This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

48599 

Vol. 78, No. 154 

Friday, August 9, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1285; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–073–AD; Amendment 

39–17544; AD 2013–16–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

Deutschland GmbH Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH 

(Eurocopter) Model BO–105A, BO– 

105C, BO–105LS A–1, BO–105LS A–3, 

and BO–105S helicopters. This AD 

requires inspecting for debonding of the 

erosion protective shell (abrasion strip) 

on the leading edge of each main rotor 

blade. This AD was prompted by the 

discovery of abrasion strip debonding 

during an inspection on one Model BO– 

105 helicopter and also by an incident 

on a second Model BO–105 helicopter 

that lost its abrasion strip in-flight. The 

actions of this AD are intended to detect 

debonding of the main rotor blade 

abrasion strip, which could lead to an 

unbalanced main rotor, high vibrations, 

damage to the tail boom or tail rotor, 

and loss of control of the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this 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 http:// 

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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

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, the foreign 

authority AD, any incorporated-byreference 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: Matt 

Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone 

(817) 222–5110; email 

matthew.fuller@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On December 6, 2011, at 76 FR 76068, 

the Federal Register published our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 to include an AD that would apply 

to Eurocopter Model BO–105A, BO– 

105C, BO–105LS A–1, BO–105LS A–3, 

and BO–105S helicopters. The NPRM 

proposed to require, within 50 hours 

time-in-service (TIS), inspecting for 

debonding of the abrasion strip along 

the leading edge of certain partnumbered main rotor blades with a 

main rotor blade abrasion strip that was 

replaced between September 2006 and 

March 2010. If there is debonding in any 

area of the abrasion strip, the NPRM 

proposed to require, before further 

flight, replacing the main rotor blade. 

On December 19, 2012, at 77 FR 

75073, the Federal Register published 

our supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), 

which proposed to revise some of the 

actions of the NPRM. The SNPRM 

proposed clarifying that the inspection 

method would be a tap inspection and 

proposed clarifying the replacement 

date range of the applicable abrasion 

strips to be inclusive of September 1, 

2006 through March 31, 2010. 

The NPRM and SNPRM were 

prompted by Emergency AD No. 2010– 

0216–E, dated October 21, 2010 (and 

corrected October 29, 2010), issued by 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union. EASA advises that during an 

inspection on a BO105 helicopter, 

debonding was found on the erosion 

protective shell of a main rotor blade, 

and investigation showed the debonding 

was caused by incorrect installation of 

the erosion protective shell. In addition, 

EASA states that an incident occurred 

where a second BO105 helicopter lost 

its erosion protective shell during hover 

flight. EASA advises that this condition, 

if not corrected, could result in loss of 

the main rotor blade erosion protective 

shell during flight, leading to an 

unbalanced main rotor and high 

vibrations, which could damage the tail 

boom or tail rotor or result in loss of tail 

rotor control and loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD, but 

we did not receive any comments on the 

NPRM (76 FR 76068, December 6, 2011) 

or the SNPRM (77 FR 75073, December 

19, 2012). 

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 the 

EASA AD. We are issuing this AD 

because we evaluated all information 

provided by EASA and determined the 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other helicopters of 

these same type designs and that air 

safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD requirements as 

proposed. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

EASA AD 

The differences between this AD and 

the EASA AD are: 

• The EASA AD allows compliance 

within ‘‘10 flight hours, or 4 flight 

cycles, or 4 weeks, whichever occurs 

first,’’ and this AD requires compliance 

within 50 hours TIS. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• The EASA AD allows you to replace 

the main rotor blade erosion protective 

shell if debonding is detected, and this 

AD requires you to replace the main 

rotor blade with an airworthy main rotor 

blade if debonding is detected. 

• The EASA AD is applicable to the 

Model BO105 D helicopter; however, 

this AD does not include this model 

because it does not have a type 

certificate in the U.S. 

Related Service Information 

Eurocopter has issued Emergency 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB 

BO105–10–124, dated July 14, 2010, for 

the Model BO105 helicopter, with a 

main rotor blade, part number (P/N) 

105–15103, 105–15141, 105– 

15141V001, 105–15143, 105–15150, 

105–15150V001, 105–15152, 105– 

81013, 105–87214, 1120–15101, or 

1120–15103, where the main rotor blade 

erosion protective shell was replaced 

between September 2006 and March 

2010. Eurocopter also issued Emergency 

ASB No. ASB–BO105LS–10–12, dated 

July 14, 2010, for the Model BO105LS 

A–3 helicopter, with a main rotor blade, 

P/N 105–15141, where the main rotor 

blade erosion protective shell was 

replaced between September 2006 and 

March 2010. Both Emergency ASBs 

exclude helicopters from this inspection 

if each main rotor blade was inspected 

at the last 600 flight hour inspection and 

no debonding was detected during the 

inspection. Both Emergency ASBs 

specified a one-time inspection of the 

main rotor blades within the next 50 

flight hours to determine if debonding 

of the main rotor blade erosion 

protective shell has occurred. 

Eurocopter subsequently issued 

Emergency ASB No. ASB BO105–10– 

124, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010, 

and Emergency ASB No. ASB– 

BO105LS–10–12, Revision 1, dated 

October 20, 2010. These service 

bulletins specify the same inspection 

requirements as the original service 

bulletins, but revise the inspection 

compliance time from 50 flight hours to 

10 flight hours. EASA classified these 

service bulletins as mandatory and 

issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2010– 

0216–E, dated October 21, 2010 

(corrected October 29, 2010), to ensure 

the continued airworthiness of these 

helicopters. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

97 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We 

estimate that operators may incur the 

following costs in order to comply with 

this AD. It will take about 1.0 work-hour 

per helicopter to perform the inspection 

at an average labor rate of $85 per workhour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of the inspection on 

U.S. operators will be $8,245 or $85 per 

helicopter. If there is debonding, we 

estimate that it will take about 2 workhours to replace a main rotor blade and 

required parts will cost $114,182, for a 

total cost of $114,352 per blade. We 

have no way of determining how many 

operators will incur replacement costs. 

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 

helicopters 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 

■ 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): 

2013–16–06 Eurocopter Deutschland 

GmbH: Amendment 39–17544; Docket 

No. FAA–2011–1285; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–073–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model BO–105A, BO– 

105C, BO–105LS A–1, BO–105LS A–3, and 

BO–105S helicopters, with a main rotor 

blade, part number 105–15103, 105–15141, 

105–15141V001, 105–15143, 105–15150, 

105–15150V001, 105–15152, 105–81013, 

105–87214, 1120–15101, or 1120–15103; 

where the main rotor blade erosion protective 

shell (abrasion strip) was replaced between 

September 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010, 

inclusive; certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

debonding of a main rotor blade erosion 

protective shell (abrasion strip). This 

condition could result in loss of the abrasion 

strip and an unbalanced main rotor, high 

vibration, damage to the tail boom or tail 

rotor, and loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective September 13, 

2013. 

(d) 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. 

(e) Required Actions 

(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service, 

inspect the main rotor blade for debonding of 

the erosion protective shell by tap testing the 

abrasion strip of the leading edge of each 

main rotor blade. 

(2) If the abrasion strip is debonding in any 

area, before further flight, replace the main 

rotor blade. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, 

Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety 

Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; 

email matthew.fuller@faa.gov. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 48601 

(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. 

(g) Additional Information 

(1) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service 

Bulletin No. ASB BO105–10–124, Revision 1, 

dated October 18, 2010, and No. ASB– 

BO105LS–10–12, Revision 1, dated October 

20, 2010, which are not incorporated by 

reference, contain additional information 

about the subject of this AD. For service 

information identified in this 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 http:// 

www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may 

review a copy of the service information at 

the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

Emergency AD No. 2010–0216–E, dated 

October 21, 2010 (corrected October 29, 

2010). You may view the EASA AD on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in 

Docket No. FAA–2011–1285. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6210, Main Rotor Blades. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 31, 

2013. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19158 Filed 8–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 764 and 766 

[Docket No. 120207107–3621–02] 

RIN 0694–AF59 

Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary 

Self-Disclosures and Revised Notice of 

the Institution of Administrative 

Enforcement Proceedings 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule requires that the 

final, comprehensive narrative account 

required in voluntary self-disclosures 

(VSDs) of violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) be 

received by the Office of Export 

Enforcement (OEE) within 180 days of 

OEE’s receipt of the initial VSD 

notification. This rule also authorizes 

the use of delivery services other than 

registered or certified mail for providing 

notice of the issuance of a charging 

letter instituting an administrative 

enforcement proceeding under the EAR. 

It also removes the phrase ‘‘if delivery 

is refused’’ from a provision related to 

determining the date that notice of a 

charging letter’s issuance is served 

based on an attempted delivery to the 

respondent’s last known address. The 

Bureau of Industry and Security is 

making these changes to be better able 

to resolve administrative enforcement 

proceedings in a timely manner and 

provide more efficient notice of 

administrative charging letters. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Special Agent Richard Jereski, 

Investigations Division, Office of Export 

Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, US Department of Commerce, 

Room H4514, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Tel: (202) 482–5036. 

Facsimile: (202) 482–5889. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS), Office of Export Enforcement 

(OEE), investigates possible violations of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) and orders, licenses, and 

authorizations issued thereunder. These 

investigations may result in allegations 

of violations that may be settled, 

adjudicated in an administrative 

enforcement proceeding, or referred to 

the Department of Justice for possible 

criminal prosecution. On November 7, 

2012, BIS published a proposed rule (77 

FR 66777) that set forth three changes to 

the EAR, which are being implemented 

with some revisions here. One change 

addresses voluntary self-disclosures in 

connection with OEE’s conduct of 

investigations. The other two changes 

address service of notice in 

administrative enforcement 

proceedings. This rule also makes nonsubstantive changes to the layout of the 

regulations to improve readability. 

Deadline for Completing the Narrative 

Account Portion of a Voluntary SelfDisclosure 

Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a 

procedure whereby parties that believe 

they may have committed a violation of 

the EAR can voluntarily disclose the 

facts of potential violations to OEE. 

Such disclosures that meet the 

requirements of § 764.5 typically are 

afforded ‘‘great weight’’ by BIS relative 

to other mitigating factors in 

determining what administrative 

sanctions, if any, to seek. Section 764.5 

of the EAR requires an initial 

notification, which is to include a 

description of the general nature and 

extent of the suspected violations and is 

to be made as soon as possible after the 

violations are discovered, and is 

followed by a thorough review and the 

completion and submission of a 

narrative account of the suspected 

violations, including providing all 

relevant documentation. If the person 

making the initial notification 

subsequently completes and submits the 

narrative account, the disclosure is 

deemed to have been submitted to OEE 

on the date of the initial notification. 

The date of the initial notification may 

be significant because information 

provided to OEE may be considered a 

voluntary disclosure only if the 

information ‘‘is received by OEE for 

review prior to the time that OEE or 

another United States Government 

agency has learned of the same or 

substantially similar information from 

another source and has commenced an 

investigation or inquiry in connection 

with that information.’’ (15 CFR 

764.5(b)(3)). This rule adds a 

requirement that the completed 

narrative account be received by BIS 

within 180 days of BIS’s receipt of the 

initial notification for initial 

notifications received on or after the 

effective date of this rule. 

The Director of OEE may extend this 

180-day time deadline at his or her 

discretion if US Government interests 

would be served by an extension or 

upon a showing by the party making the 

disclosure that more time is reasonably 

necessary to complete the narrative 

account. In response to public 

comments discussed below, this final 

rule includes some greater detail about 

what a request to extend the 180-day 

deadline should contain. Such requests 

should show specifically that the person 

making the request: (1) Began its review 

promptly after discovery of the 

violations; (2) has been conducting its 

review and preparation of the narrative 

account as expeditiously as can be 

expected, consistent with the need for 

completeness and accuracy; (3) 

reasonably needs the requested 

extension despite having acted 

consistently with (1) and (2); and (4) has 

considered whether interim compliance 

or other corrective measures may be 

needed and has undertaken such 

measures as appropriate to prevent 

recurring or additional violations. Such 

requests also should set out a proposed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES