Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters, 72132-72135 [2014-28478]
Download as PDF
72132
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–54–
6019, dated October 15, 1993.
(6) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@
airbus.com; Internet https://www.airbus.com.
(7) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(8) 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: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 6, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
Examining the AD Docket
[FR Doc. 2014–28477 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0159; Directorate
Identifier 2012–SW–010–AD; Amendment
39–18032; AD 2014–23–16]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Robinson
Helicopter Company Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are superseding
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–12–
10 for Robinson Helicopter Company
(Robinson) Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22
Beta, R22 Mariner, R44, and R44 II
helicopters with certain main rotor
blades (blade) installed. AD 2011–12–10
required inspecting each blade at the
skin-to-spar line for debonding,
corrosion, a separation, a gap, or a dent
and replacing any damaged blade with
an airworthy blade. This new AD also
requires a terminating action for those
inspection requirements. These actions
are intended to detect debonding of the
blade skin, which could result in blade
failure and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter, and to correct the unsafe
condition by replacing the main rotor
blades with new blades that do not
require the AD inspection.
DATES: This AD is effective January 9,
2015.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of January 9, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain other publications listed in
this AD as of July 5, 2011 (76 FR 35330,
June 17, 2011); corrected March 5, 2012
(77 FR 12991).
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Robinson
Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport
Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone
(310) 539–0508; fax (310) 539–5198; or
at https://www.robinsonheli.com/
servelib.htm. You may review a copy of
the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth Texas,
76137.
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 AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service
information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (phone: 800–
647–5527) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations
Office, M–30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA
90712; telephone (562) 627–5232; email
fred.guerin@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On February 25, 2013, at 78 FR 12648,
the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
which proposed to amend 14 CFR part
39 to supersede AD 2011–12–10,
Amendment 39–16717 (76 FR 35330,
June 17, 2011), corrected March 5, 2012
(77 FR 12991), that applied to Robinson
Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and
R22 Mariner helicopters with blade, part
number (P/N) A016–4; and Model R44
and R44 II helicopters with blade, P/N
C016–2 or C–016–5, installed. AD 2011–
12–10 required a pilot check of the
blade skin-to-spar joint area for any bare
metal before the first flight of each day.
AD 2011–12–10 also required
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
repetitively inspecting each blade for
corrosion, separation, a gap, or a dent,
refinishing any bare metal before further
flight, and replacing any damaged blade
with an airworthy blade. AD 2011–12–
10 was prompted by a fatal accident due
to blade delamination.
At the time we issued AD 2011–12–
10, Robinson had developed
replacement blades on the R22 and R44
model helicopters. AD 2011–12–10 was
issued as a Final rule; request for
comment; however, the amount of time
permitted to replace the blades required
allowing the public an opportunity to
comment. Thus, the NPRM proposed to
retain the pilot check, recurring
inspection, and blade refinishing
requirements of AD 2011–12–10. An
owner/operator (pilot) may perform the
visual check required by paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD and must enter compliance
with that paragraph into the helicopter
maintenance records in accordance with
14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and
91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this
check because it involves only looking
at a visible area of the blades and can
be performed equally well by a pilot or
a mechanic. This check is an exception
to our standard maintenance
regulations. The NPRM also proposed to
add a part-numbered blade to its
applicability for R22 model helicopters.
Lastly, the NPRM proposed to require,
within five years of the effective date,
replacing both main rotor blades with
the new part-numbered aluminum
blades, which would constitute
terminating action of the recurring
inspection requirements. These actions
are intended to detect and prevent
debonding of the blade skin, which
could result in blade failure and
subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
Comments
After our NPRM (78 FR 12648,
February 25, 2013) was published, we
received comments from 15 commenters
and have given due consideration to
each one. We have identified five
unique issues and addressed those
issues as follows.
Requests
Ten operators requested that we
withdraw the NPRM and allow
continued repetitive inspections of the
blades for all affected models, as there
is insufficient data justifying the
termination of the requirement for
repetitive inspections and for replacing
the main rotor blades with new blades
that do not require the AD inspection.
One commenter noted that there have
been no blade failures since the
procedures of AD 2011–12–10 have
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
been implemented, and therefore the
NPRM increases the financial burden to
an operator without increasing safety.
Another commenter requested that more
data be obtained regarding the effect of
the operating environment and the
inspection accordingly modified. Two
commenters stated that a salt air
environment caused the debonding due
to corrosion. Some commenters state
that inspections and routine
maintenance, if done correctly, will
ensure continued operational safety.
We do not agree. Blade debonding
continues to occur in service. The cause
of the debonding was determined to be
erosion on unpainted blade tip bond
lines which allows the bond to weaken
and the skin to pull up. The erosion is
mechanical and occurs in any
environment regardless of salt or
moisture in the air. This unsafe
condition is sufficient to mandate
inspections due to the catastrophic
consequences if the blade becomes
delaminated. However, airworthiness
cannot be assured long-term by reliance
on continued repetitive inspections.
Although there have been no fatalities
since we issued AD 2011–12–10,
Robinson continues to report instances
of blade delamination found during
maintenance checks. Because blades
continue to have debond issues, and as
using a safety-by-inspection approach
for a critical component has been shown
to have an inherent amount of risk, it is
in the interest of safety to reduce the
retirement of the blades from 12 years
from the blade manufacturing date to an
earlier date.
Five operators requested that we
remove the requirement for replacing
the blades for the R44 Astro models,
because these models are not equipped
with hydraulic assisted controls and the
new blades cannot be installed on these
models unless the helicopter is
converted to hydraulic assisted controls,
a costly conversion which is not
necessary for safe flight. These
commenters further stated that the
conversion is not only an additional
expense but also can only be performed
at the Robinson factory. One commenter
believed the new blades are compatible
with the non-hydraulic airframe and
requested we require that Robinson test
the new blades on the non-hydraulic
R44 Astro airframe, so that the new
blades can be installed on the R44 Astro
without also having to convert the
helicopter. The commenters also stated
that Robinson then reserves the right to
upgrade any component on the
helicopter to their latest revision even
though there is no AD or SB stating the
Robinson required change, and this
Robinson requirement results in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
additional cost increase. One
commenter requested that we justify
this requirement for the R44 Astro
helicopters by identifying the number of
reports of blade delamination on R44
Astros and explain the safety
improvement resulting from converting
a helicopter to hydraulic assisted
controls. Finally, the commenters also
stated that requiring replacement of the
blades (and thus, conversion) for R44
Astro helicopters significantly reduces
the resale value of these helicopters.
We do not agree. The R44 Astro is
subject to the same unsafe condition as
the other R22 and R44 helicopter
models. The purpose of this AD is not
to require converting a helicopter to
hydraulic assisted controls; the purpose
is to correct this unsafe condition on the
blades. Robinson’s decision whether to
test the new blades with the nonhydraulic R44 Astro helicopter is a
business decision, and the FAA does
not have the authority to mandate a
different decision. Similarly, Robinson’s
decision to discontinue blades designed
for the non-hydraulic equipped
helicopters is a business decision that
the FAA does not have the authority to
change. Because the blades for the nonhydraulic equipped R44 Astro
helicopters are calendar life limited to
12 years and will no longer be
produced, and as the manufacturer has
not pursued FAA approval for
installation of the new blades on the
non-hydraulic R44 Astro, the owners of
the Astro helicopter will need to install
hydraulic assisted flight controls after
12 years regardless of the AD
requirements. The FAA acknowledges
that the expense and downtime to
accomplish the blade replacement is
greater for the R44 helicopters that are
not equipped with hydraulic assisted
controls. However, this greater cost due
to an absence of hydraulic controls,
while unfortunate, does not change the
blade safety issue or the need to require
replacement of the blades prior to their
retirement life.
Four operators stated that the FAA
has not considered the cost of this AD
on operators and requested that
Robinson be responsible for the cost of
the new blades. One commenter also
requested that Robinson be responsible
for the cost of converting the R44 Astro
to hydraulic assisted flight controls, as
this will be required for that model
when the new blades are installed.
We do not agree. While we
acknowledge that the costs associated
with the actions of this AD are not
minimal, we have determined that these
costs are reasonable given the unsafe
condition. As far as request for
Robinson to bear these costs, the FAA
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72133
does not have the authority to require a
manufacturer to bear the cost of a repair.
One commenter requested that we
require blade replacement at the 2,200
hour overhaul or 12 years instead of the
5-year compliance time. The commenter
stated that as Robinson started the
production of new blades about 3 years
ago, the 5-year replacement period
would require some owners to replace
the blades long before reaching the 12year inspection, and this financial cost
was not taken into account with the
proposed rule.
We do not agree. We determined a
replacement period of five years from
the date of the AD by using a
quantitative and qualitative risk
assessment methodology. The risk of
blade skin debonding results in a loss of
control of the helicopter and is beyond
acceptable risk guidelines when
allowing the blades to continue in
service indefinitely. Although the risk
assessment indicates that immediate
action is required to correct the unsafe
condition, this risk is partially mitigated
by the improved inspection techniques,
making it acceptable to allow a five year
period of time for blades to be replaced.
The added cost to retire the blades has
been anticipated in the financial burden
justification of this AD. The FAA
acknowledges that in some situations
the cost to the operator may be in excess
of the cost of the replacement blades,
but we have determined that the costs
associated with the actions of this AD
are reasonable given the safety issue.
Lastly, one commenter did not make
a request but stated that bare metal can
be seen on areas of the helicopter and
that the helicopter manufacturer
provides poor corrosion protection on
the helicopter. The commenter
explained that metal-to-metal contact
causes the corrosion that occurs on the
blades.
We disagree. Metal-to-metal contact
may be a mechanism that is causing the
corrosion in the rotor blade tip cap to
skin interface, but it has not been shown
to be a mechanism for skin debonding
in the area of the blade that has been
found in the fleet. Skin debonding is the
unsafe condition the actions in this AD
are correcting.
FAA’s Determination
We have reviewed the relevant
information, considered the comments
received, and determined that an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same
type designs and that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD
requirements as proposed, except we are
allowing compliance with the revised
service information as an optional
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
72134
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
action. We have also made clarifications
in the economic analysis to reflect the
correct cost of required parts and labor
for R–44 helicopters without
hydraulically boosted flight controls
installed. The total estimated cost for
these model helicopters has not
changed. These changes are consistent
with the intent of the proposals in the
NPRM (78 FR 12648, February 25, 2013)
and will not increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.
Related Service Information
We have reviewed the following
Robinson service information:
• Letter titled ‘‘Additional
Information Regarding Main Rotor Blade
Skin Debonding,’’ dated May 25, 2007,
discussing blade skin debonding;
• Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM)
changes to the Normal Procedures
Section 4 and Systems Description
Section 7, revised April 20, 2007, for
each applicable model helicopter
containing a ‘‘caution’’ about skin-tospar bond line erosion;
• One Service Letter with two
different Nos.: R22 SL–56B and R44 SL–
32B, both revised April 30, 2010,
specifying proper inspection and
protection (refinishing) of bonded areas;
and
• Service Bulletins SB–103 for the
Model R22 and SB–72 for the Model
R44, both dated April 30, 2010, and SB–
103A and SB–72A, both dated July 19,
2012, specifying proper inspection and
protection (refinishing) of bonded areas
for certain affected blades.
• R44 Service Letter SL–37, dated
June 18, 2010, specifying the required
modifications for a carbureted R–44 to
install P/N C016–7 blades.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 1,290
Model R22 helicopters and 1,353 Model
R44 helicopters, for a total of 2,643
helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an
average labor rate of $85 per hour, we
estimate that operators will incur the
following costs in order to comply with
this AD:
• Time to perform the before flight
check each day is negligible.
• Inspecting both blades will require
about three work hours, for a total cost
per helicopter of $255 and a total cost
to the U.S. operator fleet of $673,965.
• Replacing both blades on a Model
R22 helicopter will require about 20
work hours, and required parts will cost
$29,808, for a total cost per helicopter
of $31,508 and a total cost to the U.S.
R22 operator fleet of $40,645,320 over a
5-year period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
• Replacing both blades on a Model
R44 helicopter with hydraulically
boosted flight controls installed
(approximately 1,053 helicopters) will
require about 20 work hours, and
required parts will cost $43,783, for a
total cost per helicopter of $45,483 and
a total cost to the U.S. R44 operator fleet
of $47,893,599 over a 5-year period.
• Replacing both blades on a Model
R44 helicopter without hydraulically
boosted flight controls installed
(approximately 300 helicopters) will
require modifying the aircraft with
hydraulic flight controls, and adding the
P/N C016–7 blades and the required
airframe provisions at a cost of 100
work-hours for a total labor cost of
$8,500. Parts will cost $103,747 for a
total cost per helicopters of $112,247,
and a cost to U.S. operators of
$33,674,100 over 5 years.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction; and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(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 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.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011–12–10, Amendment 39–16717 (76
FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected
March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991), and
adding the following new AD:
■
2014–23–16 Robinson Helicopter Company:
Amendment 39–18032; Docket No.
FAA–2013–0159; Directorate Identifier
2012–SW–010–AD.
(a) Applicability
This AD applies to Model R22, R22 Alpha,
R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters with
main rotor blade (blade), part number (P/N)
A016–2 or A016–4; and Model R44 and R44
II helicopters with blade, P/N C016–2 or C–
016–5, certificated in any category.
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as
blade skin debonding, which could result in
blade failure and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.
(c) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2011–12–10,
Amendment 39–16717 (76 FR 35330, June
17, 2011); corrected March 5, 2012 (77 FR
12991).
(d) Effective Date
This AD becomes effective January 9, 2015.
(e) 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.
(f) Required Actions
(1) Before the first flight of each day,
visually check for any exposed (bare metal)
skin-to-spar joint area on the lower surface of
each blade. The actions required by this
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
paragraph may be performed by the owner/
operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot
certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with
this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)
through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The
record must be maintained as required by 14
CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) If there is any bare metal in the area of
the skin-to-spar bond line, before further
flight, inspect the blade by following the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(3) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS),
and at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS
or at each annual inspection, whichever
occurs first, inspect each blade for corrosion,
separation, a gap, or a dent by following the
Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 1 through
6 and 8, of Robinson R22 Service Bulletin
SB–103, dated April 30, 2010 (SB103), or
Robinson Service Bulletin SB–72, dated
April 30, 2010 (SB72), as appropriate for your
model helicopter. Although the Robinson
service information limits the magnification
to 10X, a higher magnification is acceptable
for this inspection. Also, an appropriate tap
test tool which provides similar performance,
weight, and consistency of tone may be
substituted for the ‘‘1965 or later United
States Quarter-dollar coin,’’ which is
specified in the Compliance Procedure,
paragraph 2, of SB72 and SB103.
(4) Before further flight, refinish any
exposed area of a blade by following the
Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 2 through
6, of Robinson R22 Service Letter SL–56B or
R44 Service Letter SL–32B, both dated April
30, 2010, as appropriate for your model
helicopter.
(5) Before further flight, replace any
unairworthy blade with an airworthy blade.
(6) Within 5 years of the effective date of
this AD:
(i) For Model R22 series helicopters,
replace blade P/N A016–2 or A016–4 with a
blade, P/N A016–6.
(ii) For Model R44 series helicopters fitted
with hydraulically boosted main rotor flight
controls, replace blade P/N C016–2 or C016–
5 with a blade, P/N C016–7.
(iii) For Model R44 series helicopters
without hydraulically boosted main rotor
flight controls, replace blade P/N C016–2 or
C016–5 with a blade, P/N C016–7. Prior to
installing a blade P/N C016–7, verify the
helicopter has been modified as required by
Robinson R44 Service Letter SL–37, dated
June 18, 2010, Compliance Procedures,
paragraphs 1. through 10.
(iv) Installing blades, P/N A016–6 or P/N
C016–7, is terminating action for the
inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(4) of this AD.
(7) As an option for complying with
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, you may perform
a blade inspection by following the
corresponding provisions of SB–103A or SB–
72A, both dated July 19, 2012, as appropriate
for your model helicopter.
(g) Special Flight Permits
Special flight permits will not be issued.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, may approve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712;
telephone (562) 627–5232; email
fred.guerin@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.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2011–12–10
(76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected
March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991), are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(i) Additional Information
The Robinson letter titled ‘‘Additional
Information Regarding Main Rotor Blade
Skin Debonding,’’ dated May 25, 2007, which
is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of
this AD. For service information identified in
this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter
Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA
90505; telephone (310) 539–0508; fax (310)
539–5198; or at https://
www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You
may review a copy of this information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(j) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
Code: 6210: Main Rotor Blades.
(k) 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.
(3) The following service information was
approved for IBR on January 9, 2015.
(i) Robinson R44 Service Letter SL–37,
dated June 18, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was
previously approved for IBR on July 5, 2011
(76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected
March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991).
(i) Robinson R22 Service Bulletin SB–103,
dated April 30, 2010.
(ii) Robinson R44 Service Bulletin SB–72,
dated April 30, 2010.
(iii) Robinson R22 Service Letter SL–56B,
dated April 30, 2010.
(iv) Robinson R44 Service Letter SL–32B,
dated April 30, 2010.
(5) For Robinson service information
identified in this AD, contact Robinson
Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive,
Torrance, CA 90505; telephone (310) 539–
0508; fax (310) 539–5198; or at https://
www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm.
(6) You may view this service information
at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72135
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(7) 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: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November
4, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–28478 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0986; Airspace
Docket No. 14–AGL–14]
RIN 2120–AA66
Amendment of Multiple Air Traffic
Service (ATS) Routes; North Central
and Northeast United States
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule, technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
This action amends multiple
high altitude Area Navigation (RNAV)
routes (Q-routes) in the north central
and northeast United States (U.S.) to
change 13 fixes identified in the Qroutes to match waypoint (WP)
characterizations contained in the FAA
and Canadian aeronautical database
information establishing the WPs. This
action also amends the route
termination point and geographic
latitude/longitude position in RNAV
route Q–822 to reflect changes made by
Canada as part of its Windsor-TorontoMontreal (WTM) airspace redesign
effort.
DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January
8, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under 1 CFR part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA
Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.
ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can
be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/
air_traffic/publications/. The Order is
also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72132-72135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28478]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0159; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-010-AD;
Amendment 39-18032; AD 2014-23-16]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-12-10 for
Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta,
R22 Mariner, R44, and R44 II helicopters with certain main rotor blades
(blade) installed. AD 2011-12-10 required inspecting each blade at the
skin-to-spar line for debonding, corrosion, a separation, a gap, or a
dent and replacing any damaged blade with an airworthy blade. This new
AD also requires a terminating action for those inspection
requirements. These actions are intended to detect debonding of the
blade skin, which could result in blade failure and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter, and to correct the unsafe condition by
replacing the main rotor blades with new blades that do not require the
AD inspection.
DATES: This AD is effective January 9, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 9,
2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July 5,
2011 (76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected March 5, 2012 (77 FR
12991).
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505;
telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at https://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth
Texas, 76137.
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 AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5232; email fred.guerin@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On February 25, 2013, at 78 FR 12648, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-12-10, Amendment 39-16717 (76
FR 35330, June 17, 2011), corrected March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991), that
applied to Robinson Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner
helicopters with blade, part number (P/N) A016-4; and Model R44 and R44
II helicopters with blade, P/N C016-2 or C-016-5, installed. AD 2011-
12-10 required a pilot check of the blade skin-to-spar joint area for
any bare metal before the first flight of each day. AD 2011-12-10 also
required repetitively inspecting each blade for corrosion, separation,
a gap, or a dent, refinishing any bare metal before further flight, and
replacing any damaged blade with an airworthy blade. AD 2011-12-10 was
prompted by a fatal accident due to blade delamination.
At the time we issued AD 2011-12-10, Robinson had developed
replacement blades on the R22 and R44 model helicopters. AD 2011-12-10
was issued as a Final rule; request for comment; however, the amount of
time permitted to replace the blades required allowing the public an
opportunity to comment. Thus, the NPRM proposed to retain the pilot
check, recurring inspection, and blade refinishing requirements of AD
2011-12-10. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the visual check
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and must enter compliance with
that paragraph into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance
with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may
perform this check because it involves only looking at a visible area
of the blades and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a
mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance
regulations. The NPRM also proposed to add a part-numbered blade to its
applicability for R22 model helicopters. Lastly, the NPRM proposed to
require, within five years of the effective date, replacing both main
rotor blades with the new part-numbered aluminum blades, which would
constitute terminating action of the recurring inspection requirements.
These actions are intended to detect and prevent debonding of the blade
skin, which could result in blade failure and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.
Comments
After our NPRM (78 FR 12648, February 25, 2013) was published, we
received comments from 15 commenters and have given due consideration
to each one. We have identified five unique issues and addressed those
issues as follows.
Requests
Ten operators requested that we withdraw the NPRM and allow
continued repetitive inspections of the blades for all affected models,
as there is insufficient data justifying the termination of the
requirement for repetitive inspections and for replacing the main rotor
blades with new blades that do not require the AD inspection. One
commenter noted that there have been no blade failures since the
procedures of AD 2011-12-10 have
[[Page 72133]]
been implemented, and therefore the NPRM increases the financial burden
to an operator without increasing safety. Another commenter requested
that more data be obtained regarding the effect of the operating
environment and the inspection accordingly modified. Two commenters
stated that a salt air environment caused the debonding due to
corrosion. Some commenters state that inspections and routine
maintenance, if done correctly, will ensure continued operational
safety.
We do not agree. Blade debonding continues to occur in service. The
cause of the debonding was determined to be erosion on unpainted blade
tip bond lines which allows the bond to weaken and the skin to pull up.
The erosion is mechanical and occurs in any environment regardless of
salt or moisture in the air. This unsafe condition is sufficient to
mandate inspections due to the catastrophic consequences if the blade
becomes delaminated. However, airworthiness cannot be assured long-term
by reliance on continued repetitive inspections. Although there have
been no fatalities since we issued AD 2011-12-10, Robinson continues to
report instances of blade delamination found during maintenance checks.
Because blades continue to have debond issues, and as using a safety-
by-inspection approach for a critical component has been shown to have
an inherent amount of risk, it is in the interest of safety to reduce
the retirement of the blades from 12 years from the blade manufacturing
date to an earlier date.
Five operators requested that we remove the requirement for
replacing the blades for the R44 Astro models, because these models are
not equipped with hydraulic assisted controls and the new blades cannot
be installed on these models unless the helicopter is converted to
hydraulic assisted controls, a costly conversion which is not necessary
for safe flight. These commenters further stated that the conversion is
not only an additional expense but also can only be performed at the
Robinson factory. One commenter believed the new blades are compatible
with the non-hydraulic airframe and requested we require that Robinson
test the new blades on the non-hydraulic R44 Astro airframe, so that
the new blades can be installed on the R44 Astro without also having to
convert the helicopter. The commenters also stated that Robinson then
reserves the right to upgrade any component on the helicopter to their
latest revision even though there is no AD or SB stating the Robinson
required change, and this Robinson requirement results in additional
cost increase. One commenter requested that we justify this requirement
for the R44 Astro helicopters by identifying the number of reports of
blade delamination on R44 Astros and explain the safety improvement
resulting from converting a helicopter to hydraulic assisted controls.
Finally, the commenters also stated that requiring replacement of the
blades (and thus, conversion) for R44 Astro helicopters significantly
reduces the resale value of these helicopters.
We do not agree. The R44 Astro is subject to the same unsafe
condition as the other R22 and R44 helicopter models. The purpose of
this AD is not to require converting a helicopter to hydraulic assisted
controls; the purpose is to correct this unsafe condition on the
blades. Robinson's decision whether to test the new blades with the
non-hydraulic R44 Astro helicopter is a business decision, and the FAA
does not have the authority to mandate a different decision. Similarly,
Robinson's decision to discontinue blades designed for the non-
hydraulic equipped helicopters is a business decision that the FAA does
not have the authority to change. Because the blades for the non-
hydraulic equipped R44 Astro helicopters are calendar life limited to
12 years and will no longer be produced, and as the manufacturer has
not pursued FAA approval for installation of the new blades on the non-
hydraulic R44 Astro, the owners of the Astro helicopter will need to
install hydraulic assisted flight controls after 12 years regardless of
the AD requirements. The FAA acknowledges that the expense and downtime
to accomplish the blade replacement is greater for the R44 helicopters
that are not equipped with hydraulic assisted controls. However, this
greater cost due to an absence of hydraulic controls, while
unfortunate, does not change the blade safety issue or the need to
require replacement of the blades prior to their retirement life.
Four operators stated that the FAA has not considered the cost of
this AD on operators and requested that Robinson be responsible for the
cost of the new blades. One commenter also requested that Robinson be
responsible for the cost of converting the R44 Astro to hydraulic
assisted flight controls, as this will be required for that model when
the new blades are installed.
We do not agree. While we acknowledge that the costs associated
with the actions of this AD are not minimal, we have determined that
these costs are reasonable given the unsafe condition. As far as
request for Robinson to bear these costs, the FAA does not have the
authority to require a manufacturer to bear the cost of a repair.
One commenter requested that we require blade replacement at the
2,200 hour overhaul or 12 years instead of the 5-year compliance time.
The commenter stated that as Robinson started the production of new
blades about 3 years ago, the 5-year replacement period would require
some owners to replace the blades long before reaching the 12-year
inspection, and this financial cost was not taken into account with the
proposed rule.
We do not agree. We determined a replacement period of five years
from the date of the AD by using a quantitative and qualitative risk
assessment methodology. The risk of blade skin debonding results in a
loss of control of the helicopter and is beyond acceptable risk
guidelines when allowing the blades to continue in service
indefinitely. Although the risk assessment indicates that immediate
action is required to correct the unsafe condition, this risk is
partially mitigated by the improved inspection techniques, making it
acceptable to allow a five year period of time for blades to be
replaced. The added cost to retire the blades has been anticipated in
the financial burden justification of this AD. The FAA acknowledges
that in some situations the cost to the operator may be in excess of
the cost of the replacement blades, but we have determined that the
costs associated with the actions of this AD are reasonable given the
safety issue.
Lastly, one commenter did not make a request but stated that bare
metal can be seen on areas of the helicopter and that the helicopter
manufacturer provides poor corrosion protection on the helicopter. The
commenter explained that metal-to-metal contact causes the corrosion
that occurs on the blades.
We disagree. Metal-to-metal contact may be a mechanism that is
causing the corrosion in the rotor blade tip cap to skin interface, but
it has not been shown to be a mechanism for skin debonding in the area
of the blade that has been found in the fleet. Skin debonding is the
unsafe condition the actions in this AD are correcting.
FAA's Determination
We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments
received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and
that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD
requirements as proposed, except we are allowing compliance with the
revised service information as an optional
[[Page 72134]]
action. We have also made clarifications in the economic analysis to
reflect the correct cost of required parts and labor for R-44
helicopters without hydraulically boosted flight controls installed.
The total estimated cost for these model helicopters has not changed.
These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the
NPRM (78 FR 12648, February 25, 2013) and will not increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Related Service Information
We have reviewed the following Robinson service information:
Letter titled ``Additional Information Regarding Main
Rotor Blade Skin Debonding,'' dated May 25, 2007, discussing blade skin
debonding;
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) changes to the Normal
Procedures Section 4 and Systems Description Section 7, revised April
20, 2007, for each applicable model helicopter containing a ``caution''
about skin-to-spar bond line erosion;
One Service Letter with two different Nos.: R22 SL-56B and
R44 SL-32B, both revised April 30, 2010, specifying proper inspection
and protection (refinishing) of bonded areas; and
Service Bulletins SB-103 for the Model R22 and SB-72 for
the Model R44, both dated April 30, 2010, and SB-103A and SB-72A, both
dated July 19, 2012, specifying proper inspection and protection
(refinishing) of bonded areas for certain affected blades.
R44 Service Letter SL-37, dated June 18, 2010, specifying
the required modifications for a carbureted R-44 to install P/N C016-7
blades.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 1,290 Model R22 helicopters and
1,353 Model R44 helicopters, for a total of 2,643 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that
operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this
AD:
Time to perform the before flight check each day is
negligible.
Inspecting both blades will require about three work
hours, for a total cost per helicopter of $255 and a total cost to the
U.S. operator fleet of $673,965.
Replacing both blades on a Model R22 helicopter will
require about 20 work hours, and required parts will cost $29,808, for
a total cost per helicopter of $31,508 and a total cost to the U.S. R22
operator fleet of $40,645,320 over a 5-year period.
Replacing both blades on a Model R44 helicopter with
hydraulically boosted flight controls installed (approximately 1,053
helicopters) will require about 20 work hours, and required parts will
cost $43,783, for a total cost per helicopter of $45,483 and a total
cost to the U.S. R44 operator fleet of $47,893,599 over a 5-year
period.
Replacing both blades on a Model R44 helicopter without
hydraulically boosted flight controls installed (approximately 300
helicopters) will require modifying the aircraft with hydraulic flight
controls, and adding the P/N C016-7 blades and the required airframe
provisions at a cost of 100 work-hours for a total labor cost of
$8,500. Parts will cost $103,747 for a total cost per helicopters of
$112,247, and a cost to U.S. operators of $33,674,100 over 5 years.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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 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.
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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-12-10, Amendment 39-16717 (76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected
March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991), and adding the following new AD:
2014-23-16 Robinson Helicopter Company: Amendment 39-18032; Docket
No. FAA-2013-0159; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-010-AD.
(a) Applicability
This AD applies to Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22
Mariner helicopters with main rotor blade (blade), part number (P/N)
A016-2 or A016-4; and Model R44 and R44 II helicopters with blade,
P/N C016-2 or C-016-5, certificated in any category.
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as blade skin debonding,
which could result in blade failure and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.
(c) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2011-12-10, Amendment 39-16717 (76 FR
35330, June 17, 2011); corrected March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991).
(d) Effective Date
This AD becomes effective January 9, 2015.
(e) 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.
(f) Required Actions
(1) Before the first flight of each day, visually check for any
exposed (bare metal) skin-to-spar joint area on the lower surface of
each blade. The actions required by this
[[Page 72135]]
paragraph may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at
least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with
14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record
must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or
135.439.
(2) If there is any bare metal in the area of the skin-to-spar
bond line, before further flight, inspect the blade by following the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(3) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), and at intervals not
to exceed 100 hours TIS or at each annual inspection, whichever
occurs first, inspect each blade for corrosion, separation, a gap,
or a dent by following the Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 1
through 6 and 8, of Robinson R22 Service Bulletin SB-103, dated
April 30, 2010 (SB103), or Robinson Service Bulletin SB-72, dated
April 30, 2010 (SB72), as appropriate for your model helicopter.
Although the Robinson service information limits the magnification
to 10X, a higher magnification is acceptable for this inspection.
Also, an appropriate tap test tool which provides similar
performance, weight, and consistency of tone may be substituted for
the ``1965 or later United States Quarter-dollar coin,'' which is
specified in the Compliance Procedure, paragraph 2, of SB72 and
SB103.
(4) Before further flight, refinish any exposed area of a blade
by following the Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 2 through 6, of
Robinson R22 Service Letter SL-56B or R44 Service Letter SL-32B,
both dated April 30, 2010, as appropriate for your model helicopter.
(5) Before further flight, replace any unairworthy blade with an
airworthy blade.
(6) Within 5 years of the effective date of this AD:
(i) For Model R22 series helicopters, replace blade P/N A016-2
or A016-4 with a blade, P/N A016-6.
(ii) For Model R44 series helicopters fitted with hydraulically
boosted main rotor flight controls, replace blade P/N C016-2 or
C016-5 with a blade, P/N C016-7.
(iii) For Model R44 series helicopters without hydraulically
boosted main rotor flight controls, replace blade P/N C016-2 or
C016-5 with a blade, P/N C016-7. Prior to installing a blade P/N
C016-7, verify the helicopter has been modified as required by
Robinson R44 Service Letter SL-37, dated June 18, 2010, Compliance
Procedures, paragraphs 1. through 10.
(iv) Installing blades, P/N A016-6 or P/N C016-7, is terminating
action for the inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(4) of this AD.
(7) As an option for complying with paragraph (f)(3) of this AD,
you may perform a blade inspection by following the corresponding
provisions of SB-103A or SB-72A, both dated July 19, 2012, as
appropriate for your model helicopter.
(g) Special Flight Permits
Special flight permits will not be issued.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Fred Guerin,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
CA 90712; telephone (562) 627-5232; email fred.guerin@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.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-12-10 (76 FR 35330, June 17,
2011); corrected March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991), are approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(i) Additional Information
The Robinson letter titled ``Additional Information Regarding
Main Rotor Blade Skin Debonding,'' dated May 25, 2007, which is not
incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD,
contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance,
CA 90505; telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at https://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review a copy of this
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(j) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210: Main Rotor
Blades.
(k) 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 9, 2015.
(i) Robinson R44 Service Letter SL-37, dated June 18, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was previously approved
for IBR on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011); corrected
March 5, 2012 (77 FR 12991).
(i) Robinson R22 Service Bulletin SB-103, dated April 30, 2010.
(ii) Robinson R44 Service Bulletin SB-72, dated April 30, 2010.
(iii) Robinson R22 Service Letter SL-56B, dated April 30, 2010.
(iv) Robinson R44 Service Letter SL-32B, dated April 30, 2010.
(5) For Robinson service information identified in this AD,
contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance,
CA 90505; telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at https://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm.
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(7) 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 4, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28478 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P