Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26901 

Foreign officials, Health professions, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Students. 

8 CFR Part 274a 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Employment, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, DHS is proposing to 

amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 214 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 

1184, 1186a,1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301– 

1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 

110 Stat. 3009–708; Pub. L. 106–386, 114 

Stat. 1477–1480; section 141 of the Compacts 

of Free Association with the Federated States 

of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and with the Government 

of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, 

respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 2. Section 214.2 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(9)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 214.2 Special requirements for 

admission, extension, and maintenance of 

status. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(9) * * * 

(iv) H–4 dependents. The spouse and 

children of an H nonimmigrant, if they 

are accompanying or following to join 

such H nonimmigrant in the United 

States, may be admitted, if otherwise 

admissible, as H–4 nonimmigrants for 

the same period of admission or 

extension as the principal spouse or 

parent. H–4 nonimmigrant status does 

not confer eligibility for employment 

authorization incident to status. An H– 

4 nonimmigrant spouse of an H–1B 

nonimmigrant may be eligible for 

employment authorization only if the 

H–1B nonimmigrant is the beneficiary 

of an approved Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker, or successor form, or the 

H–1B nonimmigrant’s period of stay in 

H–1B status in the United States is 

authorized under sections 106(a) and (b) 

of the American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-first Century Act 2000 (AC21), 

Pub. L. 106–313, as amended by the 21st 

Century Department of Justice 

Appropriations Authorization Act, 

Public Law 107–273. To request 

employment authorization, an eligible 

H–4 nonimmigrant spouse must file an 

Application for Employment 

Authorization, or a successor form, in 

accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13 and the 

form instructions. Such Application for 

Employment Authorization must be 

accompanied by documentary evidence 

establishing eligibility, including 

evidence that the principal H–1B is the 

beneficiary of an approved Immigrant 

Petition for Alien Worker or has been 

provided H–1B status under sections 

106(a) and (b) of AC21, as amended by 

the 21st Century Department of Justice 

Appropriations Authorization Act, the 

H–1B beneficiary is currently 

maintaining H–1B status, and the H–4 

nonimmigrant spouse has been admitted 

to the United States as an H–4 

nonimmigrant or granted an extension 

of H–4 status on that basis. 

* * * * * 

PART 274a—CONTROL OF 

EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 274a 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 

Title VII of Public Law 110–229; 48 U.S.C. 

1806; 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 4. Section 274a.12 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (c)(26), to read 

as follows: 

§ 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to 

accept employment. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(26) An H–4 nonimmigrant spouse of 

an H–1B nonimmigrant described as 

eligible for employment authorization in 

8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv). 

* * * * * 

Jeh Charles Johnson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10734 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0766; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NE–26–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. 

(P&WC) PT6A–114 and PT6A–114A 

turboprop engines. The NPRM proposed 

to require initial and repetitive 

borescope inspections (BSIs) of 

compressor turbine (CT) blades, and the 

removal from service of blades that fail 

inspection. The NPRM was prompted by 

several incidents of CT blade failure, 

causing power loss and in-flight 

shutdown of the engine resulting in four 

fatalities. This action revises the NPRM 

by adding a mandatory terminating 

action. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to 

prevent failure of CT blades, which 

could lead to damage to the engine and 

damage to the airplane. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the NPRM, we are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

the public the chance to comment on 

this proposed change. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by June 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Pratt & 

Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 MarieVictorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, 

J4G 1A1; phone: 800–268–8000; fax: 

450–647–2888; Internet: www.pwc.ca. 

You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, MA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0766; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) 

AD, the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information. The address for the Docket 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7154; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: robert.c.morlath@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0766; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NE–26–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all P&WC PT6A–114 and 

PT6A–114A turboprop engines. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 

64421). The NPRM proposed to require 

initial and repetitive BSIs of CT blades, 

and the removal from service of blades 

that fail inspection. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we 

received additional information as a 

result of comment responses and as part 

of an ongoing investigation. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Agreement With the Proposed AD 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) and Hawkins Aero agreed 

with the need for the AD action. 

Request To Harmonize 

TCCA requested that the Compliance 

section of this AD be revised to mandate 

that operators replace pre-P&WC Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A–72–1669 CT 

blades with single crystal CT blades 

within the next 36 months. TCCA’s AD 

CF 2013–21R1 mandates that operators 

replace all CT blades with new part 

number (P/N) single crystal CT blades 

within 36 months after the effective date 

of the AD to address the unsafe 

condition of CT blade failures due to 

creep. The NPRM does not mandate that 

new P/N single crystal CT blades be 

installed within a particular period of 

time. TCCA requested that we revise the 

FAA AD to better address the unsafe 

condition. 

We agree. We changed the 

Compliance paragraph to require that all 

CT blades be replaced with single 

crystal CT blades within 36 months after 

the effective date of this AD. 

Request To Remove Mandatory 

Upgrade 

Hawkins Aero and an individual 

commenter requested that the AD not 

require operators to upgrade to single 

crystal CT blades. Hawkins Aero stated 

that based on knowledge of previously 

conducted metallurgical examinations, 

certain operators experience higher 

levels of CT blade deterioration based 

on operating practices. The other 

commenter stated that low utilization 

operators may face a heavy economic 

burden in order to upgrade to the new 

single crystal CT blades. 

We partially agree. We disagree with 

allowing certain operators to not 

upgrade to single crystal CT blades 

because CT blade failure due to creep is 

a significant problem for this type 

design, and the unsafe condition 

identified in this AD must be corrected. 

We did not change the requirement to 

replace the CT blades. We agree that 

mandating the installation of single 

crystal CT blades will impose a 

significant economic burden on low 

utilization operators. As such, we are reopening the comment period for this AD 

to allow the public the chance to 

comment on the proposed changes. The 

additional economic costs for low 

utilization operators are included in the 

Costs of Compliance. 

Request To Change Borescope 

Inspection Requirements 

The same individual commenter 

requested a review and modification of 

the compliance time for the initial and 

repetitive BSIs for low-utilization 

operators. The commenter justified this 

request by stating that, ‘‘Since the vast 

majority of the 114A fleet is utilized in 

the relatively high utilization 

environment of commercial operation, 

based on an assumption of 500 hours 

annual utilization, the repetitive BSIs 

would be done on an annual basis’’. 

We do not agree. The creep condition 

addressed by this proposed AD is 

related to time in operation at high 

temperature and high power settings, 

not calendar time. We did not change 

the compliance time. 

Request To Change Definitions 

Paragraph 

Hawkins Aero requested that we 

revise the Definitions paragraph to 

include specific original equipment 

manufacturer and parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) P/Ns. The justification 

for this request is that the proposed AD 

does not specifically identify pre- and 

post-SB No. PT6A–72–1669 P/Ns and 

does not list PMA P/Ns. 

We partially agree. We agree that 

P/N identification is necessary. We 

identified what P/Ns can be installed 

during the compliance period and what 

P/Ns must be installed prior to the end 

of the 36-month compliance period. We 

disagree with listing all potential 

original equipment manufacturer and 

PMA P/Ns. We deleted the Definitions 

paragraph and expanded the 

Compliance paragraph to identify 

eligible P/Ns. 

Request To Include Two-Blade 

Metallurgical Examination 

TCCA and Hawkins Aero requested 

that the Compliance paragraph be 

changed to require operators to perform 

a two-blade metallurgical examination 

at each hot section interval (HSI). The 

reason for this request is that the P&WC 

maintenance manual recommends, and 

the TCCA AD currently requires, that 

operators perform a metallurgical 

evaluation of two CT blades at each HSI 

in lieu of replacing the entire set. Based 

on the deterioration of the microstructure observed in the two blade 

sample, a determination is made as to 

whether the remaining CT blades can 

continue in service. TCCA also 

requested that we revise the 

Applicability paragraph of the AD to 

clearly state that the CT blades be 

replaced or undergo metallurgical 

evaluation, repetitively, at each HSI. 

TCCA stated that the NPRM did not 

clearly state whether the evaluation was 

a one-time or a repetitive requirement 

and that without requiring the 

evaluation be made at each HSI our AD 

does not meet the basic intent of their 

AD, which was to detect the impending 

failure of the CT blades as a result of 

creep on all engines moving forward. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26903 

We partially agree. We agree with 

allowing operators to perform the 

metallurgical examination instead of 

replacing the entire set of CT blades at 

each HSI because the metallurgical 

evaluation is an approved method for 

determining if installed CT blades 

support continued safe operation. We 

also agree with repetitive replacement of 

CT blades at each HSI. 

We do not agree with requiring 

operators to perform the metallurgical 

examination at each HSI because new 

CT blades can be installed. We have 

determined that either performing the 

metallurgical examination or installing 

new CT blades will provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We changed 

the Compliance paragraphs to allow 

operators to perform the metallurgical 

examination or replace the entire set of 

CT blades with new blades at each HSI. 

Request Harmonization of Compliance 

Times 

The NTSB requested that the 

difference in compliance time for the 

BSI between the NPRM (78 FR 64421, 

October 29, 2013), the TCCA AD, and 

the P&WC SB be explained in further 

detail. The NTSB stated that P&WC SB 

No. PT6A–72–1669, Revision 9, dated 

June 28, 2013, includes a re-inspection 

interval for the repetitive BSIs of 400 

hours time-in-service (TIS) while the 

NPRM and the TCCA AD specify 500 

hours TIS. 

We do not agree. The 500 hour TIS 

inspection interval addresses the unsafe 

condition by providing an acceptable 

level of safety. We did not change the 

AD. 

Request To Add Repetitive Inspections 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

compliance paragraph of the proposed 

AD be revised to include repetitive BSIs 

and HSI metallurgical inspections for 

single crystal CT blades. The reason for 

this request is that the commenter does 

not believe that the repetitive 

inspections should be relaxed for the 

single crystal CT blades until more data 

can be gathered about their 

performance. Reference was made to an 

engine failure that occurred on an 

engine with single crystal CT blades as 

evidence that while the design is an 

improvement on previous blade 

versions they are not immune to failure. 

We do not agree with mandating that 

the new CT blades be subjected to an 

inspection program designed for a 

different blade design and P/N. The 

investigation into single crystal CT 

blade failures has not been completed 

and therefore, the need for additional 

corrective action has not been 

determined. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Add Additional Inspection 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Compliance paragraph be changed to 

include platform gap inspections as well 

as installation instructions to ensure the 

proper platform gap is achieved during 

HSI for P&WC single crystal CT blades, 

P/N 3072791–01. This change was 

justified because single crystal CT 

blades, P/N 3072791–01 and P/N 

3072791–02, have different blade 

platform gap tolerances. The P/N 

3072791–01 tolerances may lead to a 

smaller gap between blade platforms 

than on the P/N 3072791–02 blades 

leading to a potential failure of the CT 

blade. 

We do not agree. There have been no 

unsafe conditions identified concerning 

the platform gap dimensions that would 

warrant this change. We did not change 

the AD. 

Request Revision to Economic 

Evaluation 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

economic evaluation section of the AD 

include foreign-registered products and 

corresponding revisions to the 

compliance section. This request was 

justified because accounting for foreignregistered products would increase the 

projected cost for the AD; additionally, 

the commenter recommends that we 

revise the compliance paragraph and 

include the additional costs for all 

additional actions. 

We partially agree. We agree with 

revising the Costs of Compliance to 

include any changes that are made to 

the compliance paragraph. We disagree 

with including foreign-registered 

products in the Costs of Compliance 

because we do not consider the cost of 

AD actions for foreign-registered 

products. We changed the AD to 

account for Compliance paragraph 

changes in the Costs of Compliance. 

Request Addition of Cockpit Placard 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Compliance paragraph of the proposed 

AD be revised to include the installation 

of a placard in the cockpit alerting the 

pilot to various operational limits and 

re-iterating warnings from the engine 

and aircraft Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICAs). The reason given 

for this request is that the current 

guidance for pilots and maintenance 

personnel is not sufficient to prevent the 

aircraft from being operated beyond its 

published limits. Additionally, there are 

certain procedures that the pilots, 

operators, and maintenance personnel 

can perform to ensure continued safe 

operation. 

We do not agree. Including 

instructions for aircraft operation does 

not fall within the guidelines of the AD 

action. We discussed this comment with 

the appropriate aircraft certification 

office. 

Request Revision to Optional 

Terminating Action 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Optional Terminating Action paragraph 

be revised to include guidance for 

operators on whether or not to install 

single crystal CT blades, based on 

operational history and the cost of parts. 

This request is justified based on 

historical differences between the CT 

blade deterioration experienced by 

certain operators and the costs of the 

new CT blades. 

We do not agree. Providing guidance 

to operators based on blade 

deterioration vs. cost of replacement is 

contrary to the intent of addressing the 

unsafe condition. We did not change the 

AD. 

Request Revision to Compliance 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Compliance paragraph be revised to 

state that cracked, stretched, sulfidated, 

or abnormal blades should be removed 

from service. A justification for this 

request was not provided. 

We do not agree. The engine ICA 

provide data for serviceable limits for all 

engine components. We did not change 

the AD. 

Request Revision to Compliance 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Compliance paragraph be revised to 

provide a recommendation that the 

repetitive BSIs be scheduled to coincide 

with pre-existing fuel nozzle 

inspections and to state the maximum 

allowable HSI. The reason for this 

request is that fuel nozzle inspection 

intervals match mandated BSI intervals. 

The HSI recommendation is 1,800 

hours. 

We do not agree. The HSI 

recommendations are stated in the ICA 

and providing guidance on scheduling 

of maintenance actions does not support 

an AD action intended to address an 

unsafe condition in an aircraft, aircraft 

engine, propeller, etc. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request Revision to Compliance 

Hawkins Aero requested that the 

Compliance paragraph be revised to 

include CT disk and blade inspection 

intervals and requirements from the 

overhaul manual. The reason for this 

change is to provide background 

information for operators. 

We do not agree. Restating 

requirements that are available to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

operators is redundant. We did not 

change the AD. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this SNPRM 

because we evaluated all the relevant 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition described previously is likely 

to exist or develop in other products of 

the same type design. Certain changes 

described above expand the scope of the 

NPRM (78 FR 64421, October 29, 2013). 

As a result, we have determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the NPRM, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this SNPRM and 

the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between This SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

The service information requires that 

all operators perform metallurgical 

examinations of the CT blades at HSI 

while the proposed AD allows for either 

removal of the CT blades from service 

at HSI or performance of the 

metallurgical examination. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect about 300 engines installed 

on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it would take about 4 

hours per engine to perform the 

required inspection and 8 hours to 

perform parts replacement. The average 

labor rate is $85 per hour. Required 

parts would cost about $59,334 per 

engine. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this proposed AD on 

U.S. operators to be $18,106,200. 

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 above, 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 Alaskato 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. 

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): 

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0766; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NE–26–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by June 26, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney 

Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A–114 and PT6A– 

114A turboprop engines. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by several 

incidents of compressor turbine (CT) blade 

failure, causing power loss and in-flight 

shutdown of the engine resulting in four 

fatalities. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

failure of CT blades, which could lead to 

damage to the engine and damage to the 

airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) For engines that have CT blades 

installed other than CT blades, part numbers 

(P/Ns) 3072791–01 or 3072791–02, perform 

the following actions: 

(i) Within 150 operating hours after the 

effective date of this AD, perform a borescope 

inspection (BSI) of CT blades for engines 

with 500 or more hours time-since-new that 

have not been previously inspected or timesince-last-inspection (TSLI). 

(ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection in 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD within 500 

flight hours TSLI. 

(iii) During the next hot section inspection 

(HSI) after the effective date of this AD, and 

each HSI thereafter, replace the complete set 

of CT blades with any of the following: 

(A) New CT blades; 

(B) CT blades that have passed a two-blade 

metallurgical examination in accordance 

with paragraph 3.B. of P&WC Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A–72–1669, Revision 9, 

dated June 28, 2013; or 

(C) P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/Ns 

3072791–01 or 3072791–02. 

(2) Reserved. 

(f) Mandatory Terminating Action 

Within 36 months after the effective date 

of this AD, replace the complete set of CT 

blades with single crystal CT blades, P/Ns 

3072791–01 or 3072791–02. 

(g) Credit for Previous Action 

If you performed P&WC SB No. PT6A–72– 

1669, Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013, or 

earlier versions, you have met the initial 

inspection requirements of this AD. 

However, you must still comply with the 

repetitive inspection requirement of 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7154; fax: 781–238–7199; 

email: robert.c.morlath@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation AD CF–2013–21R1, dated October 

31, 2013, for more information. You may 

examine AD CF–2013–21R1 in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26905 

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0766-0002. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada 

Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, 

Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800–268– 

8000; fax: 450–647–2888; Internet: 

www.pwc.ca. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 18, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09929 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0219; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NE–04–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

S.A. Turboshaft Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Turbomeca S.A. Makila 2A and Makila 

2A1 turboshaft engines. This proposed 

AD was prompted by failure of two 

high-pressure (HP) fuel pumps that 

resulted in engine in-flight shutdowns. 

This proposed AD would require initial 

and repetitive visual inspections, and 

replacement of the splines of the HP 

fuel pump/metering valve and the 

module M01 drive gear, if necessary. We 

are proposing this AD to prevent failure 

of the HP fuel pump, which could lead 

to an in-flight shutdown, damage to the 

engine, and forced landing or accident. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca, 

S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 

(0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 

(0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0219; 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 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI), the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 

will be available in the AD docket 

shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James E. Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: (781) 238–7742; fax: (781) 238– 

7199; email: James.E.Gray@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0219; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NE–04–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD 2014– 

0059, dated March 10, 2014 (referred to 

hereinafter as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

Two uncommanded in-flight shutdowns on 

Makila 2A/2A1 engines have been reported. 

The results of the technical investigations 

concluded that these events were caused by 

deterioration of the splines on the highpressure (HP) fuel pump drive link, which 

eventually interrupted the fuel supply to the 

engine. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to further cases of 

uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown, 

and may ultimately lead to an emergency 

landing. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

failure of the HP fuel pump, which 

could lead to an in-flight shutdown, 

damage to the engine, and forced 

landing or accident. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0219. 

Relevant Service Information 

Turbomeca S.A. has issued 

Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 

298 73 2818, Version F, dated March 5, 

2014. The MSB describes procedures for 

cleaning and visually inspecting the 

splines of the HP fuel pump/metering 

valve and the module M01 drive gear for 

wear, corrosion, scaling, pitting, and 

chafing. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of France, and is 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with the European 

Community, EASA has notified us of 

the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing 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 

products of the same type design. This 

proposed AD would require initial and 

repetitive visual inspections, and 

replacement of the splines of the HP 

fuel pump/metering valve and the 

module M01 drive gear, if necessary. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 8 engines installed on helicopters 

of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it 

would take about 2 hours per engine to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS