Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters, 4090-4092 [2013-01004]
Download as PDF
4090
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules
example, a recommendation to set
guidelines for negotiating penalties and
other remedial measures has yet to be
considered by the Commission. See id.
at 2. Accordingly, the Commission
believes it may be beneficial to revisit
certain of those issues and to address
other relevant ADR topics.
B. Proposals and Issues To Consider
1. Commission Approval or Rejection of
ADR Settlements
From the time the ADR program was
implemented in 2000, the Commission’s
only options when reviewing ADR
settlements have been either to (1)
accept the agreement without revisions
or (2) reject the agreement in its entirety
and dismiss the matter. This policy has
the advantage of giving ADRO wide
latitude to fashion agreements without
Commission involvement—thereby
speeding up the process—while
providing respondents with a unique
incentive by assuring that any
agreement they sign will represent the
end of the case (respondents may be
more likely to use the ADR program if
they can be confident their settlements
are not subject to renegotiation). The
obvious disadvantage is that
Commission is boxed in; since it cannot
direct ADR to renegotiate an agreement
it finds unpalatable, its role as final
agency arbiter is arguably undermined.
Also, a respondent may be unduly
benefited if, for example, an agreement
with a stiff penalty is dismissed because
the Commission does not like certain
language contained therein.
The Commission seeks comment on
its ‘‘accept or dismiss’’ policy to
determine whether the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages and how
the policy might be revised to strike a
more appropriate balance. For example,
the Commission could simply vote on
whether to instruct ADRO to renegotiate
problematic aspects of a settlement
upon the motion of one Commissioner.
If a more narrowly tailored approach is
deemed preferable, ADRO could inform
respondents at the start of higher
priority ADR matters (e.g., where the
amount in violation appears to be above
a particular amount) that the
Commission reserves the right to direct
ADRO to renegotiate any ADR
settlement brought before it.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
2. Civil Penalties
Similar to the civil penalty issues
raised above concerning the traditional
enforcement process, the Commission
seeks comment on the penalty scheme
used by ADRO so the Commission can
better evaluate the program’s
effectiveness. The main objective should
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Jan 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
be to achieve a balance so that penalties
are sufficiently low for respondents to
prefer participating in the ADR program
rather than being subject to OGC
processing, yet high enough to deter
future violations and promote
compliance. The Commission
recognizes that ADR tends to focus more
on non-monetary ‘‘behavioral’’ remedies
in its settlements and may offer a wider
array of settlement options to
respondents than does OGC (e.g.,
attendance at a Commission-sponsored
workshop), but the importance of
securing civil penalties to modify
behavior should not be understated,
even in cases where the amounts in
violation are comparatively low.
Although respondents may be quick to
make counteroffers with very small and
often no penalties, the Commission is
not necessarily served well by accepting
such offers. In order for terms of
settlement to serve as meaningful
deterrents, the penalty should at least
exceed the ‘‘cost of doing business’’ for
the particular respondent involved.
There still may be sound reasons why
ADR settlements often contain no or
minimal penalty amounts, but perhaps
there should be a fuller airing of the
reasons for accepting such terms so that
the Commission can determine whether
the proper balance of program objectives
is being achieved and maintained.
As it has recently done with OGC’s
civil penalty calculations as discussed
above, the Commission is considering
whether to apprise respondents of its
‘‘opening offer settlement’’ formulas for
the typical violations it encounters.
ADRO currently employs a penalty
formula scheme resembling a scaledback version of the formulas used by
OGC. After a respondent agrees in
writing to ‘‘buy in’’ to the ADR process,
ADRO generally communicates an
opening offer by telephone (in contrast
with OGC-drafted written agreements
containing opening offers approved by
the Commission) and negotiates terms to
include in a written settlement.
Although the ADR program was set up
to operate without extensive
Commission involvement—thus
promoting faster resolution of cases—it
may nevertheless be in the
Commission’s interest for ADRO to
inform it of the parameters for
negotiation before it begins settlement
negotiations. Currently, both the
opening and negotiated figures are
simultaneously presented to the
Commission along with an agreement
already signed by the respondent; the
Commission does not have any prior
opportunity to review the opening offer
as it does with OGC reports
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
recommending conciliation. The
Commission could consider having
ADRO provide a proposed penalty
amount in its assignment memorandum
to the Commission, since the amount in
violation is generally clear at that time.
The memoranda could be circulated on
a no-objection basis to maintain
efficiency (it is currently circulated on
an informational basis). The
Commission recognizes that including
such information may increase the
likelihood of Commission objections
and thus slow down the ADR process;
accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on how to maintain adequate
oversight of ADRO’s civil penalty
regime.
VII. Other Issues
The Commission welcomes comments
on other issues relevant to these
enforcement policies and procedures,
including any comments concerning
how the FEC might increase the
fairness, transparency, efficiency and
effectiveness of the Commission.
Dated: January 11, 2013.
On behalf of the Commission.
Donald F. McGahn II,
Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–00959 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0018; Directorate
Identifier 2010–SW–060–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH
(Eurocopter) Model MBB–BK 117 C–2
helicopters. This proposed AD would
require determining if a certain serialnumbered bevel gear is installed in the
tailrotor intermediate gear box (IGB). If
such a bevel gear is installed in the IGB,
this AD would require recording the
bevel gear’s reduced life limit in the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual and on the
component history card or equivalent
IGB record. If the bevel gear’s life limit
has been reached or exceeded, this AD
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules
would require, before further flight,
replacing the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear. This proposed AD
is prompted by the discovery that the
tooth foot fillets in certain bevel gears
fell below the minimum dimensions
required in the design documents to
ensure safe functioning of the bevel gear
until reaching its approved life limit.
The proposed actions are intended to
prevent failure of a bevel gear before
reaching its currently approved life
limit, failure of the IGB, and subsequent
loss of helicopter control.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by March 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Send comments to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the
‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the
Docket Operations Office between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact American
Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum
Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–
0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at https://
www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may
review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone
(817) 222–5110; email
chinh.vuong@faa.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Jan 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result
from adopting the proposals in this
document. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy
of written comments, or if comments are
filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all
comments that we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking.
Before acting on this proposal, we will
consider all comments we receive on or
before the closing date for comments.
We will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this
proposal in light of the comments we
receive.
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2010–
0096, dated May 25, 2010, to correct an
unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model
MBB–BK 117 C–2 helicopters. EASA
advises that during a recent review of
the production documents for the bevel
gears of the IGB, it was discovered that
certain production batch numbers have
tooth foot fillets below the required
minimum values that would ensure the
approved life limits for this part.
FAA’s Determination
These helicopters have been approved
by the aviation authority of Germany
and are approved for operation in the
United States. Pursuant to our bilateral
agreement with Germany, EASA, its
technical representative, has notified us
of the unsafe condition described in its
AD. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
Related Service Information
Eurocopter has issued Alert Service
Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C–2–04A–005,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4091
Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB).
The ASB specifies determining whether
certain serial-numbered bevel gears are
installed in the IGB. The ASB specifies
recording the reduced life limit for each
affected bevel gear on the log card of the
IGB and on the list of life-limited parts.
If a bevel gear has one of the serial
numbers listed in Table 1 of the ASB,
the ASB specifies filling out a reply
form and copying and sending it to
Eurocopter. The ASB also specifies
sending the IGB to a certified overhaul
facility for replacing the bevel gear if it
has reached or exceeded its life limit.
EASA classified this ASB as mandatory
and issued AD No. 2010–0096, dated
May 25, 2010, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require,
within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD:
• Determining if a certain partnumbered and serial-numbered bevel
gear is installed in the IGB, and
recording the reduced life limit of the
bevel gear on the component history
card or equivalent record of the IGB.
• If the bevel gear life limit has been
reached or is exceeded, before further
flight, replacing the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear.
• Revising the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance
manual by reducing the retirement life
for each IGB bevel gear, part number (P/
N) 4639 310 065, having a serial number
listed in Table 1 of the ASB, to the life
limit listed in Table 1 of the ASB.
Differences Between This Proposed AD
and the EASA AD
This proposed AD does not require
sending a copy of the form in the ASB
to the manufacturer. This proposed AD
does not require sending the IGB to an
overhaul facility. Also, this proposed
AD does not specify a single ferry flight
not to exceed 20 hours time-in-service
to a maintenance facility if the bevel
gear has exceeded the reduced life limit.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 107 helicopters of U.S.
registry and that the labor rate would
average $85 per work-hour. We also
estimate that it would take about a half
hour to determine whether the IGB is
affected and to enter the reduced life
limit on the component history card or
the equivalent record and to revise the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual. Based on these
figures, we estimate that the cost per
helicopter would total about $43, about
$4,601 for the U.S. fleet.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
4092
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify
this proposed 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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in
Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Jan 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters:
Docket No. FAA–2013–0018; Directorate
Identifier 2010–SW–060–AD.
(f) Additional Information
The subject of this AD is addressed in
European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010–
0096, dated May 25, 2010.
(g) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
Code: 6520, Tail Rotor Gearbox.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9,
2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–01004 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am]
(a) Applicability
This AD applies to Model MBB–BK 117 C–
2 helicopters with a bevel gear, part number
(P/N) 4639 310 065, installed in the tail rotor
intermediate gear box (IGB), P/N 4639 002
007, certificated in any category.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as
failure of a bevel gear, failure of the tail rotor
IGB, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
14 CFR Part 39
(c) Compliance
You are responsible for performing each
action required by this AD within the
specified compliance time unless it has
already been accomplished prior to that time.
(d) Required Actions
Within 30 days, do the following:
(1) Determine if a bevel gear with a serial
number (S/N) listed in Table 1 of Eurocopter
Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C–2–04A–
005, Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB),
is installed in the IGB.
(i) If a bevel gear listed in Table 1 of the
ASB is installed in the IGB, record the
reduced life limit of the bevel gear onto the
component history card or equivalent record
of the IGB.
(ii) If the bevel gear life limit has been
reached or is exceeded, before further flight,
replace the bevel gear with an airworthy
bevel gear.
(2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations
section of the maintenance manual by
reducing the retirement life for each IGB
bevel gear, P/N 4639 310 065, that has a S/
N listed in Table 1 of the ASB to the life limit
corresponding to that S/N.
(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Safety Management
Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this
AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone (817) 222–5110; email
chinh.vuong@faa.gov.
(2) For operations conducted under a 14
CFR part 119 operating certificate or under
14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that
you notify your principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before
operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0962; Directorate
Identifier 2012–CE–033–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna
Aircraft Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
This document withdraws a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to certain
Cessna Aircraft Company Models
172RG, R182, TR182, FR182, 210N,
T210N, 210R, T210R, P210N, P210R,
and T303 airplanes. The proposed
airworthiness directive (AD) would
have required you to inspect the
aircraft’s hydraulic power pack wiring
for incorrect installation, and if needed,
correct the installation. Since issuance
of the NPRM, the FAA has re-evaluated
this airworthiness concern and
determined that an unsafe condition
does not exist that would warrant AD
action. This withdrawal does not
prevent the FAA from initiating future
rulemaking on this subject.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946–4128;
fax: (316) 946–4107; email:
richard.rejniak@faa.gov.
SUMMARY:
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 the specified products. That
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 11, 2012 (77 FR
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4090-4092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0018; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-060-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. This proposed AD would require determining if a certain
serial-numbered bevel gear is installed in the tailrotor intermediate
gear box (IGB). If such a bevel gear is installed in the IGB, this AD
would require recording the bevel gear's reduced life limit in the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual and on the
component history card or equivalent IGB record. If the bevel gear's
life limit has been reached or exceeded, this AD
[[Page 4091]]
would require, before further flight, replacing the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear. This proposed AD is prompted by the discovery
that the tooth foot fillets in certain bevel gears fell below the
minimum dimensions required in the design documents to ensure safe
functioning of the bevel gear until reaching its approved life limit.
The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a bevel gear
before reaching its currently approved life limit, failure of the IGB,
and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775;
or at https://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
chinh.vuong@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Discussion
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2010-0096, dated May 25, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition for
Eurocopter Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that during a
recent review of the production documents for the bevel gears of the
IGB, it was discovered that certain production batch numbers have tooth
foot fillets below the required minimum values that would ensure the
approved life limits for this part.
FAA's Determination
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Related Service Information
Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C-2-04A-
005, Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB). The ASB specifies
determining whether certain serial-numbered bevel gears are installed
in the IGB. The ASB specifies recording the reduced life limit for each
affected bevel gear on the log card of the IGB and on the list of life-
limited parts. If a bevel gear has one of the serial numbers listed in
Table 1 of the ASB, the ASB specifies filling out a reply form and
copying and sending it to Eurocopter. The ASB also specifies sending
the IGB to a certified overhaul facility for replacing the bevel gear
if it has reached or exceeded its life limit. EASA classified this ASB
as mandatory and issued AD No. 2010-0096, dated May 25, 2010, to ensure
the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require, within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD:
Determining if a certain part-numbered and serial-numbered
bevel gear is installed in the IGB, and recording the reduced life
limit of the bevel gear on the component history card or equivalent
record of the IGB.
If the bevel gear life limit has been reached or is
exceeded, before further flight, replacing the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear.
Revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual by reducing the retirement life for each IGB bevel
gear, part number (P/N) 4639 310 065, having a serial number listed in
Table 1 of the ASB, to the life limit listed in Table 1 of the ASB.
Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD
This proposed AD does not require sending a copy of the form in the
ASB to the manufacturer. This proposed AD does not require sending the
IGB to an overhaul facility. Also, this proposed AD does not specify a
single ferry flight not to exceed 20 hours time-in-service to a
maintenance facility if the bevel gear has exceeded the reduced life
limit.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 107 helicopters of
U.S. registry and that the labor rate would average $85 per work-hour.
We also estimate that it would take about a half hour to determine
whether the IGB is affected and to enter the reduced life limit on the
component history card or the equivalent record and to revise the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual. Based on
these figures, we estimate that the cost per helicopter would total
about $43, about $4,601 for the U.S. fleet.
[[Page 4092]]
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed 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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
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 the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2013-0018;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-060-AD.
(a) Applicability
This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a bevel
gear, part number (P/N) 4639 310 065, installed in the tail rotor
intermediate gear box (IGB), P/N 4639 002 007, certificated in any
category.
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a bevel gear,
failure of the tail rotor IGB, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
(c) Compliance
You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.
(d) Required Actions
Within 30 days, do the following:
(1) Determine if a bevel gear with a serial number (S/N) listed
in Table 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-04A-
005, Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB), is installed in the
IGB.
(i) If a bevel gear listed in Table 1 of the ASB is installed in
the IGB, record the reduced life limit of the bevel gear onto the
component history card or equivalent record of the IGB.
(ii) If the bevel gear life limit has been reached or is
exceeded, before further flight, replace the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear.
(2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual by reducing the retirement life for each IGB
bevel gear, P/N 4639 310 065, that has a S/N listed in Table 1 of
the ASB to the life limit corresponding to that S/N.
(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110;
email chinh.vuong@faa.gov.
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(f) Additional Information
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency AD 2010-0096, dated May 25, 2010.
(g) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor
Gearbox.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-01004 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P