DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6673; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-092-AD;
Amendment 39-18978; AD 2017-16-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King Corporation Emergency
Locator Transmitters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Ameri-King Corporation emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) as
installed on various aircraft. This AD was prompted by multiple reports
of ELT failure and a report of noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. This AD
requires repetitive inspections of the ELT for discrepancies;
repetitive checks, tests, and verifications, as applicable, to ensure
the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
also allows for optional replacement of affected ELTs and, for certain
aircraft, optional removal of affected ELTs. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 24,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372;
fax: 562-627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6673.

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-2016-6673;
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 Docket 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: Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax:
562-627-5210; email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Ameri-King
Corporation ELTs as installed on various aircraft. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35657) (``the NPRM'').
The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of ELT failure. The NPRM was
also prompted by a report of noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. Failure
to adhere to these standards and processes could result in ELTs that do
not function. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of
the ELT for discrepancies; repetitive checks, tests, and verifications,
as applicable, to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions
if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to allow optional replacement of
affected ELTs and, for aircraft on which an ELT is not required by
operating regulations, optional removal of affected ELTs. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct nonfunctioning ELTs, which could
delay or impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an
emergency landing.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment. Alaska Seaplanes supported the
NPRM. Alaska Seaplanes stated that, based on its experience with Ameri-
King Corporation ELTs, ``this is a good and needed AD.''

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

Richard Koehler, an FAA-certificated mechanic and pilot, requested
we withdraw the NPRM. The commenter stated he is strongly opposed to
issuance of the NPRM for the following reasons:
The commenter stated the ``Discussion'' paragraph of the
NPRM specifies that there have been 73 reported ELT failures and
questioned if all were Ameri-King units or a mix of the older technical
standard order (TSO)-C91 units and the newer TSO-C91a units. The
commenter stated the TSO-C91a ELT was a huge technological advance over
the old TSO-C91 units. The commenter noted that he replaced four
defective units (TSO-C91) with AK-450 units (TSO-C91a), which, in his
experience, have never had a failure. The commenter questioned how the
failure rate of the AK-450 compares to other manufacturers' units.
The commenter stated that the NPRM appears to be part of
``the ongoing vendetta against Ameri-King by the 406 ELT mafia,'' which
is trying to force all general aviation aircraft to adopt 406 ELTs. The
commenter stated that the performance of the AK-450 is at least ten
times better than the old C91 units. The commenter recommended that the
NPRM should ``get rid of poor ELTs'' by forcing the replacement of the
tens of thousands of C91 units that are still available.
The commenter stated that the inspection called out in the
proposed AD is redundant to the tests required in 14 CFR 91.207(d),
which requires a 12-calendar-month inspection cycle on all installed
ELTs.
We do not agree to withdraw the NPRM. We find that sufficient data
exist to demonstrate that Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and
AK-451-( ) series ELTs could fail. We consider this an unsafe condition
since nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the
flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing. The reported ELT
failures were not a mix of TSO-C91 units and TSO-C91a units. As stated
in the NPRM, we received 73 reports of ELT failures for Ameri-King
Corporation Model AK-450-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-
C91a, and AK-451-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-C91a and
TSO-C126.
We are also aware of the noncompliance to quality standards and
manufacturer processes for Ameri-King Corporation ELTs, which could
result in the failure rate of Ameri-King Corporation ELTs being higher than other
manufacturers' failure rates. When comparing the data between Ameri-
King Corporation and one other ELT manufacturer, the failure rate for
Ameri-King Corporation ELTs is significantly higher than for the other
manufacturer's ELTs. We acknowledge that 14 CFR 91.207(d) specifies
compliance times for inspecting ELTs that overlap with the compliance
times in this AD; however 14 CFR 91.207(d) does not specify corrective
actions if any discrepancies are found. In addition, 14 CFR 91.207(d)
only applies to aircraft on which ELTs are required. This AD applies to
all Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( ) series ELTs,
regardless of installation. Consequently, we have determined that this
AD is necessary in order to address the identified unsafe condition in
all affected ELTs. This AD, in conjunction with the emergency cease and
desist order, dated December 28, 2015, to Ameri-King Corporation that
terminated their technical standard order authorization (TSOA) and
parts manufacturer approval (PMA), will ensure nonfunctioning Ameri-
King Corporation ELTs are identified so that they may be eliminated
from the U.S. fleet.
We might also consider further rulemaking to address other ELTs if
we receive data that substantiate an unsafe condition exists for those
ELTs. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Amend Facts Regarding the Basis for the NPRM

Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King Corporation
(Ameri-King), submitted comments intended to serve as Ameri-King's
public comments on the NPRM. Ameri-King requested that, if we go
forward with the final rule, we amend the facts regarding the basis for
the NPRM. Ameri-King stated it objects to the FAA's stated basis for
the NPRM for the following reasons:
Ameri-King stated that the alleged 73 reported ELT
failures were never communicated to Ameri-King and Ameri-King has never
been afforded the opportunity to investigate the cause(s) of such
alleged failures. The commenter questioned whether they were due to
design or production defects, or improper installation, maintenance,
and use.
Ameri-King stated that the number of allegedly reported
failures does not comport with the FAA's service difficulty report
(SDR) database, which shows only 64 reports related to service
difficulties with Ameri-King ELTs. Ameri-King stated that many of these
64 reports clearly indicate failures due to factors other than design
or manufacturing, and outside of Ameri-King's activities, such as
improper installation, improper and inadequate maintenance, and dead
batteries.
Ameri-King noted that whether there were 64 or 73 reports,
these numbers are relatively inconsequential considering that there are
over 14,500 Ameri-King ELTs in the field. Ameri-King added that
utilizing the FAA's number of 73 failures would evidence a failure rate
of approximately one-half of one percent (0.5%). Ameri-King stated that
the number of reports confined to Ameri-King's ELTs pales in comparison
to the FAA's SDR database for all ELT manufacturers (799 SDRs), further
bolstering Ameri-King's quality control and performance
accomplishments.
Ameri-King also pointed out that the NPRM states that for
service information, affected persons should contact Ameri-King
directly. However, by the terms of the cease and desist order, dated
December 28, 2015, the FAA has prevented Ameri-King from providing any
assistance. Ameri-King noted that, to the extent functional tests
reveal that the failures are due to dead batteries, the aircraft owner
may not be able to purchase replacements. Although these batteries are
``off the shelf'' generic batteries that are not of Ameri-King's design
or manufacture, under the terms of the cease and desist order, Ameri-
King cannot sell other manufacturers' replacement batteries.
Ameri-King stated that FAA certification guidelines
classify ELTs as non-essential equipment, and that under TSO-C126a and
TSO-C126b, ELT failures have been considered by the FAA to be ``minor
failures.''
In response to the commenter's request to amend the facts regarding
the basis for the NPRM, we note that the 73 ELT failures are from
reports that Ameri-King Quality Control (QC) provided to the FAA.
Regarding the failure rate, SDR source data comes from operator reports
and varies in completion and information detail provided. In addition,
the SDR database is not a comprehensive database. It is only one of the
tools used to investigate potential safety issues (e.g., Hotline
reports, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety
investigations, etc.). There is no basis (i.e., data substantiation)
for Ameri-King's assertion that Ameri-King's failure rate is lower than
other manufacturers.
As stated previously, Ameri-King's failure rate is significantly
higher than at least one other manufacturer. The Ameri-King failures
include occurrences of inadvertent G-switch activation and premature
battery replacement due to repeated inadvertent ELT self-test
initialization.
We found Ameri-King's quality control records to be insufficient as
they only included data covering one year. In addition, we discovered
that Ameri-King would receive failed ELTs from operators, repair them,
and reissue them with a new serial number, which affects quality and
configuration control. Since there were noncompliance findings with
quality standards and manufacturer processes, it is unknown how many
future failures there may be due to manufacturing factors at Ameri-
King.
We acknowledge that the NPRM should not have referred to Ameri-King
for contact information for the service information. We have revised
the ADDRESSES section of this final rule to specify contacting the FAA
for service information. We have also specified contacting the FAA for
service information in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that
operators are not required to get replacement batteries from Ameri-King
Corporation. Ameri-King AK-450-( ) series ELTs use alkaline batteries.
Ameri-King AK-451-( ) series ELTs use lithium batteries. Regarding
lithium battery replacement, operators should note that replacement
batteries should follow the battery standards requirements specified in
TSO-C142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries. TSO-C142a
states that non-rechargeable lithium cells and batteries must meet
minimum performance standards in RTCA, Inc., document RTCA DO-227,
``Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Lithium Batteries,''
dated June 23, 1995 (``DO-227''). As specified in DO-227, if any
lithium battery replacement is necessary, all batteries should be
replaced, i.e., there should not be a mixture of new and old batteries
installed in an ELT. If operators have questions on lithium battery
replacement, they may contact the person identified under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph of this AD.
Regarding Ameri-King's comment about non-essential equipment and
minor failures, we acknowledge that ELTs are considered non-essential
equipment for certain aircraft. However, the majority of Ameri-King
ELTs (approximately 10,500 units) were sold to operators of small
airplanes, certificated under 14 CFR part 23. In assessing this issue,
we followed Section 4-12, ``Other Structure--
Occupant Protection,'' of the Small Airplane Risk Analysis (SARA)
Handbook, dated September 30, 2010, which contains the following
statement: ``An ASE [aviation safety engineer] should consider
corrective action for any defect or failure in a design feature
intended to improve survivability in accidents.'' As noted in Section
1-2, ``Use of Risk Methods,'' of the SARA handbook:

Also, airplane components intended to provide occupant
protection must function as intended in a survivable incident or
accident. Using a probabilistic approach in these types of
situations is not appropriate for making decisions on whether
airworthiness action is necessary. However, probabilistic methods
can help us determine how quickly we should take an airworthiness
action and how effective a proposed airworthiness action may be in
reducing the risk associated with an airworthiness concern.

Thus, we find that Ameri-King ELT failures must be addressed
because nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the
flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing.

Request To Remove Requirement To Repair Discrepancies

Three commenters requested that we remove repair requirements from
the proposed AD. One of these commenters, Neal Dillman, noted that the
existing manual does not specify that repairs be accomplished. The
commenter indicated that doing a repair in order to maintain
airworthiness is supported by existing advisory circulars, as well as
other FAA documentation. The commenter also noted that other ELT
manufacturers have documentation that does not include repairs and,
therefore, requiring a repair for Ameri-King is superfluous.
Another commenter, Richard Koehler, questioned why the proposed AD
specifies to repair discrepancies when 14 CFR 91.207(d) calls for an
inspection of the ELT, but leaves the repair to the mechanic with an
inspection authorization. The commenter questioned why we have to add
overt words to repair discrepancies in the proposed AD, but not in the
regulations. We infer the commenter is requesting that we not include
repair requirements.
Another commenter, Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for
Ameri-King, stated that to the extent that the proposed AD requires
accomplishing the actions already specified in Ameri-King's
Installation & Operations Manuals, ``Documents IM-450 and IM-451,''
which include yearly inspections and performance of functional and
operations tests, no objection is offered. However, Ameri-King stated
that the requirements of the proposed AD differ from Ameri-King's
Installation & Operations Manuals where it specifies corrective actions
that would be required in repairing or replacing inoperative ELTs.
Ameri-King noted that corrective action is already required under
the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and established industry
practices. Ameri-King considered that it should be intuitive and
axiomatic that any personnel performing inspections and functional or
operations tests would take appropriate corrective actions to ensure
that any faults are corrected so the equipment meets and performs in
accordance with specifications. As such, Ameri-King concluded that
there is little, if any, need to mandate corrective action by AD.
Ameri-King also noted that Ameri-King's Installation & Operations
Manuals were approved by the FAA in conjunction with the FAA having
issued TSOAs and PMAs to Ameri-King, and at that time, the FAA saw no
need to specify corrective actions in the event that inspection or
testing revealed any problems--most likely because corrective action is
already required by the Federal Aviation Regulations and standard
industry practices.
We disagree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement
to repair discrepancies. When we issue an AD, we must include actions
that are necessary to address the unsafe condition. We acknowledge that
the existing regulations provide acceptable requirements to ensure
proper maintenance inspection and operation. However, we also typically
include actions in ADs to ensure that operators do not overlook
(unintentionally or otherwise) the necessity of accomplishing on-
condition repairs or replacements related to actions that are necessary
to address unsafe conditions. We have not found a similar unsafe
condition on ELTs from other manufacturers. For the ELTs identified in
this AD, repairs or replacements must be done if discrepancies are
found, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.
However, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to
clarify that either a repair or replacement may be done if any of the
conditions identified in those paragraphs is found. Paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2) of the proposed AD had only specified that a replacement
must be done. An ELT may be repaired using approved maintenance
practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR
135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules under
subchapters F and G of 14 CFR chapter I. Repairs must be done at an
authorized repair station. For clarity, we added a reference to 14 CFR
135.168 to specify the applicable regulation for rotorcraft that
affects ELTs.
We have also revised paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that
all discrepancies must be repaired using approved maintenance practices
and to add a reference to 14 CFR 135.168. In addition, we revised
paragraph (g) of this AD to include a reference to 14 CFR 135.168.

Request To Require the Use of Specific Equipment

Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King, requested
that we revise the requirements of the proposed AD to include requiring
the use of Ameri-King compatible equipment, as currently specified in
Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals, for the functional and
operations tests. Ameri-King stated that non-compatible equipment will
damage the ELT and may produce erroneous test results.
We agree with the commenter that operators should use Ameri-King
compatible equipment as identified in Ameri-King's Installation &
Operations Manuals. However, this AD requires operators to do actions
in accordance with section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' of Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; or section 3.4, ``Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The steps in those sections
either do not specify test equipment that must be used or specify a
type of equipment ``or equivalent'' that must be used. Therefore, we
have determined it is not necessary to revise this AD in this regard.

Request To Allow Operators To Determine if the ELT Is Functional

Michael Dunn requested that we allow operators to determine if the
ELT is functional. The commenter noted his AK-451 ELT was inadvertently
set off and it worked.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The service information
specified in this AD provides instructions for testing the ELT, and we
have determined this test is necessary to address the identified unsafe
condition.

We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Work-Hour Estimate

Richard Koehler stated the number of work-hours specified in the
NPRM for the inspection is high. The commenter stated the inspection
should be done in about 20 minutes, particularly when done in concert
with an annual inspection. We infer the commenter is requesting that we
revise the 2 work-hours specified in the ``Costs of Compliance''
paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM.
We disagree with the request to revise the work hours. The
specified number of work hours is only an estimate. The estimate does
not assume operators will do the required inspection concurrently with
other actions that are not mandated by this AD. Operators may
accomplish required actions concurrently with other actions, provided
the AD actions are done within the specified compliance time. We have
not revised this AD in this regard.

Explanation of Removal of Paragraph (h)(4) of the Proposed AD

Paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD is an exception to the service
information and provides specific instructions to replace non-
functioning batteries. We have determined that this AD does not need to
specify those instructions as an exception to paragraph (g) of this AD.
Replacing affected batteries as required by paragraph (g) of this AD
addresses the identified unsafe condition for ELTs with non-functioning
batteries. Therefore we have not included paragraph (h)(4) of the
proposed AD in the regulatory text of this AD.

Request To Correct the Number of Replacement Batteries

Leon Rinke stated that paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD
specifies to use four ``D'' cell batteries, but the AK-450 ELT uses six
``D'' cell batteries, as specified in the maintenance manual. We infer
the commenter is requesting that we revise paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD to correct the number of replacement batteries.
We agree with the commenter's statement for the reasons provided.
However, we have not revised this AD because paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the
proposed AD is not included in the regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Change to Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD

We have confirmed with Ameri-King that Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited rotorcraft did not receive Ameri-King ELTs. Therefore,
we have removed Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft from
table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, which lists known aircraft that
might have the affected ELTs installed. However, if an affected ELT is
installed on any Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft,
this AD applies to that rotorcraft.

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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed section 3.4, ``Periodic Maintenance,'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-450, ``INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; and section 3.4, ``Periodic
Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),'' Ameri-King
Corporation Document IM-451, ``INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,''
Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The service information describes
procedures for inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests,
and verifications to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective
actions. Corrective actions include replacing affected parts. These
documents are distinct because they apply to different Ameri-King
Corporation ELT models. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 14,500 ELTs installed on various
aircraft of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspections, checks,
tests, and verifications. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements.

On-Condition Costs

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 Findings

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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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]

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