Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and SA-366G1 Helicopters, 12616-12618 [06-2358]

Download as PDF erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES 12616 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations the order of about one fiscal year’s expenses (§ 932.40). Expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2006 fiscal year include $800,700 for marketing development, $290,421 for administration, and $210,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2005 were $680,000, $337,014, and $200,000, respectively. Assessable olive receipts for the 2005–06 crop year were 114,761 tons, compared to 85,862 tons for the 2004– 05 crop year. The increased production of assessable olives will yield increased assessment funds, even at the lower rate. These funds, along with unused assessments from the 2005 fiscal year that have been carried into 2006, and interest income, cover the increased expenditures. The committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2006 expenditures of $1,301,121. This reflects increases in the committee’s research and market development budgets and a decrease in the administrative budget. The committee recommended a larger research budget intended to further the study of olive fly management and development of a mechanical olive harvesting method. The 2006 marketing program recommendation includes participation in media activities in conjunction with the release of a new diet plan book, translation of some of the committee’s education and nutrition materials into Spanish, and continuation of several outreach activities including cookbook contributions, Web site development, and educational programs for school children. Recommended decreases in the administrative budget are due mainly to personnel changes in the committee’s staff. Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered information from various sources, such as the committee’s Executive, Market Development, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate spending levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various research and marketing projects to the olive industry and the anticipated olive production. The assessment rate of $11.03 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors. A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal year indicates that the grower price for the 2005–06 crop year is estimated to be approximately $714 per ton for canning fruit and $314 per ton for limited-use sizes, leaving the balance as unusable cull fruit. Approximately 76 percent of a ton of olives are canning VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 fruit sizes and 17 percent are limited use sizes, leaving the balance as unusable cull fruit. Total grower revenue on 114,761 tons would then be $73,485,966, given the percentage of canning and limited-use sizes and current grower prices for those sizes. Therefore, with an assessment rate decreased from $15.68 to $11.03, the estimated assessment revenue is expected to be approximately 1.72 percent of grower revenue. This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the committee’s meeting was widely publicized throughout the California olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the December 13, 2005, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/ fv/moab/html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2006 fiscal year began on January 1, 2006, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal year apply to all assessable olives handled during such fiscal year; (2) the committee needs sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was discussed by the committee at a public meeting and unanimously recommended by a mail vote, and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as follows: I PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 2. Section 932.230 is revised to read as follows: I § 932.230 Assessment rate. On and after January 1, 2006, an assessment rate of $11.03 per ton is established for California olives. Dated: March 7, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 06–2367 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–02–U DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–23159; Directorate Identifier 2005–SW–10–AD; Amendment 39– 14510; AD 2006–06–02] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, and SA–366G1 Helicopters Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that currently applies to Eurocopter E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM 13MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES France (ECF) Model SA 365N, N1, and AS 365N2 helicopters. That AD currently requires inspecting the main gearbox (MGB) suspension diagonal cross-member (diagonal cross-member) for cracks and replacing it with an airworthy part if any crack is found. This amendment requires more frequent inspections of the diagonal crossmember and adding the Model SA– 366G1 helicopters to the applicability. This amendment is prompted by several reports of cracks in the diagonal crossmember. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the diagonal cross-member, pivoting of the MGB, severe vibrations, and a subsequent forced landing. DATES: Effective April 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4005, telephone (972) 641–3460, fax (972) 641–3527. Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov, or at the Docket Management System (DMS), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL–401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111, telephone (817) 222–5130, fax (817) 222–5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 98–08–14, Amendment 39–10463 (63 FR 17676, April 10, 1998), for the specified ECF model helicopters was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72409). The action proposed to require adding the Model SA–366G1 helicopter to the applicability because this model may contain an affected diagonal crossmember, part number (P/N) 365A38– 3023–22, –23 or –24. Also, the action proposed more frequent inspections of the diagonal cross-member. The Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on ECF Model AS–365N, N1, N2, and SA 366 G1 helicopters. The DGAC advises of the discovery of a crack in a diagonal cross-member of the ECF Model SA 366 G1 helicopter. ECF has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 05.00.37, dated May 29, 1997, for VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 Model AS–365N, N1, and N2 helicopters. The SB specifies a periodic inspection for a crack or failure of a central branch of the MGB suspension strut pre-MOD 0763B80. ECF has also issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.25, dated June 19, 2002. The ASB specifies checking the center portion of the MGB suspension cross-bar for Model AS–366G1 helicopters, with a crossbar, P/N 365A38–3023–22, –23, or –24, installed. The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued ADs 2003–241(A) and 1997–093– 041(A) R2, both dated June 25, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France. These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA’s determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the rule as proposed except we have expanded the contact address in paragraph (b) in the body of the AD to provide more information to the public. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD. We estimate that this AD will affect 133 helicopters of U.S. registry, and will: • Take about 1 work hour to inspect the diagonal cross-member, • Take about 10 work hours to replace the diagonal cross-member, if necessary, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour, and • Cost about $6,600 to replace the part. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $139,990, assuming 12 inspections per year per helicopter, and assuming 5 helicopters require replacing the diagonal cross-member. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12617 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 the regulation: 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. 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. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: I PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39–10463 (63 FR I E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM 13MRR1 12618 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 17676, April 10, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), Amendment 39–14510, to read as follows: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES 2006–06–02 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39–14510. Docket No. FAA–2005–23159; Directorate Identifier 2005–SW–10–AD. Supersedes AD 98– 08–14, Amendment 39–10463, Docket No. 97–SW–21–AD. Applicability: Model SA–365N, SA365N1, AS–365N2, and SA–366G1 helicopters with a main gearbox (MGB) suspension diagonal cross-member (diagonal cross-member), part number (P/N) 365A38–3023–20, –21, –22, –23, or –24, installed, certificated in any category. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To prevent failure of the diagonal crossmember, pivoting of the MGB, severe vibrations, and subsequent forced landing, do the following: (a) For Model SA–365N and SA–365N1 helicopters, before accumulating 15,000 operating cycles; and for Model AS–365N2 and SA–366G1 helicopters, before accumulating 11,000 operating cycles: (1) Inspect the diagonal cross-member for a crack in the area of the center borehole. Use a borescope with a 90-degree drive, a video assembly with optical fiber illumination, or any other appropriate device that allows you to visually inspect the center area of the part. (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 250 operating cycles or 50 hours timein-service, whichever occurs first. Note 1: ‘‘Operating cycles’’ are defined in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Master Servicing Recommendations. (b) If a crack is found as a result of the inspections required by this AD, before further flight, replace the diagonal crossmember with an airworthy diagonal crossmember. (c) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111, telephone (817) 222–5130, fax (817) 222–5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. (d) This amendment becomes effective on April 17, 2006. Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L-Aviation Civile (France) AD 1997–093–041(A) R2, dated June 25, 2003, and 2003–241(A), dated June 25, 2003. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 1, 2006. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06–2358 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Mar 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 21 CFR Part 172 [Docket No. 1991F–0457] (formerly Docket No. 91F–0457) Food Additives Permitted For Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Glycerides and Polyglycides AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a mixture of glycerides and polyethylene glycol mono- and diesters of fatty acids of hydrogenated vegetable oils as an excipient in dietary supplement tablets, capsules, and liquid formulations that are intended for ingestion in daily quantities measured in drops or similar small units of measure. This action is in response to a petition filed by Gattefosse Corp. DATES: This rule is effective March 13, 2006. Submit written or electronic objections and requests for a hearing by April 12, 2006. See section VII of this document for information on the filing of objections. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of certain publications in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 1991F–0457, by any of the following methods: Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: https:// www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. Written Submissions Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301–827–6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA– 305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by email. FDA encourages you to continue PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the Electronic Submissions portion of this paragraph. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ default.htm, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the ‘‘Objections’’ heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https:// www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ default.htm and insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301–436–1272. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In a notice published in the Federal Register of December 19, 1991 (56 FR 65907), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 9A4155) had been filed by Parexel International Corp., One Alewife Place, Cambridge, MA 02140 on behalf of Gattefosse S.A., Saint-Priest, France. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a mixture of glycerides and polyethylene glycol esters of fatty acids of vegetable origin as an excipient in vitamin tablets and liquid formulations. Subsequently, in a letter dated January 7, 1998, the petitioner informed the agency that the petition was being amended by narrowing the polyethylene glycol esters (commonly known as polyglycides) to one class of compounds, namely, the polyethylene glycol esters of fatty acids from hydrogenated vegetable oils. Further, under an e-mail dated October 5, 2005, the petitioner later clarified that the additive was intended for use as an excipient in all dietary supplement tablets, capsules, and liquid formulations that are intended for E:\FR\FM\13MRR1.SGM 13MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12616-12618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2358]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-23159; Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-10-AD; 
Amendment 39-14510; AD 2006-06-02]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, SA-
365N1, AS-365N2, and SA-366G1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD) that currently applies to Eurocopter

[[Page 12617]]

France (ECF) Model SA 365N, N1, and AS 365N2 helicopters. That AD 
currently requires inspecting the main gearbox (MGB) suspension 
diagonal cross-member (diagonal cross-member) for cracks and replacing 
it with an airworthy part if any crack is found. This amendment 
requires more frequent inspections of the diagonal cross-member and 
adding the Model SA-366G1 helicopters to the applicability. This 
amendment is prompted by several reports of cracks in the diagonal 
cross-member. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent 
failure of the diagonal cross-member, pivoting of the MGB, severe 
vibrations, and a subsequent forced landing.

DATES: Effective April 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD 
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, 
Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and 
other information on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov, or at the 
Docket Management System (DMS), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, 
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort 
Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5130, fax (817) 222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 by 
superseding AD 98-08-14, Amendment 39-10463 (63 FR 17676, April 10, 
1998), for the specified ECF model helicopters was published in the 
Federal Register on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72409). The action proposed 
to require adding the Model SA-366G1 helicopter to the applicability 
because this model may contain an affected diagonal cross-member, part 
number (P/N) 365A38-3023-22, -23 or -24. Also, the action proposed more 
frequent inspections of the diagonal cross-member.
    The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the 
airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe 
condition may exist on ECF Model AS-365N, N1, N2, and SA 366 G1 
helicopters. The DGAC advises of the discovery of a crack in a diagonal 
cross-member of the ECF Model SA 366 G1 helicopter.
    ECF has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 05.00.37, dated May 29, 
1997, for Model AS-365N, N1, and N2 helicopters. The SB specifies a 
periodic inspection for a crack or failure of a central branch of the 
MGB suspension strut pre-MOD 0763B80. ECF has also issued Alert Service 
Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.25, dated June 19, 2002. The ASB specifies 
checking the center portion of the MGB suspension cross-bar for Model 
AS-366G1 helicopters, with a crossbar, P/N 365A38-3023-22, -23, or -24, 
installed. The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and 
issued ADs 2003-241(A) and 1997-093-041(A) R2, both dated June 25, 
2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in 
France.
    These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type 
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the 
applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of 
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the 
DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action 
is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated 
for operation in the United States.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the 
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA 
has determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the rule as proposed except we have expanded the contact address in 
paragraph (b) in the body of the AD to provide more information to the 
public. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any 
operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
    We estimate that this AD will affect 133 helicopters of U.S. 
registry, and will:
     Take about 1 work hour to inspect the diagonal cross-
member,
     Take about 10 work hours to replace the diagonal cross-
member, if necessary, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour, 
and
     Cost about $6,600 to replace the part.

Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on 
U.S. operators to be $139,990, assuming 12 inspections per year per 
helicopter, and assuming 5 helicopters require replacing the diagonal 
cross-member.

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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply 
with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-10463 (63 FR

[[Page 12618]]

17676, April 10, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), Amendment 39-14510, to read as follows:

2006-06-02 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-14510. Docket No. FAA-
2005-23159; Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-10-AD. Supersedes AD 98-
08-14, Amendment 39-10463, Docket No. 97-SW-21-AD.
    Applicability: Model SA-365N, SA365N1, AS-365N2, and SA-366G1 
helicopters with a main gearbox (MGB) suspension diagonal cross-
member (diagonal cross-member), part number (P/N) 365A38-3023-20, -
21, -22, -23, or -24, installed, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent failure of the diagonal cross-member, pivoting of the 
MGB, severe vibrations, and subsequent forced landing, do the 
following:
    (a) For Model SA-365N and SA-365N1 helicopters, before 
accumulating 15,000 operating cycles; and for Model AS-365N2 and SA-
366G1 helicopters, before accumulating 11,000 operating cycles:
    (1) Inspect the diagonal cross-member for a crack in the area of 
the center borehole. Use a borescope with a 90-degree drive, a video 
assembly with optical fiber illumination, or any other appropriate 
device that allows you to visually inspect the center area of the 
part.
    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 
AD at intervals not to exceed 250 operating cycles or 50 hours time-
in-service, whichever occurs first.

    Note 1: ``Operating cycles'' are defined in the Airworthiness 
Limitations Section of the Master Servicing Recommendations.

    (b) If a crack is found as a result of the inspections required 
by this AD, before further flight, replace the diagonal cross-member 
with an airworthy diagonal cross-member.
    (c) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Contact the Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Gary Roach, Aviation 
Safety Engineer, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 
76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5130, fax (817) 222-5961, for 
information about previously approved alternative methods of 
compliance.
    (d) This amendment becomes effective on April 17, 2006.

    Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction 
Generale De L-Aviation Civile (France) AD 1997-093-041(A) R2, dated 
June 25, 2003, and 2003-241(A), dated June 25, 2003.


    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 1, 2006.
David A. Downey,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06-2358 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.