AD 2014-03-03

[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e2f4f2f5eeece4f3e2e0f3e4c1e2e4f2f2efe0aff5e4f9f5f3eeefafe2eeec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb988e888f94969e89989a899ebb989e8888959ad58f9e838f899495d5989496">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; Internet: <a href="http://www.cessna.com/">http://www.cessna.com/</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3450555a1a435d405c514647745255551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f2f7f8b8e1ffe2fef3e4e5d6f0f7f7b8f1f9e0">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;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) (<a href="http://faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/">faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/</a>).
    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 (<a href="http://faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/">faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/</a>), 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 (<a href="http://faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/">faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/</a>).
    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 (<a href="http://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">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>). 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:
    <bullet> Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (76 FR 32103, June 3, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; 
and
    <bullet> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.

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:
    <bullet> A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>; 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0c4c1ce8ed7c9d4c8c5d2d3e0c6c1c18ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6400050a4a130d100c011617240205054a030b12">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

(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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583b2d2b2c37353d2a3b392a3d183b3d2b2b3639762c3d202c2a3736763b3735"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f0e6e0e7fcfef6e1f0f2e1f6d3f0f6e0e0fdf2bde7f6ebe7e1fcfdbdf0fcfe">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; Internet: <a href="http://www.cessna.com/">http://www.cessna.com/</a>.
    (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: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.

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