DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1077; Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP) Engines
and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP
Crankshaft Assembly

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines
and certain Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model AEIO-360-, IO-360-, and
O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP crankshaft
assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is installed as
original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a replacement
part under parts manufacturer approval (PMA) on the affected Lycoming
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly
failures that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or
emergency landings. This proposed AD would require the removal from
service of all affected crankshaft assemblies. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16,
2020.

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 https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.
gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1077;
or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer,
Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX,
76177; phone: 817-222-5146; fax: 817-222-5245; email:
justin.carter@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include "Docket No. FAA-2018-1077;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as "PROPIN." The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

The FAA learned of three SAP crankshaft assembly failures that took
place on March 6, 2017, August 3, 2017, and October 31, 2018, that
resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. Since the FAA received these reports, the FAA determined that
the crankshaft assembly failures resulted from the manufacturing
process at SAP's crankshaft vendor during 2012 and 2014.

The crankshaft assembly is a non-life-limited part, which should
not fail (crack or separate) through fatigue. Rather, the crankshaft
assembly is inspected during overhaul and may be replaced, on-
condition, due to wear beyond limits of the cam lobes and bearing
surfaces.

The FAA's analysis of the process used to manufacture the failed
assemblies identified that gaseous nitrocarburization resulted in
excessive residual white layer forming on the assemblies. This white
layer is brittle and can lead to spalling or fatigue cracking of the
crankshaft assembly as a result of the normal mechanical loads during
engine operation. The FAA's analysis concluded that all three SAP
crankshaft assembly failures were the result of this fatigue cracking.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the engine,
in-flight shutdown, and loss of the airplane.

These SAP crankshaft assemblies are installed as original equipment
on SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines and
as a replacement part under PMA on certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines.

The FAA considered alternatives that may be less burdensome than
removing the crankshaft assembly from service, including not taking AD
action and requiring periodic inspections of the crankshaft assembly.
However, these options are not acceptable because taking no action does
not correct this known unsafe condition and the crankshaft assembly
cannot be inspected without destroying it. The FAA concluded that there
is no acceptable safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly.

FAA's Determination

The FAA is proposing this AD because it 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.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require the removal from service of all
affected crankshaft assemblies.

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.

The FAA is 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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, codified as
amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) (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." Public Law 96-354, 2(b), Sept. 19, 1980. 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. This portion
of the preamble serves as the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).

Compliance cost of this proposed AD comes from the cost to remove
and replace a crankshaft assembly. The FAA estimates that this proposed
AD would affect 115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes of
U.S. registry. This cost estimate does not include 77 SAP crankshafts
installed on experimental engines since these engines are not included
in the applicability of this AD. Compliance cost per crankshaft
assembly is identified below.

Labor cost = 61 hours per crankshaft assembly replacement x $85
Hourly Wage = $5,185.

Equipment costs per crankshaft assembly replacement = $9,636
(Source: Average of the two manufacturers).

$5,185 labor per crankshaft assembly + $9,636 equipment costs per
crankshaft assembly replacement = $14,821 compliance cost per engine.

The total costs to U.S. operators is $1,704,415, or $119,309 in
annualized costs. There are no additional costs after removing and
replacing the crankshaft assembly.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Under Section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, the initial analysis must
address the following six areas:

(1) Description of reasons the agency is considering the action;

(2) Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed
rule;

(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.

Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action

This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly failures
that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent failure of the
crankshaft assembly by requiring the removal of all affected crankshaft
assemblies from service. Failure of a crankshaft assembly, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown,
and loss of the airplane.

Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule

The FAA's legal basis for this proposed AD is discussed in detail
under the "Authority for this Rulemaking" section.

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

This proposed AD would apply to all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-
360-series reciprocating engines and certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP
crankshaft assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is
installed as original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a
replacement part under PMA on the affected Lycoming engines. These
engines are installed on airplanes performing various activities
including, but not limited to, flight training, charter flights, and
agriculture.

Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
uses the Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for determining
whether an affected entity is small. For aircraft/engine manufacturers,
aviation operators, and any business using an aircraft, the SBA
criterion is 1,500 or fewer employees. The FAA estimates that this pro-
posed AD would affect 115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. The FAA does not have any information or data on
whether these entities are small businesses according to the definition
established by the SBA. The FAA requests comment and data that would
allow us to more accurately assess the number of employees and sales
revenues of the affected entities.

Record-Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule

There are no record-keeping costs associated with this proposed rule.

Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.

Alternatives to the Proposed AD

As part of the IRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome. The FAA considered the
following alternatives:

Do nothing: This option is not acceptable because the risk of
additional failures of these crankshaft assemblies constitutes a known
unsafe condition.

Periodic inspections: This option is not possible as the crankshaft
assembly cannot be inspected without destroying it.

There is no direct safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly. The replacement addresses a safety issue aimed at
preventing the failure of the crankshaft assembly.

Therefore, this proposed rulemaking may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA invites
public comments regarding this determination.

Regulatory Findings

The FAA 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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

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):