12648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Reserved 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Actions 

Within 30 days: 

(1) Create a component history card or 

equivalent record for each crosstube. 

Determine the number of landings on each 

crosstube and enter it on the component 

history card or equivalent record. If the 

number of landings is unknown, calculate 10 

landings per flight hour. 

(2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations 

section of the maintenance manual to reflect 

that crosstube, P/N D412–664–203, has a 

retirement life of 10,000 landings. 

(3) Remove from service any crosstube 

with a number of landings equal to or greater 

than 10,000. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing 

Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 

1600 Stewart Ave., suite 410, Westbury, New 

York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7300; fax 

(516) 794–5531. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(g) Additional Information 

(1) The subject of this AD is addressed in 

Transport Canada AD No. CF–2012–14R1, 

dated May 9, 2012. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 3213: Main Landing Gear Strut/Axle/ 

Truck. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 

18, 2013. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04223 Filed 2–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0159; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–SW–010–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson 

Helicopter Company 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Robinson Helicopter Company 

(Robinson) Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 

Beta, R22 Mariner, R44, and R44 II 

helicopters with certain main rotor 

blades (blade) installed. The existing AD 

currently requires inspecting each blade 

at the skin-to-spar line for debonding, 

corrosion, a separation, a gap, or a dent 

and replacing any damaged blade with 

an airworthy blade. Since we issued that 

AD, a terminating action for the 

inspection requirements of that AD has 

been developed. The proposed actions 

are intended to detect debonding of the 

blade skin, which could result in blade 

failure and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter, and to correct the unsafe 

condition by replacing the main rotor 

blades with new blades that do not 

require the AD inspection. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 26, 2013. 

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 Robinson 

Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport 

Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone 

(310) 539–0508; fax (310) 539–5198; or 

at http://www.robinsonheli.com/ 

servelib.htm. You may review a copy of 

service information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712; telephone (562) 627–5232; email 

fred.guerin@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 June 2, 2011, we issued AD 2011– 

12–10, amendment 39–16717 (76 FR 

35330, June 17, 2011) (AD 2011–12–10) 

for Robinson Model R22, R22A, R22 

Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters, with 

a blade, part number (P/N) A016–4; and 

Model R44 and R44 II helicopters, with 

a blade, P/N C016–2 or C016–5. We 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12649 

corrected a typographical error in AD 

2011–12–10 on March 5, 2012 (77 FR 

12991). AD 2011–12–10 requires a pilot 

check of the blade skin-to-spar joint area 

for any bare metal before the first flight 

of each day. That AD also requires, 

within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), 

and thereafter at 100-hour TIS intervals 

or at each annual inspection, or if any 

bare metal is found during the pilot 

check, inspecting each blade for 

corrosion, separation, a gap, or a dent by 

following certain procedures in 

Robinson R22 Service Bulletin SB–103, 

dated April 30, 2010, for Model R22 

series helicopters or Robinson R44 

Service Bulletin SB–72, dated April 30, 

2010, for Model R44 series helicopters. 

That AD also requires refinishing any 

bare metal before further flight and 

replacing any damaged blade with an 

airworthy blade. 

AD 2011–12–10 superseded AD 2007– 

26–12, Amendment 39–15314 (73 FR 

397, January 3, 2008) (AD 2007–26–12) 

which requires a one-time visual 

inspection for skin separation along the 

leading edge of the blade skin aft of the 

skin-to-spar bond line on the lower 

surface of each blade and in the tip cap 

area. AD 2007–26–12 also requires a 

‘‘tap test’’ for detecting a separation or 

void in both bonded areas, repainting 

any exposed area of the blades, and 

replacing any blade if separation or a 

void occurs. That AD was prompted by 

11 reports of blade debond, some 

occurring in flight and some found 

during routine maintenance. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2011–12–10, 

Robinson has developed replacement 

blades on both the R22 and R44 

helicopters, and we have determined 

that replacing P/N A016–2 and –4 

blades with P/N A016–6 blades for the 

Model R22 helicopter and P/N C016–2 

and –5 blades with P/N C016–7 blades 

for the Model R44 helicopter will 

constitute terminating action for all 

requirements of that AD. We have also 

determined that it is in the interest of 

safety that all blades are replaced within 

5 years. The actions of this AD are 

intended to detect debonding or a void 

in the blade, which could lead to failure 

of the blade and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. These actions 

will also correct the unsafe condition by 

replacing the main rotor blades with 

new blades that do not require the AD 

inspection. 

Also, since issuing AD 2011–12–10, 

we have received comments from 13 

commenters and have given due 

consideration to each one. We have 

identified seven unique issues and 

addressed those issues as follows: 

Three commenters stated that making 

a logbook entry each day showing the 

AD check for paint is unnecessary and 

burdensome. The commenters also 

stated it is the same importance as other 

pre-flight checks that are not 

documented. One commenter suggested 

replacing the daily check and logbook 

entry with a pre-flight check and no 

logbook entry. One commenter stated 

that ‘‘we need to trust the pilots and 

maintenance people to do their jobs and 

not add to this burden of it looks good 

on paper world.’’ We do not agree. FAA 

policy requires a logbook entry for 

checks performed pursuant to the 

directions of an AD. 

Four commenters stated it is not 

necessary to shorten the retirement life 

of main rotor blades by AD. They stated 

the cost is high compared to the safety 

benefit, it could put small operators out 

of business, and the problem is caused 

by poor inspection practices. One 

commenter added that routine 

inspections are performed before flight 

and if any defects were discovered that 

operator would be aware of it and not 

attempt flight until repairs were made. 

If operated in an environment where 

none of the causal factors exist, reliance 

on continued inspections is an adequate 

and appropriate long term solution to 

blade replacement. We do not agree. AD 

2011–12–10 does not decrease the 

retirement life of the affected blades. 

While this proposed AD supersedure 

would require blade life reduction and 

replacement, we are providing for 

public comment prior to adoption of the 

proposed AD. 

Three commenters expressed concern 

that the cost estimates for older R44 

Astro model helicopters is inaccurate, as 

these models must be refitted with 

hydraulic assisted controls before the 

new aluminum blades can be operated. 

They further stated that this 

modification can only be performed at 

the Robinson factory and the cost for 

shipping and overhaul is high. They 

question who will pay for the loss of 

income and state that mandating 

replacement of the –5 blade would have 

the unintended consequence of 

immediately grounding and placing an 

entire class of safe machines beyond 

economical repair. One of these 

commenters stated that replacing the 

blades on his R44 has been ‘‘financially 

devastating’’ due to both replacement 

costs and his loss of revenue, and 

believes Robinson should be responsible 

for these costs, not owners. 

We do not agree. We are aware that 

the replacement blades for the R44 

Astro are not compatible with a 

helicopter without hydraulic assisted 

controls, but we disagree that the R44 

Astro will be beyond economical repair 

as many R44 Astros have been refitted 

with hydraulics, and conversions occur 

often. AD 2011–12–10 estimated costs 

for replacing one blade if debonding 

was present, and did not address any 

costs to modify the helicopter to accept 

the new part-numbered blades 

manufactured by Robinson. The FAA 

does not concur with the commenter’s 

request that the FAA require the 

manufacturer to cover the cost of 

replacing the blades. The FAA 

recognizes that the general obligation of 

the operator to maintain aircraft in an 

airworthy condition is vital, but 

sometimes expensive. The FAA 

considers that, in the interest of 

maintaining safe aircraft, prudent 

operators would accomplish the 

required actions even if they were not 

required to do so by the AD. However, 

the manufacturer, not the FAA, 

determines if the manufacturer will 

cover the cost of implementing a 

particular action. Therefore, no change 

in this regard is necessary. 

One commenter requested the 

immediate adoption of an airworthiness 

directive requiring replacement of the 

main rotor blades, and expressed 

concern that the FAA was giving more 

consideration to any financial impact on 

Robinson than to the risk to the flying 

public. We do not agree that 

immediately requiring replacement of 

the blades is necessary, as we have 

determined that proper inspection is 

adequate to protect the safety of the fleet 

for the short term. This proposed AD to 

terminate the inspections by mandating 

blade replacement after five years is 

intended to allow time for blade 

manufacture, distribution, and 

installation without causing undue 

hardship to operations, and to protect 

the long term safety of the fleet. 

One commenter stated that the 

current method of detecting the 

debonding issue is acceptable provided 

the inspection is performed properly 

and repainted when necessary to 

prevent the bonding from being exposed 

to the elements. This commenter 

disagreed that the problem is not a 

manufacturing problem and expressed 

concern that the variance in design of 

the blades is contributing to the 

situation. The commenter questioned 

whether other manufacturers are having 

similar issues and whether the new –7 

replacement blades are produced under 

a different manufacturing process to 

ensure the current problem will be 

eliminated. The FAA disagrees that the 

cause of the debond is a failure of the 

manufacturing process. The debonding 

is being caused by the basic blade 

design, which allows erosion of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
12650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

bond line if left unprotected in an 

erosive environment. The replacement 

blades were redesigned using best 

practices, engineering integrity, and 

heightened oversight. While we believe 

the redesigned blades will correct the 

unsafe condition, the FAA cannot 

guarantee any design change will not, in 

the future, develop a problem that 

requires correction. 

One commenter noted that a previous 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) 

AD required a detailed inspection to 

determine blade airworthiness should 

any exposed blade skin aft of the skinto-spar bond line be found, and that AD 

2011–12–10 only requires refinishing 

the blade should the bond line be found 

to be exposed, without further 

inspection. The FAA agrees. Due to a 

typographical error in the AD, the 

requirement to skip further inspection 

prior to refinishing was caused by an 

incorrect reference to the refinishing 

paragraph instead of the inspection 

paragraph. A revision to AD 2011–12– 

10, Amendment 39–16717 (77 FR 

12991, March 5, 2012) was issued on 

January 3, 2012, so that the AD language 

now refers to the correct paragraph. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. 

Related Service Information 

We have reviewed the following 

Robinson service information: 

• Letter titled ‘‘Additional 

Information Regarding Main Rotor Blade 

Skin Debonding,’’ dated May 25, 2007, 

discussing blade skin debonding; 

• Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) 

changes to the Normal Procedures 

Section 4 and Systems Description 

Section 7, revised April 20, 2007, for 

each applicable model helicopter 

containing a ‘‘caution’’ about skin-tospar bond line erosion; 

• One Service Letter with two 

different Nos.: R22 SL–56B and R44 SL– 

32B, both revised April 30, 2010, 

specifying proper inspection and 

protection (refinishing) of bonded areas; 

and 

• Service Bulletins SB–103 for the 

Model R22 and SB–72 for the Model 

R44, both dated April 30, 2010, 

specifying proper inspection and 

protection (refinishing) of bonded areas 

for certain affected blades. 

• R44 Service Letter SL–37, dated 

June 18, 2010, specifying the required 

modifications for a carbureted R–44 to 

install P/N C016–7 blades. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain the 

pilot check, recurring inspection, and 

blade refinishing requirements of AD 

2011–12–10. The pilot check may be 

performed by an owner/operator (pilot) 

holding at least a private pilot certificate 

and must enter compliance into the 

aircraft maintenance records in 

accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 

91.417(a)(2)(v). This authorization is an 

exception to our standard maintenance 

regulations. 

This proposed AD would add a 

requirement, within five years of the 

effective date, to replace both main rotor 

blades with the new part-numbered 

aluminum blades. Replacing the blades 

with the new part-numbered blades 

would constitute terminating action of 

the recurring inspection requirements. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 1,290 Model R22 

helicopters and 1,353 Model R44 

helicopters, for a total of 2,643 

helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate 

that operators may incur the following 

costs in order to comply with this AD: 

• Time to perform the before flight 

check each day is negligible. 

• Inspecting both blades will require 

about three work hours at an average 

labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total 

cost per helicopter of $255 and a total 

cost to the U.S. operator fleet of 

$673,965. 

• Replacing both blades on a Model 

R22 helicopter will require about 20 

work hours at an average labor rate of 

$85 per hour and required parts will 

cost $29,808, for a total cost per 

helicopter of $31,508 and a total cost to 

the U.S. R22 operator fleet of 

$40,645,320 over a 5-year period. 

• Replacing both blades on a Model 

R44 helicopter with hydraulically 

boosted flight controls installed 

(approximately 1053 helicopters) will 

require about 20 work hours at an 

average labor rate of $85 per hour and 

required parts will cost $43,783, for a 

total cost per helicopter of $45,483 and 

a total cost to the U.S. R44 operator fleet 

of $47,893,599 over a 5-year period. 

• Replacing both blades on a Model 

R44 helicopter without hydraulically 

boosted flight controls installed 

(approximately 300 helicopters) will 

require modifying the aircraft with 

hydraulic flight controls, which will 

cost a flat rate (parts and labor) of 

$40,000, which includes the P/N C016– 

7 blades, and installing the required 

airframe provisions will require about 

13 work-hours, at an average labor rate 

of $85 per hour, and required parts will 

cost $28,199, for a total cost per 

helicopter of $112,247, and a cost to 

U.S. operators of $33,674,100 over a 5- 

year period. 

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, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12651 

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 

removing Amendment 39–16717 (76 FR 

35330, June 17, 2011), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Robinson Helicopter Company: Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0159; Directorate Identifier 

2012–SW–010–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model R22, R22 Alpha, 

R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters with 

main rotor blade (blade), part number (P/N) 

A016–2 or A016–4; and Model R44 and R44 

II helicopters with blade, P/N C016–2 or C– 

016–5, certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

blade skin debonding, which could result in 

blade failure and subsequent loss of control 

of the helicopter. 

(c) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2011–12–10, 

Amendment 39–16717 (76 FR 35330, June 

17, 2011). 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Actions 

(1) Before the first flight of each day, 

visually check for any exposed (bare metal) 

skin-to-spar joint area on the lower surface of 

each blade. The actions required by this 

paragraph may be performed by the owner/ 

operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot 

certificate and must be entered into the 

aircraft records showing compliance with 

this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 

43.9(a)(1)–(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The 

record must be maintained as required by 14 

CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. 

(2) If there is any bare metal in the area of 

the skin-to-spar bond line, before further 

flight, inspect the blade by following the 

requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD. 

(3) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), 

and at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS 

or at each annual inspection, whichever 

occurs first, inspect each blade for corrosion, 

separation, a gap, or a dent by following the 

Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 1 through 

6 and 8, of Robinson R22 Service Bulletin 

SB–103, dated April 30, 2010 (SB103), or 

Robinson Service Bulletin SB–72, dated 

April 30, 2010 (SB72), as appropriate for your 

model helicopter. Although the Robinson 

service information limits the magnification 

to 10 x, a higher magnification is acceptable 

for this inspection. Also, an appropriate tap 

test tool which provides similar performance, 

weight, and consistency of tone may be 

substituted for the ‘‘1965 or later United 

States Quarter-dollar coin,’’ which is 

specified in the Compliance Procedure, 

paragraph 2, of SB72 and SB103. 

(4) Before further flight, refinish any 

exposed area of a blade by following the 

Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 2 through 

6, of Robinson R22 Service Letter SL–56B or 

R44 Service Letter SL–32B, both dated April 

30, 2010, as appropriate for your model 

helicopter. 

(5) Before further flight, replace any 

unairworthy blade with an airworthy blade. 

(6) Within 5 years of the effective date of 

this AD: 

(i) For Model R22 series helicopters, 

replace blade P/N A016–2 or A016–4 with a 

blade, P/N A016–6. 

(ii) For Model R44 series helicopters fitted 

with hydraulically boosted main rotor flight 

controls, replace blade P/N C016–2 or C016– 

5 with a blade, P/N C016–7. 

(iii) For Model R44 series helicopters 

without hydraulically boosted main rotor 

flight controls, replace blade P/N C016–2 or 

C016–5 with a blade, P/N C016–7. Prior to 

installing a blade P/N C016–7, verify the 

helicopter has been modified as required by 

Robinson R44 Service Letter SL–37, dated 

June 18, 2010, Compliance Procedures, 

paragraphs 1. through 10. 

(iv) Installing blades, P/N A016–6 or P/N 

C016–7, is terminating action for the 

inspection requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(4) of this AD. 

(f) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits will not be issued. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; 

telephone (562) 627–5232; email 

fred.guerin@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(h) Additional Information 

The Robinson letter titled ‘‘Additional 

Information Regarding Main Rotor Blade 

Skin Debonding,’’ dated May 25, 2007, which 

is not incorporated by reference, contains 

additional information about the subject of 

this AD. For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter 

Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 

90505; telephone (310) 539–0508; fax (310) 

539–5198; or at http:// 

www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You 

may review a copy of this information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(i) Subject. 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6210: Main Rotor Blades. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 

12, 2013. 

Bruce Cain, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04217 Filed 2–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0146; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–SW–060–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta 

S.p.A. Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E 

helicopters that requires reducing the 

tail rotor (T/R) blade life limit, 

modifying a T/R hub and grip assembly, 

re-identifying two T/R assemblies, 

clarifying the never-exceed speed (Vne) 

limitation and reducing the inspection 

interval. Since we issued that AD, the 

manufacturer has redesigned a T/R grip 

bushing (bushing) that reduces the 

loads, which caused the T/R cracking, 

on the T/R blades. This action would 

require installing the new bushing and 

re-identifying the T/R hub-and-grip and 

hub-and-blade assemblies and require a 

recurring inspection of each bushing. 

The proposed actions are intended to 

prevent fatigue failure of a T/R blade 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 26, 2013. 

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. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1