1

Change an Existing AD Action

Complete if known

Directorate Identifier: 09-NE-29

Docket No: FAAOriginating Office Tracking No:

Priority Number (TAD):

(Reference QPM AIR-ANM-030-F1)

Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link.

Category of AD Action: (Select from the following drop-down list):

NPRM

This AD will supersede an existing AD action.

This change is the result of 

 FAA error (error in the AD)

 Industry error (error in the service information)

 Other or N/A 

1. Project Engineer

Name/Title/Branch: Frederick Zink/ASE/ANE142

Telephone: 781-238-7779

Fax: 781-238-7199

Email: frederick.zink@faa.gov

2. Directorate Project Officer or Backup Engineer (if Applicable)

Name/Title/Branch: Tara Fitzgerald

Telephone: 781-238-7130

Fax: same

3. Provide one of the following or attach a Federal Register version of the existing AD action.

 Copy Attached

AD No: 2012-04-13

Docket No: FAA-2010-0562

Directorate ID: 2009-NE-29 

4. Design Approval Holder (DAH) Contact Information. (* - as applicable)

 Same as existing AD action
2

Name: 

Address: 

Telephone:

Email*: 

Website*: 

5. Applicability (List Type Certificate (TC) Holder’s Name/Make/Model as identified on the TCDS (insert the 

previous TC holder’s name if included on the TCDS). Include part number, serial number or product (i.e., 

aircraft, engines, propellers, or appliances), as applicable. For appliances, list DAH name.

Double click to search RGL for the make/model designation.

 Same as existing AD action

 Same as existing AD action, but add the following

 Same as existing AD action, but remove the following

6. Does this AD apply to a new design or design change approved as a new/amended TC/STC in 

the past 24 months?

No TC STC ATC

7. How many products (aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance) will be affected?

Same as existing AD action

Domestic 

Worldwide Fleet (including domestic)

8. What has happened since the issuance of the existing AD action to warrant a supersedure, 

revision, or reopening of the comment period (supplemental NPRM)?

expand the population of affected parts

9. If you are reopening the comment period (supplemental NPRM), did you disposition all 

comments received on the NPRM? Use the Disposition Comments option found on the AD Worksheet 

Main Page.

N/A (no comments received or not a supplemental NPRM)

Yes (comment form submitted separately)
3

10. What are your proposed actions? Only complete the following table if you propose new actions: 

Complete even if only new service information is being provided

 No New Actions or Service Information

Service information 

(Attach a clean 

copy*).

What action is 

required?

What is the initial 

compliance time for 

each action?

Is this a repetitive 

action? If so, at 

what interval?

Is this action 

terminating action? 

If so, for what?

Roll-Royce 

NMSB RB.211-

72-AF964 Rev. 3 

dated 11 Jan. 

2013

expand 

inspectiion of 

population

*Contact the directorate focal point regarding submitting service information electronically

Additional explanation as necessary: 

11. Are there any other service bulletins or prior revisions of the mandated service information 

that we will grant credit for if previously complied with? Attach a clean copy. (List previously 

issued service information considered acceptable, including, if applicable, any limitations, restrictions, or 

additions necessary.))

 Same as existing AD action

yes earlier versions of Roll-Royce NMSB RB.211-72-AF964 Rev. 3 dated 11 Jan. 2013

12. Are there any differences between the design approval holder’s (DAH) service information 

referenced above and this AD action? If so, explain these differences and the reasons for each. 

(For example, does the compliance time of this action differ from that recommended in the service info?)

No

13. For a supersedure/revision, list each action in the existing AD and if/how it is carried over in the 

new AD? (For example, is a specific action carried over, not carried over, or carried over only until 

the new AD is complied with?)

information is carried over with the addition of the EASA MCAI 2013-0042 and Roll-Royce 

NMSB RB.211-72-AF964 Rev. 3 dated 11 Jan. 2013

14. If you are superseding or revising an existing AD, have AMOCs been approved for the existing 

AD?

No

If yes, should they continue to be considered approved? 

If yes, state for what portions of this AD the previously approved AMOCs should continue to be 

considered approved. 
4

15. List any existing ADs in - or affecting, the area of this AD action – that overlap or conflict with 

this AD action and could lead to a non-compliance. Consult with the Design Approval Holder (DAH) 

to determine whether there are any existing ADs in, or affecting, the area of this AD action that could lead to a 

non-compliance. Either attach the documentation received from the DAH or document who this was discussed 

with at the DAH, the date, and the outcome.

 Not Applicable Documentation Attached Not Available From DAH

Date discussed: DAH Contact: 

Comments: 

16. If any requirements in the service information proposed for this AD action conflict with existing

AD requirements, explain how the conflicts will be addressed/resolved.

No

17. Is the corrective action considered interim action? 

No

If yes, it’s interim action because .... (Check one of the following.)

DAH is developing a 

terminating action; 

not available yet.

This is a Final Rule; request 

for comments (IAR) or an 

Emergency AD that contains 

an optional terminating action; 

terminating action to be 

mandated later with a 

superseding NPRM.

An investigation is 

ongoing and no 

terminating action 

developed yet.

Other*

Explain 

below.

*Explanation: 

18. Is the action a Final rule; request for comments or an Emergency AD? 

No

If yes:

Provide a brief description of the rationale for eliminating prior notice and public comment 

19. Identify affected U.S. operators. (List only the major operators. Or identify affected aircraft as a group, 

e.g., “Most major U.S. airlines operate these aircraft”)

none from the superscedure

20. Answer the following questions:

No

(a) Does the proposed applicability affect more than one product type (small airplane, large 

transport, rotorcraft, engine)? If yes, coordinate with other directorates as appropriate. 

Directorate Identifier: 

No (b) Is this related to Suspected Unapproved Parts? (Ref. QPM AIR-002-036) If yes, 

coordinate as appropriate.
5

No

(c) Is this action related to an NTSB or FAA Safety Recommendation? If yes, attach a copy 

of that recommendation and the FAA response.

Recommendation Number 

No (d) Is this related to a quality control problem? If yes, coordinate with MIDO/CMO.

No

(e) Do you have any reason to believe that this action would be considered “sensitive”?

If yes, coordinate as appropriate.

No

(f) Is this action related to National sensitive security information? (Ref. Order 1600.75)

List affected U.S. operators 

Yes (g) If parts are required, are they available for all aircraft?

No

(h) Does this AD action affect aircraft in the presidential fleet or other military commercial 

aircraft derivatives? If unsure, contact the Military Certification Office (MCO), 

ACE-MCO-100M.

21. Will the AD prohibit installing a part before the compliance time for the related product? If 

yes, identify any affected part(s) and part number(s). If specific actions must be done on spare parts 

before they can be installed on a product, list them here. This is commonly referred to as the disposition of 

spare parts.

No

22. Does this AD affect only PMA parts? Is this AD being written against the PMA parts only and not the 

corresponding parts for which they are approved replacements?

Not Applicable

23. Can a PMA part be excluded from the AD action? If so, specify PMA holder and P/N. If you 

are aware of specific PMA parts that do not exhibit this unsafe condition, select Yes. Otherwise select No.

Not Applicable

24. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.23, a special flight permit will be: 

Permitted without limitations

Limitations: 

25. Is there is a reporting requirement in this action, and if so, who should receive the information?

(List ACO or DAH name and contact information). Also, if you are deviating from the standard 

reporting time, provide a reason for doing so. 

Reporting requirement? No

Explanation: 

26. FOR TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT ONLY:

Is the unsafe condition related to fuel tank ignition? No

If yes:
6

(a) Were the actions identified as part of a formal SFAR 88-related mandatory action decision 

meeting (SFAR 88 Review) meeting? 

(b) Were the actions identified by means other than the formal SFAR 88 review (i.e., Post 

SFAR 88)? 

27. FOR TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT ONLY:

Is the unsafe condition related to widespread fatigue damage (WFD) (i.e., multiple site damage or 

multiple element damage) or establishing a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data supports the 

structural maintenance program? No

If yes: (Check only one box)

(a) The actions were identified as part of the WFD evaluation (i.e., § 26.21 or § 25.571) 

and/or identified in the design approval holder’s binding schedule.

(b) The actions were identified by means other than the formal WFD evaluation (e.g., inservice finding).

(c) The actions were identified as part of an aging airplane program (reference AC 

120-104, paragraph 103) and are necessary to support an airplane reaching its LOV 

but are not identified as actions related to WFD.

28. Provide any information that you think is needed to draft the AD action that was not requested 

above. Potential AMOCs, etc.

None of the new population are in the U.S. use the same verbage of old AD, add the new 

revision of the SB and add it to credit for previouse action as well old identifier is 2009-NE-29 

cost will be adjusted based on information from the OEM that 61 effected engines may come to 

the US for re-inspection
7

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2010-0562 Directorate Identifier: 2009-NE-29-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

inspection NMSB 

72-AF964 20.0 $1,700.0

0

$1,700.00 432 $734,400.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $734,400

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE estimate 

from OEM added to the existing numbers from the superceded AD
8

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
9

Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED

EASA Omiros Kastanis 2/28/13 Concur.

RRplc Johnson Richard 2/28/13, 3/5 Concur.

ATA Joe White 2/28/13 No response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: 
10

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

COS Focal (optional) Date

Branch Manager Date

AEG Representative (except for appliances) Date

MIDO/CMO/MIO Representative* Date

*Signature required if a QC problem is involved.

EIR NUMBER (MIDO/CMO/MIO use only)

ACO/Staff Office Manager Date