666 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Installation 

(f) Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD, install two drains and drain 

tubes in the dripshield above the M826 Card 

File over the nose wheel left side in the main 

equipment center at station 400, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–25A3370, Revision 1, dated April 27, 

2006. 

Installation According to Previous Issue of 

Service Bulletin 

(g) Installing the drains and drain tubes is 

also acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD if 

done before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–25A3370, dated September 8, 

2005. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 12, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–22535 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2003–SW–37–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; MD 

Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, 369D, 

369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 

369HS, 369HM, 500N, and OH–6A 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) 

Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 

369H, 369HE, 369HS, 369HM, 500N, 

and OH–6A helicopters that would have 

required replacing or reworking certain 

forward (fwd) and aft landing gear 

assemblies. That proposal was 

prompted by five reports of landing gear 

strut (strut) failures. This action revises 

that action by proposing to mandate 

both the creation of an access hole to 

facilitate inspections and a recurring 

inspection. The proposed AD also 

would exclude from the applicability 

certain helicopters modified with a 

certain Supplemental Type Certificate 

(STC) and would provide a terminating 

action for the proposed requirements. 

This proposal also includes clarifying 

changes. The actions specified by this 

proposed AD are intended to detect a 

crack that could result in the failure of 

a strut and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter during landing. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003–SW–

37–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may 

also send comments electronically to 

the Rules Docket at the following 

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov. 

Comments may be inspected at the 

Office of the Regional Counsel between 

9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

MD Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer 

Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell 

Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 

85215–9734, telephone 1–800–388–

3378, fax 480–346–6813, or on the web 

at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. This 

information may be examined at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 

90712–4137, telephone (562) 627–5228, 

fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in the making of the 

proposed rule by submitting such 

written data, views, or arguments as 

they may desire. Communications 

should identify the Rules Docket 

number and be submitted in triplicate to 

the address specified above. All 

communications received on or before 

the closing date for comments, specified 

above, will be considered before taking 

action on the proposed rule. The 

proposals contained in this document 

may be changed in light of the 

comments received. 

Comments are specifically invited on 

the overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed rule. All comments 

submitted will be available, both before 

and after the closing date for comments, 

in the Rules Docket for examination by 

interested persons. A report 

summarizing each FAA-public contact 

concerned with the substance of this 

proposal will be filed in the Rules 

Docket. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their mailed 

comments submitted in response to this 

proposal must submit a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard on which the 

following statement is made: 

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2003–SW–

37–AD.’’ The postcard will be date 

stamped and returned to the 

commenter. 

Discussion 

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 

to add an AD for the specified MDHI 

model helicopters was published in the 

Federal Register on August 4, 2004 (69 

FR 47040). That proposal would have 

required removing all landing gear 

fairings; determining the number and 

location of rivets that attach the landing 

gear fairing support assembly to the 

landing gear strut; and if three rivets 

(fwd, aft and inboard) are present, 

replacing or reworking the landing gear 

assembly. If only the fwd and aft rivets 

are present, no rework would be 

required by the proposed AD. That 

proposal was prompted by five reports 

of strut failures. Operators of the 

helicopters with failed struts do not fall 

into any clear category of service. For 

example, one was a tour operator in 

Niagara Falls, New York and another 

was a police department operator in 

Calgary, Canada. In its original design, 

the fairing support was attached to the 

strut with three rivets (forward, aft, and 

outboard). In 1994, the manufacturer 

released a design change to attach the 

fairing support assembly with only 

forward and aft rivets because of the 

possibility of reduced service life of the 

strut if the third rivet was located on the 

inboard side of the strut. Some landing 

gear struts entered service with an 

additional rivet hole drilled on the 

inboard side of the strut. This additional 

rivet hole results in decreased fatigue 

strength of the strut and subsequent 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 667 

cracking. That condition, if not 

corrected, could result in cracking of the 

fwd and aft struts, failure of a strut, and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter during landing. 

Since issuing that proposal, we 

received several comments from 2 

commenters and agree that we should 

make some changes to our proposed AD. 

We have determined that it is necessary 

to reopen the comment period to 

provide additional opportunity for 

public comment since we are making 

changes that expand the scope of the 

originally proposed rule. Due 

consideration was given to all of the 

comments received. 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

states that we need to mandate the 

installation of the landing gear fairing 

inspection hole rather than specifically 

excluding it from the proposed 

requirements as we did in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The 

commenter also states that we should 

have the operators commence the 

periodic crack inspection per the 

maintenance manual. The commenter 

states that without these two critical 

additions the likelihood of a strut failure 

due to fatigue still exists. 

After further consideration, we agree 

that having an inspection hole in the 

fairing would be preferable to removing 

the fairings every 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) or annually in order to do 

the inspection of the inboard rivet hole. 

We have also determined that our 

decision not to propose to mandate the 

repetitive crack inspection in the NPRM 

was an error. Therefore, we are now 

proposing to mandate the drilling of the 

access hole as well as the repetitive 

crack inspections of the inboard rivet. 

We have also added Notes in this 

proposal that include information for 

doing the inspections. 

The same commenter provided us 

with a marked-up proposal that contains 

suggested word changes or additional 

information, but did not provide 

justification for those changes. We have 

made only those changes that clarify or 

correct the proposal. 

One of those suggested changes was a 

request to change the wording we use to 

describe the intent of the proposed 

actions. The commenter writes that the 

intent of the proposed AD is to detect 

cracks of the fwd and aft struts, remove 

cracked struts from service prior to 

failure, and preclude subsequent 

extensive damage to the helicopter 

during landing. Although we agree that 

the proposal is intended primarily to 

detect cracks, we maintain that such 

cracking could lead to fatigue failure of 

the strut and loss of control of the 

helicopter during landing; therefore we 

have not made any changes to the 

proposal. 

Another requested change is that we 

change the number of work hours to 

determine the number of rivets from 7 

to 2, that we include the fairing as a part 

that may need to be reworked, and that 

we reduce the cost impact of the 

proposed AD from $438,800 to 

$227,225. In the NPRM, we erroneously 

estimated that it would take 7 work 

hours to determine the number of rivets; 

we agree with the commenter’s 

suggestion that 2 hours is more 

appropriate and have revised the 

proposal accordingly. Also, since we are 

now proposing to mandate these 

actions, we have added the work hours 

and costs associated with both drilling 

the inspection hole in the fairing and 

accomplishing the repetitive 

inspections. 

The commenter also requests that we 

add the address for obtaining service 

information. It is not appropriate to 

include the manufacturer’s address 

within the regulatory text of the AD and 

we have not done so; however, we have 

included that address in the ADDRESSES

section of this proposal and will add the 

address in the Incorporation by 

Reference paragraph of the Final Rule 

when it is issued. 

Also requested is that we more 

specifically identify the ‘‘three rivets’’ in 

the Discussion of the proposal and that 

part of the intent of the AD is to ‘‘clean 

up the inboard rivet hole (de-burr). We 

agree only to more specifically identify 

the ‘‘three rivets’’ and have modified the 

proposal accordingly. 

Finally, the commenter requests that 

we change the proposal to mandate only 

the recording of the initial inspection in 

the logbook but not any subsequent 

periodic landing gear inspections. We 

do not agree with this comment; all 

required inspections must be recorded. 

For the subsequent landing gear 

inspections proposed by this action, a 

Part 91 operator, for example, would be 

required by 39.7 to comply with the 

requirements of the AD, would be 

required by 43.11 to make entries in the 

maintenance records after any required 

inspection is performed, and would be 

required by 91.417 to keep maintenance 

records of required inspections. 

Therefore, we have not made the 

requested change. 

Another commenter, a manufacturer, 

suggests that operators who can verify 

that their helicopters have an 

Aerometals strut (P/N 369XH6001–41, 

–42, –51, –52) that was ‘‘installed’’

under STC No. SR00981LA should not 

have to take any further actions at the 

strut locations because those struts are 

only approved to have fairing supports 

attached with two rivets (forward and 

aft) and they have never been approved 

for a third, inboard rivet. The 

commenter states that excluding the 

struts that they manufactured will result 

in a substantial savings to operators 

because their landing gear fairings will 

not have to be removed from a strut to 

verify the number of rivets attaching the 

fairing support since their installation 

should be annotated in the maintenance 

records. We agree with the commenter 

and have excluded those struts from the 

applicability of this proposal. 

Because some of these changes 

expand the scope of the originally 

proposed rule, we have determined that 

it is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for public comment. 

The FAA estimates that this proposed 

AD would affect 651 helicopters of U.S. 

registry. Determining the number of 

rivets and initially inspecting each 

affected ‘‘3-hole’’ strut and fairing 

would take approximately 2 work hours, 

installing a new strut would take 

approximately 1.5 work hours, and 

reworking a strut would take 1 work 

hour. Each repetitive inspection would 

take 1⁄4 work hour per strut (1 hour per 

helicopter for each of 4 struts). The 

average labor rate is $80 per work hour. 

Required parts (new struts) would cost 

approximately $2,838 for each forward 

strut, $2,574 for each aft strut, and $97 

for a modification kit to install an 

inspection hole. Assuming that each 

helicopter would get the initial 

inspection, that all 651 helicopters 

would be modified, that 325 helicopters 

would need two struts reworked, that 5 

helicopters would require 2 new 

forward struts, and that 2 repetitive 

inspections would be required per year, 

the total estimated cost of the proposed 

AD on U.S. operators would be about 

$353,047 ($248,887 for the initial 

inspections, modification, and parts, 

and $104,160 for the repetitive 

inspections). 

Regulatory Findings 

The regulations proposed herein 

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. Therefore, 

it is determined that this proposal 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
668 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if 

promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft 

regulatory evaluation prepared for this 

action is contained in the Rules Docket. 

A copy of it may be obtained by 

contacting the Rules Docket at the 

location provided under the caption 

ADDRESSES. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend part 

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(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. Section 39.13 is amended by 

adding a new airworthiness directive to 

read as follows: 

MD Helicopters, Inc.: Docket No. 2003–SW–

37–AD. 

Applicability: Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 

369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HS, 369HM, 

500N, and OH–6A helicopters, with any of 

the components listed in the Applicability 

Table installed, excluding any model with 

Aerometals strut (part number (P/N) 

369XH6001–41, –42, –51, or –52) installed in 

accordance with Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) No. SR00981LA, certificated 

in any category: 

APPLICABILITY TABLE

Component name Component part number (P/N) 

Mid Aft Fairing Assembly .......................................................................... 369H6200–61, –62, standard gear. 

Aft Support Assembly ............................................................................... 369H6200–23, –24 (–23 to be reinstalled on the right-hand side and 

–24 to be reinstalled on the left-hand side, all configurations). 

Aft Fairing Assembly ................................................................................. 369H92113–91, –92, extended gear. 

Aft Filler Assembly .................................................................................... 369H92113–131, –132, extended gear. 

Aft Fillet Assembly .................................................................................... 369A6200–45, –46, standard gear. 

Aft Fillet Assembly .................................................................................... 369H92113–111, –112, extended gear. 

Mid Fwd Fairing Assembly ....................................................................... 369H6200–41, –42, standard gear.

Fwd Fairing Assembly .............................................................................. 369H92113–81, –82, extended gear. 

Fwd Support Assembly ............................................................................. 369H6200–23, –24 (–23 becomes right-hand side and –24 becomes 

left-hand side). 

Fwd Filler Assembly .................................................................................. 369H92113–121, –122, extended gear. 

Fwd Fillet Assembly .................................................................................. 369A6200–57, –58, standard gear. 

Fwd Fillet Assembly .................................................................................. 369H92113–101, –102, extended gear. 

Compliance: Required as indicated. 

To detect a crack that could result in the 

failure of a strut and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter during landing, 

accomplish the following: 

(a) Within 4 months, unless accomplished 

previously, remove all landing gear fairings 

(fairings) and inspect each landing gear 

fairing support assembly (support assembly) 

to determine the number and location of the 

rivets attaching the support assembly to the 

landing gear strut assembly (strut assembly). 

(1) If three rivets (forward, aft and inboard) 

are used to attach the support assembly to the 

strut assembly, 

(i) For each FORWARD landing gear 

assembly, remove the landing gear fillet 

assembly (fillet assembly), the three rivets, 

and the support assembly, and clean and 

dye-penetrant inspect the area in and around 

the 0.125 (3.18mm) diameter hole in the 

inboard surface of the strut assembly. 

(A) If the strut assembly is cracked, replace 

the cracked strut assembly with an airworthy 

strut assembly and install the other landing 

gear components in accordance with steps (6) 

through (11) of paragraph C of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of MD 

Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369H–244, 

SB369E–094, SB500N–022, SB369D–200, and 

SB369F–078, dated April 7, 2000 (SB). 

(B) If the strut assembly is not cracked, 

rework the landing gear assembly and install 

the other landing gear components in 

accordance with steps (5) through (11) of 

paragraph C of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the SB. 

(ii) For each AFT landing gear assembly, 

remove the fillet assembly, the three rivets, 

and the support assembly, and clean and 

dye-penetrant inspect the area in and around 

the 0.125 (3.18mm) diameter hole in the 

inboard surface of the strut assembly. 

(A) If the strut assembly is cracked, replace 

the cracked strut assembly with an airworthy 

strut assembly and install the other landing 

gear components in accordance with steps (6) 

through (13) of paragraph B of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the SB. 

(B) If the strut assembly is not cracked, 

rework the landing gear assembly and install 

the other landing gear components in 

accordance with steps (5) through (13) of 

Paragraph B of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the SB. 

(2) If only two rivets (forward and aft) are 

used to attach the support assembly to the 

strut assembly and a third rivet hole has not 

been drilled in the strut, neither the 

inspection of the strut assembly nor the 

rework of those landing gear assemblies is 

required by this AD. 

(b) At intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS 

or during each annual inspection, whichever 

occurs first, for any strut assembly that has 

a third rivet hole, remove the fairing 

inspection button plug and clean and inspect 

the area in and around the rivet hole for 

cracks using a bright light and 1 10x or 

higher magnifying glass. 

(1) If any FORWARD strut assembly is 

cracked, replace the cracked strut with an 

airworthy strut assembly. 

(2) If any AFT strut assembly is cracked, 

replace the cracked strut with an airworthy 

strut assembly. 

(c) Installing a strut assembly that has only 

2 rivet holes is terminating action for the 

requirements of this AD. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 669 

Note 1: For the Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 

369FF, and 500N helicopters, the Handbook 

of Maintenance Instruction, Servicing and 

Maintenance, HMI, CSP–HMI–2, Chapter 32, 

Section 32–10–00, ‘‘Landing Gear Strut 

Inspection’’ pertains to the subject of this AD. 

Note 2: For the Model 369(A) (OH–6A), 

369H, 369HE, 369HS, and 369HM 

helicopters, the Basic Handbook of 

Maintenance Instructions CSP–H–2, Section 

6, ‘‘Landing Gear’’ pertains to the subject of 

this AD. 

(d) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Contact the Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, for information about 

previously approved alternative methods of 

compliance. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

26, 2006. 

David A. Downey, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–41 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26771; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–SW–07–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Enstrom 

Helicopter Corporation Model F–28A, 

F–28C, F–28F, TH–28, 280, 280C, 280F, 

280FX, 480, and 480B Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

adopting a new airworthiness directive 

(AD) for Enstrom Helicopter 

Corporation (Enstrom) Model F–28A, F–

28C, F–28F, TH–28, 280, 280C, 280F, 

280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters. The 

AD would require determining the 

installation dates for each main rotor 

push-pull control rod (push-pull rod), 

inspecting the push-pull rods for 

corrosion, replacing any push-pull rod 

which has corrosion that is severe 

enough to cause pitting, or has visible 

moisture inside the rod, and repairing 

each push-pull rod that has corrosion 

but no pitting. This proposal is 

prompted by one reported incident in 

which the helicopter pilot encountered 

severe in flight vibration due to the 

failure of a push-pull rod, requiring an 

emergency landing. The actions 

specified by the proposed AD are 

intended to detect corrosion and 

prevent failure of a push-pull rod, and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically; 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically; 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; or 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from The 

Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, Twin 

County Airport, P.O. Box 490, 

Menominee, Michigan 49858. 

You may examine the comments to 

this proposed AD in the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Malekpour, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, Chicago Aircraft 

Certification Office, 2300 East Devon 

Ave., Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, 

telephone (847) 294–7837, fax (847) 

294–7834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any written 

data, views, or arguments regarding this 

proposed AD. Send your comments to 

the address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. Include the docket number 

‘‘FAA–2006–26771, Directorate 

Identifier 2005–SW–07–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed 

rulemaking. Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, you can find and 

read the comments to any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual who sent or signed the 

comment. You may review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains the proposed AD, any 

comments, and other information in 

person at the Docket Management 

System (DMS) Docket Office between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647–

5227) is located at the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation NASSIF 

Building in Room PL–401 at 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the DMS receives 

them. 

Discussion 

This document proposes adopting a 

new AD for Enstrom Model F–28A, F–

28C, F–28F, TH–28, 280, 280C, 280F, 

280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters. The 

proposed AD would require reviewing 

the helicopter maintenance records and 

determining the installation dates for 

the push-pull rods. If the dates cannot 

be determined from the maintenance 

records, using the ‘‘Date MFD’’, which 

is located on the helicopter data plate, 

would be used as the installation date 

for the push-pull rods. The proposed 

AD would also require a visual 

inspection for corrosion on the exterior 

and interior of the three push-pull rods, 

part number (P/N) 28–16253-all dash 

numbers (for Model F–28A, F–28C, F–

28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX 

helicopters) or P/N 4140532-all dash 

numbers (for Model TH–28, 480, and 

480B helicopters), using the compliance 

times stated in the following table. 

Replacing any push-pull rod that has 

corrosion that is severe enough to cause 

pitting or has moisture inside the rod, 

and repairing any push-pull rod that has 

corrosion but no pitting, would be 

required before further flight. Repairing 

a push-pull rod consists of cleaning the 

push-pull rod, applying a protective 

coating, and sealing the push-pull rod 

before reinstalling it on a helicopter. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS