Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60789 

under § 1277.25 of this part, and, if such 

transfer is allowed, shall specify the 

procedures to effect such transfer, and 

provide that the transfer shall be 

undertaken only in accordance with 

§ 1277.25; 

(4) Shall specify that the stock of the 

Bank may be traded only among the 

Bank and its members, and former 

members; 

(5) May provide for a minimum 

investment based on investment in 

Class B stock that is lower than a 

minimum investment based on 

investment in Class A stock, provided 

that the level of investment is sufficient 

for the Bank to comply with its 

regulatory capital requirements; 

(6) Shall specify the fee, if any, to be 

imposed upon cancellation of a request 

to redeem Bank stock or upon 

cancellation of a request to withdraw 

from membership; and 

(7) Shall specify the period of notice 

that the Bank will provide before the 

Bank, on its own initiative, determines 

to repurchase any excess Bank stock. 

(e) Termination of membership. The 

capital plan shall address the manner in 

which the Bank will provide for the 

disposition of its capital stock that is 

held by institutions that terminate their 

membership, and the manner in which 

the Bank will liquidate claims against 

such institutions, including claims 

resulting from prepayment of advances 

prior to their stated maturity. 

§ 1277.29 Amendments to a Bank’s capital 

plan. 

(a) In general. A Bank’s board of 

directors shall approve any amendments 

to the Bank’s capital plan and submit 

such amendment to the Director for 

approval. No such amendment may take 

effect until it has been approved by the 

Director. 

(b) Submission of amendments for 

approval. Any request for approval of 

capital plan amendments should be 

submitted to the Deputy Director for the 

Division of Federal Home Loan Bank 

Regulation and should include the 

following: 

(1) The name of the Bank making the 

request and the name, title, and contact 

information of the official filing the 

request; 

(2) The name, title and contact 

information of the staff member(s) 

whom FHFA may contact for additional 

information; 

(3) A certification by an executive 

officer of the Bank with knowledge of 

the facts that the representations made 

in the request are accurate and 

complete. The following form of 

certification may be used: ‘‘I hereby 

certify that the statements contained in 

the submission are true and complete to 

the best of my knowledge. [Name and 

Title]’’; 

(4) A written, narrative description of 

the proposed amendments to the Bank’s 

capital plan and a discussion of the 

Bank’s reasons for the proposed 

changes; 

(5) The amended capital plan as 

approved by the Bank’s board of 

directors; 

(6) A version of the Bank’s capital 

plan showing all proposed changes to 

its previously approved capital plan; 

(7) Resolutions of the Bank’s board of 

directors: 

(i) Approving the proposed capital 

plan amendments; and 

(ii) Authorizing the filing of the 

application for approval of the 

amendments and concurring in 

substance with the supporting 

documentation provided; 

(8) An opinion of counsel 

demonstrating that the proposed 

amendments comply with the Bank Act, 

FHFA regulations and any other 

applicable law or regulation. If the 

amendments would be identical in 

substance to provisions approved for 

other Banks’ capital plans, a Bank’s 

legal analysis may reference the other 

capital plans that contain the provisions 

in question; 

(9) An analysis of the effect of the 

proposed amendments, if any, on the 

Bank’s capital levels and the Bank’s 

ability to meet its regulatory capital 

requirements; 

(10) Pro forma financial statements 

from the end of the quarter immediately 

prior to the date of submission of the 

request for approval through at least the 

end of the next two years, showing the 

impact of the proposed changes, if any, 

on capital levels; and 

(11) A discussion of and an 

explanation for changes to the Bank’s 

strategic plan, if any, which may be 

related to the capital plan amendments. 

(c) FHFA consideration of the 

amendment. The Director may approve 

any amendment to a Bank’s capital plan 

as submitted or may condition approval 

on the Bank’s compliance with certain 

stated conditions. 

Dated: September 30, 2104. 

Melvin L. Watt, 

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23799 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0442; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–SW–24–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Various 

Sikorsky-Manufactured Transport and 

Restricted Category Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 

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

(serial number 61454), R, and V; 

Croman Corporation Model SH–3H, 

Carson Helicopters, Inc., Model S–61L; 

Glacier Helicopters, Inc. Model CH–3E; 

Robinson Air Crane, Inc. Model CH–3E, 

CH–3C, HH–3C, and HH–3E; and Siller 

Helicopters Model CH–3E and SH–3A 

helicopters. This SNPRM is prompted 

by comments received in response to a 

previous SNPRM and a reevaluation of 

the relevant data. This SNPRM retains 

the proposed actions in the previous 

SNPRM, provides an increased 

estimated cost of the main rotor shaft 

(MRS) replacement, and clarifies some 

of the language in the Required Actions 

section of the AD. The proposed actions 

are intended to prevent MRS structural 

failure, loss of power to the main rotor, 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by December 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

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

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street 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 service information identified in 

this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation, Attn: Manager, 

Commercial Technical Support, 

mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

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

email address tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, 

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

review a copy of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Lee, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 

238–7161, fax (781) 238–7170, email 

jeffrey.lee@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 

On April 10, 2008, we issued a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (73 FR 

21556, April 22, 2008) proposing to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD for 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S– 

61A, D, E, L, N, NM, R, and V; Croman 

Corporation Model SH–3H, Carson 

Helicopters, Inc. Model S–61L; Glacier 

Helicopters, Inc. Model CH–3E; 

Robinson Air Crane, Inc. Model CH–3E, 

CH–3C, HH–3C and HH–3E; and Siller 

Helicopters Model CH–3E and SH–3A 

helicopters. The NPRM proposed 

superseding AD 98–26–02 (63 FR 69177, 

December 16, 1998), which only applies 

to the affected Sikorsky model 

helicopters. The NPRM proposed 

retaining some of the requirements of 

AD 98–26–02 but also proposed 

determining a new retirement life for 

each MRS, removing from service any 

MRS with oversized dowel pin bores, 

and expanding the applicability to 

include the restricted category models 

that were inadvertently omitted from 

AD 98–26–02. The NPRM was prompted 

by the manufacturer’s reevaluation of 

the retirement life for the MRS based on 

torque, ground-air-ground cycle, and 

fatigue testing. Those proposals were 

intended to prevent MRS structural 

failure, loss of power to the main rotor, 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

On April 16, 2013, we issued an 

SNPRM (78 FR 24363, April 25, 2013) 

that proposed to revise the NPRM based 

on our review of the data and the 

comments received. The SNPRM 

proposed retaining the proposals in the 

NPRM and extending the hours time-inservice (TIS) required for identifying the 

MRS as a repetitive external lift (REL) 

MRS to coincide with the 

nondestructive inspection (NDI) to 

prevent repeated disassembly of the 

shaft. Also, the action proposed to 

extend the time required to replace the 

MRS and revise calculations for 

establishing the retirement life. 

Actions Since Previous SNPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the previous SNPRM 

(78 FR 24364, April 25, 2013), we have 

determined a need to revise the 

proposed requirements again based on 

our review of the data and the 

comments received. In addition to 

retaining the proposals in the previous 

SNPRM, this SNPRM changes the 

‘‘Costs of Compliance’’ to reflect an 

increased cost to replace an MRS. Also, 

paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the previous 

SNPRM provided that where there is no 

record of the hours TIS on an MRS, you 

may substitute the ‘‘helicopter’s hours 

TIS.’’ To clarify some of the wording for 

complying with the AD, this SNPRM 

proposes that you may substitute the 

‘‘helicopter’s hours TIS or the 

helicopter’s transmission hours TIS if 

both the shaft and transmission were 

installed new at the same time.’’ 

Because the proposed changes 

increase the economic burden on 

operators, we are reopening the 

comment period to allow the public to 

comment. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous SNPRM (78 

FR 24366, April 25, 2013). The 

following presents the comments 

received from two commenters and the 

FAA’s response to those comments. 

Request 

One commenter requested that we 

increase the life limits of modified REL 

shafts from 30,000 cycles to no less than 

100,000 cycles because the proposed 

limit of 30,000 REL lift cycles is 

unreasonable and contrary to the 

manufacturer’s current fatigue 

evaluation practices. The commenter 

stated the limit of 30,000 REL cycles 

ignores the crack-free service history for 

the modified MRS as well as several 

variables in operation. The commenter 

also stated the proposed requirements 

would impose an unacceptable punitive 

cost because the actual cost to replace 

an MRS is much higher than the cost 

identified in the SNPRM (78 FR 24366, 

April 25, 2013). 

We disagree. The commenter’s 

proposed limit of 100,000 REL lift 

cycles is based on the working SN curve 

from fatigue testing that showed test 

specimen failure at 200,000 individual 

fatigue cycles. The data assumes that 

only the 103% torque event creates shaft 

damage and that one REL lift cycle is 

the same as one fatigue cycle. This 

assumption is not correct. One REL lift 

cycle includes many damaging fatigue 

cycles associated with a logging flight 

spectrum not accounted for by the 

commenter. The 30,000 REL lift cycle 

life limit is based upon the working SN 

curve from the fatigue tests and the 

fatigue damage determined by the 

logging flight loading spectrum. It is not 

only based on using the working SN 

curve cycle limit at the torque level 

chosen by the commenter. However, we 

agree with the commenter that the 

SNPRM does not reflect an accurate cost 

to replace an MRS. We have revised the 

‘‘Costs of Compliance’’ section to reflect 

the current cost of the MRS. 

The commenter also requested that 

the AD measure the shaft life limit by 

transmission TIS instead of the 

helicopter’s TIS where no records exist 

for the main rotor shaft. The commenter 

states that the transmission TIS is a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60791 

better measure because most helicopters 

have more than 13,000 hours TIS. 

We partially agree. The requested 

change of language would only be 

accurate where both the shaft and 

transmission were installed new at the 

same time. This language would not be 

accurate where the transmission had 

been replaced earlier than the shaft and 

thus had a lower life than the shaft. 

Therefore, we have revised paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii) to include both ‘‘helicopter’s 

hours TIS’’ and ‘‘the helicopter’s 

transmission hours TIS if both the shaft 

and transmission were installed new at 

the same time’’ as options where no 

records exist for the main rotor shaft. 

The second commenter disagreed 

with determining pilot initial 

qualification by hours alone and 

suggested other methods. This comment 

appears to have been posted in error in 

this docket as it is not relevant to the 

SNPRM (78 FR 24366, April 25, 2013). 

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 helicopters 

of these same type designs. Certain 

changes described above expand the 

scope of the previous SNPRM (78 FR 

24363, April 25, 2013) by increasing the 

economic burden. 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. 

Related Service Information 

Sikorsky has issued Customer Service 

Notice (CSN) No. 6135–10A and 

Sikorsky Service Bulletin (SB) No. 

61B35–53A, both dated April 19, 2004. 

The CSN and the SB apply to Model S– 

61L, N, and NM (serial number (S/N) 

61454), and R series transport category 

helicopters; and S–61A, D, E, and V 

series restricted category helicopters. 

The CSN specifies replacing the 

planetary assembly and MRS assembly 

attaching hardware with high strength 

hardware. The CSN also specifies 

reworking the dowel retainer to increase 

hole chamfer and related countersink 

diameters. The SB specifies replacing 

the existing planetary matching plates 

with new steel matching plates during 

overhaul at the operator’s discretion. 

Also, Sikorsky has issued ASB No. 

61B35–69, dated April 19, 2004 (ASB 

61B35–69), which supersedes ASB 

61B35–68B. ASB 61B35–69 provides 

updated procedures for determining 

REL and Non-REL status, assigns new 

REL and Non-REL MRS retirement lives, 

and provides a method for marking the 

REL MRS. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain some 

of the requirements from AD 98–26–02 

(63 FR 69177, December 16, 1998): 

• Recording the number of external 

lift cycles (lift cycles) performed and the 

hours TIS. 

• Determining whether the MRS is 

REL or Non-REL. 

• Marking the REL MRS at the time 

of the NDI. 

• Conducting an NDI for shafts used 

in REL operations and replacing it if 

there is a crack. 

The proposed AD would also require 

the following: 

• When recording the number of 

hours TIS, using either the helicopter’s 

hours TIS or the helicopter’s 

transmission hours TIS if both the shaft 

and transmission were installed new at 

the same time where there is no record 

of the hours TIS on an individual MRS. 

• Calculating a 250-hour TIS moving 

average of lift cycles to determine 

whether the MRS is an REL MRS. 

• Determining a new retirement life 

for each MRS based on hours TIS and 

lift cycles. 

• Removing from service any MRS 

with oversized dowel pin bores. 

• Extending the retirement life of 

modified REL MRS from 2,200 hours 

TIS to 5,000 hours TIS but also 

implementing lift-cycle retirement lives. 

• Allowing the use of Revision A 

service information to modify the REL 

MRS for life limit determination. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 60 helicopters of U.S. 

registry. We estimate that operators may 

incur the following costs in order to 

comply with this proposed AD: It would 

take about 2.2 work hours to NDI an 

REL MRS at $85 per work hour plus a 

$50 consumable cost, for a total cost of 

$237 per helicopter and $14,220 for the 

U.S. fleet. It would take 2.2 work hours 

at $85 per work hour to replace an MRS, 

and parts would cost $81,216, for a total 

cost of $81,403 per helicopter. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed, I certify 

this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 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. Amend § 39.13 by removing 

Amendment 39–10943 (63 FR 69177, 

December 16, 1998), and adding the 

following new airworthiness directive 

(AD): 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; Croman 

Corporation; Carson Helicopters, Inc.; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Glacier Helicopters, Inc.; Robinson Air 

Crane, Inc.; and Siller Helicopters: 

Docket No. FAA–2008–0442; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–SW–24–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model S–61A, D, E, L, 

N, NM (serial number (S/N) 61454), R, V, 

CH–3C, CH–3E, HH–3C, HH–3E, SH–3A, and 

SH–3H helicopters with main rotor shaft 

(MRS), part number (P/N) S6135–20640–001, 

S6135–20640–002, or S6137–23040–001, 

installed, certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

MRS structural failure, loss of power to the 

main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

(c) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 98–26–02 (63 FR 

69177, December 16, 1998), Amendment 39– 

10943, Docket No. 96–SW–29–AD. 

(d) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 8, 

2014. 

(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) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS): 

(i) Create a component history card or 

equivalent record for each MRS. 

(ii) If there is no record of the hours TIS 

on an individual MRS, substitute the 

helicopter’s hours TIS or the helicopter’s 

transmission hours TIS if both the shaft and 

transmission were installed new at the same 

time. 

(iii) If the record of external lift cycles (lift 

cycles) on an individual MRS is incomplete, 

add the known number of lift cycles to a 

number calculated by multiplying the 

number of hours TIS of the individual MRS 

by the average lift cycles calculated 

according to the instructions in Section I of 

Appendix I of this AD or by a factor of 13.6, 

whichever is higher. An external lift cycle is 

defined as a flight cycle in which an external 

load is picked up, the helicopter is 

repositioned (through flight or hover), and 

the helicopter hovers and releases the load 

and departs or lands and departs. 

(iv) At the end of each day’s operations, 

record the number of lift cycles performed 

and the hours TIS. 

(2) Within 250 hours TIS, determine 

whether the MRS is a repetitive external lift 

(REL) or non-REL MRS. 

(i) Calculate the first moving average of lift 

cycles by following the instructions in 

Section I of Appendix I of this AD. 

(A) If the calculation results in 6 or more 

lift cycles per hour TIS, the MRS is an REL– 

MRS. 

(B) If the calculation results in less than 6 

lift cycles per hour TIS, the MRS is a NonREL MRS. 

(ii) If the MRS is a Non-REL MRS based on 

the calculation performed in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(2)(i), thereafter at intervals of 50 

hour TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles 

per hour TIS by following the instructions in 

Section II of Appendix 1 of this AD. 

(iii) Once an MRS is determined to be an 

REL MRS, you no longer need to perform the 

250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but 

you must continue to count and record the 

lift cycles and number of hours TIS. 

(iv) If an MRS is determined to be an REL 

MRS, it remains an REL MRS for the rest of 

its service life and is subject to the retirement 

times for an REL MRS. 

(3) Within 1,100 hours TIS: 

(i) Conduct a Non-Destructive Inspection 

for a crack on each MRS. If there is a crack 

in an MRS, before further flight, replace it 

with an airworthy MRS. 

(ii) If an MRS is determined to be an REL 

MRS, identify it as an REL MRS by etching 

‘‘REL’’ on the outside diameter of the MRS 

near the part S/N by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 

3.C., of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 

61B35–69, dated April 19, 2004. 

(4) Replace each MRS with an airworthy 

MRS on or before reaching the revised 

retirement life as follows: 

(i) For an REL MRS that is not modified by 

following Sikorsky Customer Service Notice 

(CSN) 6135–10, dated March 18, 1987, and 

ASB No. 61B35–53, dated December 2, 1981 

(unmodified REL MRS), the retirement life is 

30,000 lift cycles or 1,500 hours TIS, 

whichever occurs first. 

(ii) For an REL MRS that is modified by 

following Sikorsky CSN 6135–10, dated 

March 18, 1987, and Sikorsky ASB No. 

61B35–53 dated December 2, 1981, or CSN 

6135–10A, Revision A, and ASB 61B35–53A, 

Revision A, both dated April 19, 2004 

(modified REL MRS), the retirement life is 

30,000 lift cycles or 5,000 hours TIS, 

whichever occurs first. 

(iii) For a non-REL MRS, the retirement life 

is 13,000 hours TIS. 

(5) Establish or revise the retirement lives 

of the MRS as indicated in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) 

through (f)(4)(iii) of this AD by recording the 

new or revised retirement life on the MRS 

component history card or equivalent record. 

(6) Within 50 hours TIS, remove from 

service any MRS with oversized (0.8860’’ or 

greater diameter) dowel pin bores. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to 

Jeffrey Lee, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, 

telephone (781) 238–7161, fax (781) 238– 

7170, email jeffrey.lee@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under 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. 

(h) Additional Information 

(1) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation issued an 

All Operators Letter (AOL) CCS–61–AOL– 

04–0005, dated May 18, 2004, with an 

example and additional information about 

tracking cycles and the moving average 

procedure. This AOL is not incorporated by 

reference but contains additional information 

about the subject of this AD. 

(2) The Overhaul and Repair Instruction 

(ORI) Number 6135–281, Part B, Step 5, and 

ORI 6137–041, Section III, Oversize Dowel 

Pin Bore Repair and identified on the flange 

as TS–281 or TS–041–3, which is not 

incorporated by reference, contains 

additional information about the subject of 

this AD. 

(3) For more information about the AOL or 

the ORI, contact Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial 

Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 

Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 

383–4866, email address tsslibrary@

sikorsky.com, or at http://www.sikorsky.com. 

You may review a copy of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

Appendix I 

Section I: The first moving average of lift 

cycles per hour TIS 

The first moving average calculation is 

performed on the MRS assembly when the 

external lift component history card record 

reflects that the MRS assembly has reached 

its first 250 hours TIS. To perform the 

calculation, divide the total number of lift 

cycles performed during the first 250 hours 

TIS by 250. The result will be the first 

moving average calculation of lift cycles per 

hour TIS. 

Section II: Subsequent moving average of lift 

cycles per hour TIS 

Subsequent moving average calculations 

are performed on the MRS assembly at 

intervals of 50 hour TIS after the first moving 

average calculation. Subtract the total 

number of lift cycles performed during the 

first 50-hour TIS interval used in the 

previous moving average calculation from the 

total number of lift cycles performed on the 

MRS assembly during the previous 300 hours 

TIS. Divide this result by 250. The result will 

be the next or subsequent moving average 

calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS. 

Section III: Sample calculation for 

subsequent 50 hour TIS intervals 

Assume the total number of lift cycles for 

the first 50 hour TIS interval used in the 

previous moving average calculation = 450 

lift cycles and the total number of lift cycles 

for the previous 300 hours TIS = 2700 lift 

cycles. The subsequent moving average of lift 

cycles per hour TIS = (2700 ¥ 450) divided 

by 250 = 9 lift cycles per hour TIS. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6320, Main Rotor Gearbox. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60793 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 

19, 2014. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23585 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0537; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–AGL–38] 

Proposed Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Edgeley, ND 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish Class E airspace at Edgeley, 

ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to 

accommodate new Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Edgeley 

Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking 

this action to enhance the safety and 

management of Instrument Flight Rules 

(IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must 

identify the docket number FAA–2014– 

0537/Airspace Docket No. 13–AGL–38, 

at the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit comments through the 

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

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office between 

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Office (telephone 1–800– 

647–5527), is on the ground floor of the 

building at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul 

Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321– 

7654. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0537/Airspace 

Docket No. 13–AGL–38.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

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

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_

traffic/publications/airspace_

amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the office of 

the Central Service Center, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking 

(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport, 

Edgeley, ND, to accommodate new 

standard instrument approach 

procedures. Controlled airspace is 

needed for the safety and management 

of IFR operations at the airport. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 

7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and 

effective September 15, 2014, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (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); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

establish controlled airspace at Edgeley 

Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS