45842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the 

December 11, 2012, meeting was a 

public meeting. All entities, both large 

and small, were able to express views 

on this issue. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Generic 

Vegetable Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are anticipated. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large California olive 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before June 

28, 2013. No comments were received. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim rule, we are adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=AMS-FV-12-0076. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and 

the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 24979, April 29, 2013) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Marketing agreements, Olives, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR Part 932, which was 

published at 78 FR 24979 on April 29, 

2013, is adopted as a final rule, without 

change. 

Dated: July 24, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18222 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026 

[Docket No. CFPB–2013–0010] 

RIN 3170–AA37 

Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage 

Rules Under the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedure Act (Regulation 

X) and the Truth in Lending Act 

(Regulation Z) 

Correction 

In rule document 2013–16962, 

appearing on pages 44686–44728 in the 

issue of Wednesday, July 24, 2013, make 

the following correction: 

§ 1026.43 Minimum Standards for 

Transactions Secured by a Dwelling 

[Corrected] 

■ On page 44727, in the third column, 

on the eleventh line from the bottom, 

‘‘eligibility requirements for Fannie Mae 

products and loan terms’’ should read 

‘‘The loan still meets eligibility 

requirements for Fannie Mae products 

and loan terms.’’ 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–16962 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1114; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NE–21–AD; Amendment 39– 

17511; AD 2013–14–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; CFM 

International, S. A. Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

CFM International, S. A. (CFM) model 

CFM56–5 and CFM56–5B series 

turbofan engines. This AD was 

prompted by corrosion of the delta-P 

valve in the hydro-mechanical unit 

(HMU) fuel control caused by exposure 

to type TS–1 fuel. This AD requires 

cleaning, inspection, and repair of 

affected HMUs. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent seizure of the HMU, leading 

to failure of one or more engines and 

damage to the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 3, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations 

office is located at Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact CFM International Inc., 

Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann 

Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 

45125; International phone: 513–552– 

3272; USA phone: 877–432–3272; 

International fax: 513–552–3329; USA 

fax: 877–432–3329; email: 

geae.aoc@ge.com; or CFM International 

SA, Customer Support Center, 

International phone: 33 1 64 14 88 66; 

fax: 33 1 64 79 85 55; email: 

snecma.csc@snecma.fr. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability 

of this material at the FAA, call 781– 

238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

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

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7157; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: martin.adler@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. The 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on January 14, 2013 (78 FR 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45843 

2644). The NPRM proposed to require 

cleaning, inspection, and repair of the 

affected HMUs. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Agreement With the Proposed AD 

American Airlines supports the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) 

and does not foresee being impacted by 

this AD now or in the future. 

Request To Include Minimum 

Threshold for TS–1 Fuel Usage 

Seven commenters requested that the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be 

modified to include a minimum 

threshold for TS–1 fuel usage similar to 

the service bulletins (SBs). The reason 

for this request is that the NPRM differs 

from the service information. The data 

does not support the more restrictive 

applicability called for by the NPRM. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2012–0123, dated July 9, 

2012, is less restrictive as well. There 

have been no events since 

implementation of the EASA AD and 

since the latest versions of the CFM SBs. 

Several carriers questioned whether the 

data supports having no threshold and 

if in-flight shutdown events truly apply 

to the worldwide fleet. 

We partially agree with including a 

minimum usage threshold. We have no 

technical objections to the usage 

threshold utilized in the CFM SBs. 

However, since there are no U.S. 

operators using TS–1 fuel, there is no 

benefit to increasing the complexity of 

the AD. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Reduce Applicability To 

Match EASA AD 

Five commenters requested that the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be 

modified to reduce the applicability to 

match the EASA AD. The reason for this 

request is that the data does not support 

the more restrictive applicability called 

for by the NPRM. The EASA AD 

applicability is less restrictive. There 

have been no events since 

implementation of the EASA AD and 

the latest versions of the CFM SBs. 

We do not agree. No U.S. operators 

use TS–1 fuel. Therefore, there is no 

benefit to increasing the complexity of 

the AD. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Eliminate TS–1 Fuel Usage 

Recording 

Five air carriers requested that the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be 

modified to eliminate TS–1 fuel usage 

recording. The reason for this request is 

that the additional record keeping will 

add cost and complexity. This will be a 

burden to the operators. 

We do not agree. TS–1 fuel usage 

records are required for enforcement of 

the AD. In addition, many operators 

already track fuel usage for business 

purposes. The creation and retention of 

TS–1 fuel records required by this AD 

is not considered an undue burden. We 

did not change the AD. 

Request To Delay Issuance of AD 

CFM and Airbus requested that we 

delay issuing the AD until mid-2013. 

The reason for this request is that CFM 

is conducting additional testing and 

analysis to further validate the usage 

threshold called out in the SBs. 

We do not agree. We have no 

technical objections to the usage 

threshold utilized in the CFM SBs. 

However, since there are no U.S. 

operators using TS–1 fuel, there is no 

benefit to increasing the complexity of 

the AD. We did not change the AD. 

Request Clarification of Differences 

Between NPRM and EASA AD 

Lufthansa Technik noted that there 

are significant differences between the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) 

and the EASA AD. Lufthansa Technik 

questioned whether the agencies have 

differing opinions of the technical issue. 

We do not agree. The technical 

understanding of the issue is consistent, 

but differences in procedure and policy 

result in the differences between the 

NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) 

and the EASA AD. 

Request To Define Parameters for 

Recording TS–1 Fuel Usage 

Lufthansa Technik pointed out that 

the specific parameters to record TS–1 

fuel usage are not well defined and 

asked if it is the intention to track fuel 

volume or the number of fuel uploads. 

The reason for this request is to clarify 

units to be measured for TS–1 fuel 

usage. 

We do not agree. The actions are 

required regardless of the amount of 

TS–1 exposure. The intent is to track if 

an HMU has been exposed to TS–1 fuel. 

We did not change the AD. 

Request To Allow Earlier Versions of 

the SB To Be Used 

Lufthansa Technik and Virgin 

America Airlines requested that use of 

earlier revisions of the SBs be allowed. 

Earlier revisions of the SB allow 

cleaning or replacement of the delta-P 

valve. The latest revisions only allow 

replacement of the delta-P valve. 

Cleaning has proven effective at 

eliminating the issue, so replacement in 

all cases is not required. Also, the 

general inspection procedure has not 

changed from the initial release of the 

SBs to the one called out by the AD. 

We agree. Cleaining of the HMU deltaP valve is effective at mitigating the risk 

of this issue and should be allowed. We 

changed this AD to reference the 

following service information to do the 

inspection: paragraph 3.A(2) of CFM SB 

CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, Revision 6, 

dated March 8, 2012; or CFM SB 

CFM56–5B S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, 

dated March 8, 2012. 

Request To Clarify Reporting 

Requirements 

TAP Portugal asks if the AD includes 

a usage threshold calculation, would 

time spent in storage be discounted 

from the calculation? The reason for this 

request is to seek clarification on 

threshold calculation. 

We do not agree. The AD does not 

include a usage threshold. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request Change to Applicability 

TAP Portugal requested that the AD 

also apply to the CFM56–5C engine. The 

reason for this request is that there are 

many interchangable parts between 

CFM56–5C and the affected engines. 

We do not agree. The data received for 

HMU corrosion and subsequent engine 

shutdown have all come from CFM56– 

5A and CFM56–5B engines, which are 

used on a different family of airplanes 

than CFM56–5C. At this time, there is 

insufficient data to support adding the 

CFM56–5C to the Applicability 

paragraph. We did not change the AD. 

Request Clarification for the Definition 

of Overhaul 

Air France requested that we clarify 

the definition of overhaul. HMU 

overhaul is defined in the Component 

Maintenance Manual as specific 

maintenance which may or may not 

align with the maintenance required by 

this AD. This could cause conflicts and 

confusion when attempting to comply 

with the AD. 

We agree. The intent of the AD when 

referring to overhaul is anytime the 

HMU delta-P valve is inspected, 

cleaned, or replaced. We added the 

following defintion to the AD: ‘‘For the 

purposes of this AD, overhaul is defined 

as HMU maintenance, which includes 

inspection, cleaning, or replacement of 

the HMU delta-P valve.’’ 

Request Increase in Compliance Time 

Rossiya Airlines requested an increase 

in initial compliance time for an HMU 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

with more than 8,000 hours to be 24 

months or 4,200 hours. The utilization 

rate of Rossiya Airlines is above 3,800 

hours per year. The current compliance 

equates to less than one year in which 

to fully comply with the AD. The reason 

for this request is that the number of 

spare and rotable engines does not 

support the compliance time rate 

requirement. 

We partially agree with increasing the 

initial compliance time. The intent of 

the initial compliance time was to allow 

sufficient time for all of the high-time 

impacted HMUs to be replaced. The 

2,000-hour allowance did not take into 

account the high-time utilization rates 

of some operators. The initial inspection 

compliance times are revised to allow 

up to 4,000 hours from the effective date 

of the AD. We disagree with increasing 

the initial inspection compliance times 

to 4,200 hours because that does not 

mitigate the unsafe condition. 

Request To Delete Initial Cleaning 

Requirement 

Lufthansa Technik noted that the lack 

of records for prior TS–1 fuel usage will 

make determination of usage extremely 

difficult. In addition, this determination 

will need to be made for all engines and 

HMUs worldwide. The reason for this 

request is that lease components, lease 

engines, and component pools 

transferred between operators might 

have exposed an HMU to TS–1 fuel. The 

exposed HMU might then get 

transferred to a region where TS–1 fuel 

is not used, such as the United States. 

We do not agree. An initial inspection 

of the HMU is required unless it can be 

shown that the HMU has never been 

exposed to TS–1 fuel. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request for Consideration of Costs to 

Worldwide Fleet 

Air France requested that we include 

consideration for the costs to the 

worldwide fleet. The NPRM (78 FR 

2644, January 14, 2013) stated that there 

is no impact to U.S. operators; however, 

European operators would be impacted. 

The reason for this request is to expand 

cost considerations to include the 

worldwide fleet. 

We do not agree. The AD only applies 

to U.S.-registered aircraft. Foreign 

operators must comply with the 

regulations of their local authority. The 

cost considerations listed in the AD 

reflect the impact to U.S. operators only. 

We did not change the AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We determined that these changes will 

not increase the economic burden on 

any operator or increase the scope of 

this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will not 

affect any products of U.S. registry. 

Based on these figures, we estimate this 

AD to have no cost impact to U.S. 

operators. 

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 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(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), 

(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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2013–14–06 CFM International, S. A.: 

Amendment 39–17511; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–1114; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NE–21–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective September 3, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to CFM International S.A. 

(CFM) model CFM56–5 and CFM56–5B 

series turbofan engines with any of the 

hydro-mechanical unit (HMU) fuel control 

part numbers (P/Ns) in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this AD, installed: 

(1) CFM56–5: CFM P/Ns 1348M79P02; 

1348M79P03; 1348M79P04; 1348M79P06; 

1348M79P07; 1348M79P08; 1348M79P09; 

1348M79P10; 1348M79P11; 1348M79P12; 

1348M79P13; and 1348M79P14. 

(2) CFM56–5B: CFM P/Ns: 1348M79P08; 

1348M79P09; 1348M79P10; 1348M79P11; 

1348M79P12; 1348M79P13; and 

1348M79P14. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by corrosion of the 

delta-P valve in the HMU fuel control caused 

by exposure to type TS–1 fuel. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent seizure of the HMU, 

leading to failure of one or more engines, and 

damage to the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Unless already done, do the following: 

(f) Record Type TS–1 Fuel Usage 

(1) From the effective date of this AD, 

record all TS–1 fuel usage. 

(2) If the HMU never uses TS–1 fuel, no 

further action is required. 

(g) Initial Inspection 

If the HMU has operated on TS–1 fuel, 

inspect the HMU for corrosion as follows: 

(1) For an HMU that has operated for fewer 

than 6,000 hours since new (HSN) or hours 

since last overhaul, inspect the HMU before 

10,000 HSN or hours since last overhaul, 

whichever comes later. 

(2) For an HMU that has operated for 6,000 

or more HSN or hours since last overhaul, 

inspect the HMU within 24 months or 4,000 

hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever comes first. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45845 

(3) Use paragraph 3.A(2) of CFM Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, 

Revision 6, dated March 8, 2012, or CFM SB 

No. CFM56–5B S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, 

dated March 8, 2012, to do the inspection. 

(h) Repetitive Inspections 

Repeat the inspection required in 

paragraph (g)(3) of this AD before 10,000 

hours since last overhaul if, after last 

overhaul, the HMU is exposed to TS–1 fuel. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

If the HMU has not been exposed to TS– 

1 fuel since the last overhaul, then the initial 

inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD is not 

required. 

(j) Definitions 

For the purposes of this AD, overhaul is 

defined as HMU maintenance, which 

includes inspection, cleaning, or replacement 

of the HMU delta-P valve. 

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden 

Statement 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act unless that collection of information 

displays a current valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number for this 

information collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of information is 

estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. All responses to 

this collection of information are mandatory. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of this 

burden and suggestions for reducing the 

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make 

your request. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7157; fax: 781–238–7199; 

email: martin.adler@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety 

Agency, AD 2012–0123, dated July 9, 2012, 

for more information. You may examine this 

AD on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) CFM International, S. A. (CFM) Service 

Bulletin No. CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, Revision 

6, dated March 8, 2012. 

(ii) CFM Service Bulletin No. CFM56–5B 

S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, dated March 8, 

2012. 

(3) For CFM International, S. A. service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations 

Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, 

Cincinnati, OH 45125; International phone: 

513–552–3272; USA phone: 877–432–3272; 

International fax: 513–552–3329; USA fax: 

877–432–3329; email: geae.aoc@ge.com; or 

CFM International SA, Customer Support 

Center, International phone: 33 1 64 14 88 66; 

International fax: 33 1 64 79 85 55; email: 

snecma.csc@snecma.fr. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

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

(5) You may view this service information 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 9, 2013. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Acting Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17296 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0639; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–020–AD; Amendment 

39–17518; AD 2013–15–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bell 

Helicopter Textron Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule, request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008–10– 

03 for Bell Helicopter Textron 

Helicopters (Bell) Model 204B, 205A, 

205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, 

and 412EP helicopters. AD 2008–10–03 

required certain checks and inspections 

of each tail rotor blade assembly (T/R 

blade) at specified intervals and 

repairing or replacing, as applicable, 

any cracked or damaged T/R blade. 

Since we issued AD 2008–10–03, an 

accident attributed to a T/R failure 

occurred. This new AD retains the 

requirements of AD 2008–10–03 and 

adds a second, more detailed inspection 

that allows for an earlier detection of a 

crack or other damage in a T/R blade. 

These actions are intended to prevent a 

failure of the T/R blade and subsequent 

loss of helicopter control. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 14, 2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain documents listed in this AD 

as of August 14, 2013. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by September 30, 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 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 AD, contact Bell Helicopter 

Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, 

TX 76101; telephone (817) 280–3391; 

fax (817) 280–6466; or at 

www.bellcustomer.com/. You may 

review 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: 

Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5170; email 

7-AVS-ASW-170@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES