5418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate for FCUs to use in managing 

IRR. 

Question 4: Should FCUs be limited to 

using interest rate swaps and interest rate 

caps to offset and manage IRR? Should 

interest rate swaps be limited to pay-fixed/ 

receive-floating instruments? What other 

limits should be established to ensure that an 

FCU does not transact interest rate 

derivatives in an amount greater than the 

level of its IRR exposure? 

There are numerous risks inherent in 

any derivatives activity, including 

market risk and counterparty risk. The 

constant fluctuation of the mark-tomarket value of a derivatives position 

represents the most significant market 

risk. Mark-to-market valuation requires 

the value of a derivatives instrument to 

be set at discrete points in time as 

prescribed by generally accepting 

accounting principles. This valuation 

represents the then-current market sales 

price for that instrument, which reflects 

any unrealized gain or loss for the FCU 

in the derivatives transaction. 

The Board is considering whether to 

establish exposure limits as a way to 

guard against such volatility in the 

value of a derivatives portfolio. For 

example, if an FCU experiences markto-market losses in excess of a specified 

threshold, NCUA could limit the FCU’s 

authority to transact derivatives. These 

limits may be based on the notional 

amount of a derivatives instrument or 

on its mark-to-market valuation. The 

Board notes that the third-party pilot 

program includes exposure limits that 

are based on the notional amount of the 

derivatives portfolio, expressed as a 

percentage of the credit union’s net 

worth. Some commenters to ANPR I, 

however, have suggested that exposure 

limits should be based on mark-tomarket valuation. 

Question 5: Should NCUA establish 

exposure limits for FCUs or should it require 

an FCU’s board of directors to establish 

exposure limits? Should there be limits on 

the aggregate amount of each type of 

derivatives instrument in the portfolio or on 

the aggregate amount of derivatives 

transacted with any counterparty? Should 

limits be based on the notional amount of a 

derivatives instrument, its mark-to-market 

valuation, or both? 

Another significant risk in derivatives 

activity is counterparty risk, also known 

as ‘‘default risk’’ or ‘‘credit risk.’’ 

Counterparty risk is the risk that losses 

will occur due to a counterparty’s 

failure to fulfill its obligations under the 

derivatives contract. The Board believes 

that, to manage counterparty risk, an 

FCU should, on an ongoing basis, 

monitor counterparties and their 

creditworthiness, as well as the credit 

risk mitigation features inherent in the 

derivatives transaction (e.g., margin 

requirements, daily valuations of 

collateral, and performance of third 

parties). 

Consistent with the need to carefully 

monitor credit features, the Board 

believes that counterparty risk can be 

substantially mitigated through effective 

collateral management. In derivatives 

transactions, parties may be required to 

post collateral to secure their obligations 

under the derivatives contract. Posting 

collateral protects either party in a 

derivatives transaction from the risk of 

loss, which may occur for a number of 

reasons including counterparty default. 

The Board, therefore, believes it is 

appropriate for an FCU to include the 

following collateral management 

standards in the related derivatives 

contract: 

• Bilateral collateral, in which both 

parties to a derivatives contract agree to 

post collateral to cover mark-to-market 

gains and losses. 

• Tri-party custody, in which posted 

collateral is delivered to a third party 

acting as custodian. 

• Zero thresholds, in which parties 

are required to post collateral at any 

level of loss over a minimum amount 

specified in the derivatives contract. 

• Restricting the type of assets used 

as posted collateral to instruments 

permitted for investment by an FCU. 

Question 6: Are there ways to mitigate 

counterparty risk besides posting collateral? 

Are there additional or alternate 

collateralization conditions that NCUA 

should require beyond those described in 

this ANPR? 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on January 26, 2012. 

Mary F. Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2092 Filed 2–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0085; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–SW–004–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) 

Model S–61A, D, E, L, N, NM, R, and 

V helicopters to require replacing each 

forward and aft fuel system 40 micron 

fuel filter element with a 10 micron fuel 

filter element. This proposed AD is 

prompted by a National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) review of inservice events where engine 

performance degradation occurred and 

the review determined that some of 

these events were caused by 

contaminants larger than 10 microns 

present in the engine fuel control units 

(FCUs). The proposed actions are 

intended to prevent particulate 

contamination in the FCU, which could 

lead to malfunction of an internal 

valve(s), power loss at a critical phase 

of flight, and loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://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 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 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 Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, 

Commercial Technical Support, 

mailstop s581a, 6900 Main St., 

Stratford, CT; telephone (203) 383–4866; 

email tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5419 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk 

Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; telephone (781) 238–7190; email 

kirk.gustafson@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 

We propose to adopt a new AD for the 

Sikorsky Model S–61A, D, E, L, N, NM, 

R, and V helicopters with a fuel system 

40 micron fuel filter element, part 

number (P/N) 52–0505–2 or 52–01064– 

1. This proposed AD would require 

replacing each forward and aft fuel 

system 40 micron fuel filter element 

with a 10 micron fuel filter element. 

This proposed AD was prompted by an 

NTSB review of in-service events 

involving Sikorsky S–61 model 

helicopters where engine performance 

degradation occurred. The review 

determined that contaminants larger 

than 10 microns entering the engine 

FCU can migrate to the internal servo 

valves and the pressuring regulating 

valve, causing them to malfunction. 

Malfunction of these valves can result in 

abnormal engine operation and loss of 

power. The NTSB conducted this 

review as a part of its investigation of an 

accident involving a Sikorsky S–61 

model helicopter. During disassembly 

and examination of the FCUs in the 

accident helicopter, the NTSB found 

trace levels of contamination in each 

FCU, indicating the filters in the fuel 

supply system did not completely filter 

contaminants from the fuel. The NTSB 

stated that no evidence exists that 

contamination contributed to the 

accident, but concluded that using fuel 

system 10 micron fuel filters could 

reduce the risk of engine performance 

degradation occurring due to fuel 

contamination. This condition of 

particulate contamination in the FCU, if 

not corrected, could lead to malfunction 

of an internal valve, power loss at a 

critical phase of flight, and loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all known relevant 

information and determined that an 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of 

these same type designs. 

Related Service Information 

We reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) No. 61B30–16, dated 

February 2, 2010 (ASB No. 61B30–16), 

which supersedes ASB No. 61B28–1, 

dated January 15, 2010 (ASB No. 

61B28–1). ASB No. 61B28–1 specified 

replacing the forward and aft fuel 

system 40 micron fuel filter elements 

with 10 micron fuel filter elements at 

the next scheduled inspection or within 

150 flight hours from the issuance of the 

ASB. ASB 61B30–16 retains the same 

instructions as ASB 61B28–1, but 

deletes the compliance time ‘‘at the next 

scheduled preventative maintenance 

inspection.’’ Also, ASB No. 61B30–16 

was issued because ASB No. 61B28–1 

was incorrectly numbered. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require, 

within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS), 

replacing each forward and aft fuel 

system 40 micron fuel filter element 

with a 10 micron fuel filter element. 

Thereafter, operators would only be 

permitted to install a fuel system 10 

micron fuel filter element when 

replacing the forward or aft fuel system 

fuel filter element. This proposed AD 

would also require re-identifying the 

fuel filter and the fuel control assembly. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

ASB 61B30–16 specifies complying 

with the instructions within 150 flight 

hours from the issuance of the ASB, but 

this proposed AD requires complying 

with the instructions within 150 hours 

TIS from the effective date of the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 78 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry. We estimate that operators 

may incur the following costs in order 

to comply with this AD. It would take 

approximately 4 work-hours to replace 

the fuel system fuel filters and reidentify the fuel tank fuel filter and fuel 

control assembly bracket. The average 

labor rate is $85 per work-hour and 

required parts will cost about $370 per 

helicopter. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of the proposed AD on 

U.S. operators would be $710 per 

helicopter and the total cost of this AD 

on U.S. operators would be $55,380. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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): 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0085; Directorate Identifier 

2011–SW–004–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S–61A, D, E, L, 

N, NM, R, and V helicopters with a fuel 

system 40 micron fuel filter element, part 

number (P/N) 52–0505–2 or 52–01064–1, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

contaminants present in the engine fuel 

control units (FCUs). This AD was prompted 

by a National Transportation Safety Board 

review of in-service events where engine 

performance degradation occurred. This 

condition could result in particulate 

contamination in the FCU, which could lead 

to malfunction of an internal valve, power 

loss at a critical phase of flight, and 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 

(1) Within 150 hours time-in-service, do 

the following: 

(i) Replace each forward and aft fuel 

system 40 micron fuel filter element with a 

10 micron fuel filter element, P/N AM52– 

01064–1. 

(ii) Re-identify the fuel filter, P/N 52– 

2145–009, and fuel control assembly bracket 

as follows: 

(A) On the fuel filter identification plate, 

cross out the last two digits (‘‘09’’) of the 

existing fuel filter P/N 52–2145–009, and 

replace those last two digits with ‘‘14’’ to reidentify the fuel filter as P/N 52–2145–014. 

(B) Change the existing fuel control 

assembly part number on the fuel control 

assembly bracket to re-identify it as follows: 

(1) Change fuel control assembly P/N 

S6130–63209–001 to P/N S6130–63209–041. 

(2) Change fuel control assembly P/N 

S6130–63209–002 to P/N S6130–63209–042. 

(3) Change fuel control assembly P/N 

S6130–63209–003 to P/N S6130–63209–043. 

(4) Change fuel control assembly P/N 

S6130–63209–004 to P/N S6130–63209–044. 

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Kirk Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, FAA,12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7190; email 

kirk.gustafson@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a Part 

119 operating certificate or under 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 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service 

Bulletin No. 61B30–16, dated February 2, 

1010, which is not incorporated by reference, 

contains additional information about the 

subject of this AD. For this service 

information, contact Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial 

Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 

Main St., Stratford, CT; telephone (203) 383– 

4866; email tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review 

copies of this information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137. 

(g) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 2800, Fuel system. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 23, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2421 Filed 2–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0083; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–022–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Aeronautical 

Accessories Inc. High Landing Gear 

Aft Crosstube Assembly 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

Aeronautical Accessories Inc. (AAI) 

High Landing Gear Aft Crosstube 

Assembly (aft crosstube) installed on 

certain Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. 

(Bell) and Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) model 

helicopters as an approved Bell part 

installed during production or based on 

a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). 

This proposed AD is prompted by three 

reports of failed crosstubes because of 

cracks. The proposed actions are 

intended to prevent failure of a 

crosstube, collapse of the landing gear, 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS