estimated
value at age 55. For the substitute airplanes, we estimate the 10-year
series from their average value at average age 34 to estimated value at
age 44. We calculate net changes in value by subtracting the affected
airplane series from the substitute airplane series.
We estimate the following direct costs (the sum of labor and parts
costs) and capital costs on U.S. operators for this AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor & parts Number of
Action Labor cost Parts cost cost per Capital cost affected Cost on U.S.
airplane per airplane airplanes operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install placards.......................... 1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $1 $86 .............. 4,206 $361,716
$85.
Prohibit flight into known icing.......... ............................ .............. .............. $60,277 1,608 96,515,024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may view a detailed copy of our cost of compliance in the
Federal Docket Management System at the address listed in Examining the
AD Docket.
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.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section presents the final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) that was done for this action. We have reworded and reformatted
for Federal Register publication purposes. The FRFA in its original
form can be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis
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 objectives 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 this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' 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 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 RFA.
Section 604 of the Act requires agencies to prepare an FRFA
describing the impact of final rules on small entities. Section 604(a)
of the Act specifies the content of a FRFA. The results of this FRFA
show that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial numbers of small entities. Each FRFA must contain:
A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
The response of the agency to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record; and
A description of the steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
1. The Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rule
This AD requires the installation of a placard prohibiting flight
into known icing conditions and installation of a second placard that
increases published speed on approach by 17 mph (15 knots) in case of
an inadvertent encounter with icing or the use of the SAFM/AFMS that
incorporates the same limitations as the placards. 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
[[Page 11688]]
consequent accidents. 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.
2. The Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the
Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
The FAA is unaware of any issues raised by public comments
specifically pertaining to cost in response to the availability of the
IRFA (77 FR 59873, October 1, 2012). The FAA has made no changes in
this regard to this AD.
3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response
to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to
the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
The FAA is unaware of any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the
proposed AD. The FAA has made no changes in this regard to this AD
action.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Final Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such
Estimate Is Available
For all of the U.S. industries, the SBA maximum small business size
is 1,500 employees. Since this AD applies to all certificate holders
operating some of Cessna airplane models, we obtained information on
small entities based on a questionnaire sent directly to seven firms
and an online survey conducted by AOPA. All of the entities in both
samples are well below 1,500 employees. We estimated the number of
small entities to be about 104, excluding individuals who used their
airplanes for personal use only.
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule
Small entities will incur no new reporting and record-keeping
requirements as a result of this AD. Persons who own and operate the
affected airplanes must meet requirements to install placards on their
airplanes or incorporate an SAFM/AFMS that requires the same operating
limitations as the placards.
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Final Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect
the Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
The FAA has taken steps to minimize the significant adverse
economic impact on small entities. The requirement of installing
placards is a significant alternative to other burdensome regulatory
choices, such as mandatory installation of de-icing equipment
certificated for flight into known icing conditions or flight
prohibition of many models involved in the Cessna accidents. The FAA
also allows, in lieu of installing the placards, the option of
incorporating an SAFM/AFMS that requires the same operating limitations
as the placards. Balancing with safety considerations and impacts on
small entities, we found there is no other significant alternatives to
installing placards or incorporating an SAFM/AFMS that prohibits the
affected airplanes from flying into known icing conditions and an
additional placard mandating an increase in published speed on approach
in case of an inadvertent encounter with icing.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
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. Will have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket, which may be found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 an airworthiness directive
(AD):
2014-03-03 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-17740; Docket No.
FAA-2011-0562; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-015-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective April 7, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft Company Models 310, 320, 340,
401, 402, 411, 414, and 421 airplanes identified in Cessna Aircraft
Company Service Bulletin MEB97-4, dated March 24, 1997, certificated
in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code: 11, Placards and Markings.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an investigation of recent and
historical icing-related accidents and incidents for the products
listed above. We are issuing this AD to prohibit flight into known
icing conditions as well as increase the approach speed in case of
an inadvertent encounter with icing. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in unusual flight characteristics that could
lead to loss of control after flight into known icing conditions or
an inadvertent encounter with icing conditions. Based on the data,
an example of the unusual flight characteristics seen in many of the
accidents is high sink speeds that resulted in a hard landing.
(f) Compliance
Comply with the actions specified in paragraphs (g) through (i)
of this AD, to
[[Page 11689]]
include all subparagraphs, unless already done.
(g) Incorporate Operational Limitations
Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 7, 2014 (the
effective date of this AD) or within 3 calendar months after April
7, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first,
incorporate the operational limitations by accomplishing either
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs:
(1) Incorporate the limitations identified in Appendix 1 of this
AD into your airplane maintenance records and install a copy of the
approved supplemental airplane flight manual/airplane flight manual
supplement (SAFM/AFMS) in Appendix 1 of this AD in the airplane
accessible to the pilot; or
(2) Install the following placards:
(i) Cessna placard part number (P/N) DP0500-13 or a placard that
states: ``This airplane is prohibited from flight into known icing
conditions.'' If installing the Cessna placard P/N DP0500-13, obtain
the placard following Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin
MEB97-4, dated March 24, 1997; and
(ii) An additional placard for the applicable airspeed indicator
readings listed in paragraph (g)(2)(A) or (g)(2)(B) below, as
applicable:
(A) If Airspeed Indicator Reads in MPH. Placard states: ``For
inadvertent encounters with icing conditions, increase published
airspeed on approach at least 17 mph.''
(B) If Airspeed Indicator Reads in Knots. Placard states: ``For
inadvertent encounters with icing conditions, increase published
airspeed on approach at least 15 KIAS.''
(h) Placard Installation
Install the placards on the instrument panel in clear view of
the pilot using 1/8-inch black lettering on a white background.
(i) Pilot Authorization
In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7, the
actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, to
include all subparagraphs, may be performed by the owner/operator
(pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be
entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v).
The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417. This
authority is not applicable to aircraft being operated under 14 CFR
part 119.
(j) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits are permitted with the following
limitation: flight into known icing is prohibited.
(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(l) Related Information
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Withers, Program
Manager, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4137; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
[email protected].
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin MEB97-4, dated
March 24, 1997.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Cessna Aircraft Company service information identified
in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O.
Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316)
517-7271; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.cessna.com/.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Appendix 1 to Airworthiness Directive 2014-03-03
Supplemental Airplane Flight Manual (SAFM) for Airplanes Without an
Approved AFM or Airplane Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) For Airplanes
With an FAA-Approved AFM or POH/AM
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 11690]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MR14.000
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 31, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02636 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C