57742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3970; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–SW–006–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives Airbus 

Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter 

France) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2014–12– 

51 for Airbus Helicopters (previously 

Eurocopter France) Model EC130B4 and 

EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2014–12–51 

currently requires repetitively 

inspecting the tailboom to Fenestron 

junction frame (junction frame) for a 

crack. This proposed AD would retain 

the requirements of AD 2014–12–51, 

change the applicability from 

helicopters with certain hours time-inservice (TIS) to junction frames with 

certain hours TIS, and add a compliance 

time for sling cycles to the junction 

frame inspection interval. These 

proposed actions are intended to detect 

a crack and to prevent failure of the 

junction frame, which could result in 

loss of the Fenestron and subsequent 

loss of control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 24, 

2015. 

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 by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3970; 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 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) 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 Airbus 

Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, 

Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax 

(972) 641–3775; or at http://www.air

bushelicopters.com/techpub. You may 

review service information at the FAA, 

Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

email robert.grant@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 July 24, 2014, we issued AD 2014– 

12–51, Amendment 39–17921 (79 FR 

45335, August 5, 2014), which was sent 

previously as an Emergency AD to all 

known U.S. owners and operators of 

Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and 

EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2014–12–51 

applies to helicopters with 690 or more 

hours TIS and requires, within 10 hours 

TIS, dye-penetrant inspecting certain 

areas of the junction frame for a crack. 

AD 2014–12–51 also requires, at 

intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, 

either repeating the dye-penetrant 

inspection or performing a borescope 

inspection of certain areas of the 

junction frame for a crack. If there is a 

crack, AD 2014–12–51 requires 

replacing the junction frame. Those 

actions are intended to detect a crack 

and to prevent failure of the junction 

frame, which could result in loss of the 

Fenestron and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

AD 2014–12–51 was prompted by AD 

No. 2014–0145–E, dated June 6, 2014, 

issued by EASA, which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union, to correct an unsafe 

condition on Airbus Helicopters Model 

EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. 

EASA advises of two incidents of crack 

propagation through the junction frame 

that initiated in the lower right-hand 

side between the web and the flange 

where the lower spar of the tailboom is 

joined. EASA states the cracks were of 

a significant length and not visible from 

the outside of the helicopter. EASA 

advises that this condition, if not 

detected, could lead to structural 

failure, possibly resulting in Fenestron 

detachment and consequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. As a result, 

EASA AD No. 2014–0145–E required a 

one-time visual inspection of the 

junction frame for a crack and a 

repetitive borescope inspection of the 

junction frame for a crack. 

EASA revised AD No. 2014–0145–E 

with AD No. 2014–0145R1, dated June 

13, 2014. EASA AD No. 2014–0145R1 

changes the compliance time by 

removing a calendar day requirement 

and by determining the time 

accumulated on the junction frame 

instead of on the helicopter. EASA AD 

No. 2014–0145R1 also allows the 

recurring inspection to be accomplished 

either by performing the borescope 

inspection or by repeating the visual 

inspection. 

Actions Since AD 2012–12–51 Was 

Issued 

Since we issued AD 2014–12–51 (79 

FR 45335, August 5, 2014), EASA issued 

AD No. 2015–0033–E dated February 

24, 2015 (EAD 2015–0033–E), which 

supersedes AD No. 2014–0145–E and 

AD No. 2014–0145R1. EASA 

determined that an inspection interval 

defined in sling cycles is necessary in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 57743 

addition to the existing flight hour 

inspection interval. EASA also 

acknowledges an alternative method to 

inspect from the outside of the tailboom. 

EASA AD No. 2015–0033–E therefore 

retains the previous inspection 

requirements of EASA AD No. 2014– 

0145R1 and allows for an alternate 

external visual inspection method, 

which can be accomplished by a pilot, 

in combination with the internal 

inspections. 

This NPRM would retain the dye 

penetrant and borescope inspections in 

AD 2014–12–51 but would revise the 

compliance times. We have determined 

that applicable helicopters are those 

with 690 hours TIS accumulated on the 

junction frame instead of on the 

helicopter, and that it is necessary to 

include an inspection interval defined 

in sling cycles. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of France and 

are approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with France, EASA, its 

technical representative, has notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in its 

AD. We are proposing this AD because 

we evaluated all known relevant 

information and determined that an 

unsafe condition is likely to exist or 

develop on other helicopters of the same 

type design. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters 

Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 

05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 

2015 (EASB 05A017), for Model 

EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. 

EASB 05A017 describes alternate 

procedures for inspecting outside the 

tailboom for a crack at reduced 

inspection intervals in combination 

with the internal inspections at 

extended intervals. EASB 05A017 also 

specifies adding sling cycles to the 

existing flight hour inspection interval 

for helicopters that perform external 

load-carrying operations. EASA issued 

AD No. 2015–0033–E mandating the 

requirements in EASB 05A017 to ensure 

the continued airworthiness of these 

helicopters. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by means 

identified in the Addresses Section of 

this proposed AD. 

Other Related Service Information 

We have also reviewed Airbus 

Helicopters Service Bulletin No. EC130– 

53–029, Revision 0, dated February 20, 

2015 (SB EC130–53–029), which 

contains procedures to cut out the skin 

and splice at the junction frame to 

facilitate the external inspection 

specified in EASB 05A017. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require: 

• Before the junction frame reaches 

700 hours TIS or within 10 hours TIS, 

whichever comes later, removing the 

horizontal stabilizer, cleaning the 

junction frame, and dye-penetrant 

inspecting around the circumference of 

the junction frame for a crack, paying 

particular attention to the area around 

the 4 spars. 

• Within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling 

cycles, whichever comes first, after the 

dye-penetrant inspection proposed by 

this AD, and thereafter at intervals not 

exceeding 25 hours TIS or 390 sling 

cycles, whichever comes first, either 

repeating the dye-penetrant inspection 

of this proposed AD or, if the area is 

clean, using a borescope, inspecting 

around the circumference of the 

junction frame for a crack. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the EASA AD 

The EASA AD includes alternate 

compliance instructions for helicopters 

modified with a cut-out in production 

by Airbus Helicopters Modification 

350A087421 or in service by 

compliance with SB EC130–53–029. 

This proposed AD would not. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD to be 

an interim action. If final action is later 

identified, we might consider further 

rulemaking then. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 208 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry. We estimate that operators 

may incur the following costs in order 

to comply with this AD. At an average 

labor rate of $85 per hour, dye-penetrant 

inspecting the junction frame would 

require 1 work-hour, for a cost per 

helicopter of $85, and a total cost of 

$17,680 for the fleet, per inspection 

cycle. Borescope inspecting the junction 

frame would require .5 work-hour, for a 

cost per helicopter of $43 and a total 

cost of $8,944 for the fleet, per 

inspection cycle. 

If required, replacing the junction 

frame would require 50 work-hours, and 

required parts would cost $60,000, for a 

cost per helicopter of $64,250. 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

57744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2014–12–51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 

FR 45335, August 5, 2014), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter 

France): Docket No. FAA–2015–3970; 

Directorate Identifier 2015–SW–006–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters 

Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters 

with a tailboom to fenestron junction frame 

(junction frame) that has 690 or more hours 

time-in-service (TIS), certificated in any 

category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in the junction frame. This condition 

could result in failure of the junction frame, 

which could result in loss of the Fenestron 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

(c) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2014–12–51, 

Amendment 39–17921 (79 FR 45335, August 

5, 2014). 

(d) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by November 

24, 2015. 

(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) Before the junction frame reaches 700 

hours TIS or within 10 hours TIS, whichever 

occurs later, remove the horizontal stabilizer, 

clean the junction frame, and dye-penetrant 

inspect around the circumference of the 

junction frame for a crack in the areas shown 

in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters EC130 

Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 

05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015 

(EASB 05A017). Pay particular attention to 

the area around the 4 spars (item b) of Figure 

1 of EASB 05A017. An example of a crack 

is shown in Figure 3 of EASB 05A017. 

(2) Within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, 

whichever occurs first after the inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and 

thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours 

TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever occurs 

first, either perform the actions of paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD or, if the area is clean, using 

a borescope, inspect around the 

circumference of the junction frame for a 

crack in the areas shown in Figure 2 of EASB 

05A017. Pay particular attention to the area 

around the 4 spars (item b) of Figure 2 of 

EASB 05A017. An example of a crack is 

shown in Figure 3 of EASB 05A017. For 

purposes of this AD, a sling cycle is defined 

as one landing with or without stopping the 

rotor or one external load-carrying operation; 

an external load-carrying operation occurs 

each time a helicopter picks up an external 

load and drops it off. 

(3) If there is a crack, before further flight, 

replace the junction frame. 

(g) Special Flight Permits 

Special flight permits are prohibited. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 9-ASWFTW-AMOC-Requests@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. 

(i) Additional Information 

(1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. 

EC130–53–029, Revision 0, dated February 

20, 2015, which is not incorporated by 

reference, contains additional information 

about the subject of this AD. For service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 

641–3775; or at http://www.air

bushelicopters.com/techpub. You may 

review a copy of the service information at 

the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 

No. 2015–0033–E, dated February 24, 2015. 

You may view the EASA AD on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FAA–2015–3970. 

(j) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 5302: Rotorcraft Tailboom. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 

17, 2015. 

James A. Grigg, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24251 Filed 9–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0027; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–127–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

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 The Boeing Company Model 777– 

200 and –300 series airplanes, equipped 

with Rolls-Royce Model RB211–Trent 

800 engines. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the thrust 

reverser (T/R) structure and sealant, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of T/R events 

related to thermal damage of the T/R 

inner wall. This action revises the 

NPRM by proposing to add different 

repetitive inspections requirements for 

T/R halves with a thermal protective 

system installed. This action also 

revises the NPRM by proposing to 

require installation of serviceable T/R 

halves, which would terminate the 

repetitive inspections in this SNPRM. 

This SNPRM also proposes to revise the 

inspection or maintenance program by 

incorporating new airworthiness 

limitations. We are proposing this 

SNPRM to detect and correct a degraded 

T/R inner wall panel, which could lead 

to failure of the T/R and adjacent 

components and their consequent 

separation from the airplane, and which 

could result in a rejected takeoff (RTO) 

and cause asymmetric thrust and 

consequent loss of control of the 

airplane during reverse thrust operation. 

If a T/R inner wall overheats, separated 

components could cause structural 

damage to the airplane, damage to other 

airplanes, or possible injury to people 

on the ground. 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 

these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this SNPRM by November 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS