40060 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2013–0011, dated 

January 15, 2013, for related information. 

(2) For Airbus service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 

5 61 93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@airbus.com; Internet http:// 

www.airbus.com. For PPG Aerospace service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

PPG Aerospace, 12780 San Fernando Road, 

Sylmar, CA 91342; telephone 818 362 6711; 

fax 818 362 0603; Internet http:// 

corporateportal.ppg.com/na/aerospace. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15947 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0468; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–147–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 777–200 and –300 

series airplanes equipped with RollsRoyce engines. The existing AD 

currently requires repetitive inspections 

to detect cracks of the outer V-blades of 

the thrust reverser, and corrective action 

if necessary. The existing AD also 

provides for optional terminating action 

for the repetitive inspections. Since we 

issued that AD, we have received 

reports of cracked outer V-blade fittings 

at the hinge beam end of Rolls-Royce 

engine thrust reversers, on airplanes on 

which the optional terminating action 

was done. This proposed AD would 

add, for airplanes on which the optional 

terminating action is done, repetitive 

inspections for cracking in the outer Vblade fittings of the hinge beam and 

latch beam ends of each thrust reverser 

half, and replacement of an affected 

thrust reverser half if necessary. This 

proposed AD would also add airplanes 

to the applicability. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent separation of a thrust 

reverser from the airplane during 

normal reverse thrust or during a 

refused takeoff, which could result in 

unexpected thrust asymmetry and a 

possible runway excursion. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 

P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 

98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melanie Violette, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6422; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: 

melanie.violette@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0468; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–147–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On December 14, 2006, we issued AD 

2006–26–06, Amendment 39–14864 (71 

FR 77586, December 27, 2006), for 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

777–200 and –300 series airplanes, 

equipped with Rolls-Royce engines, as 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 

1, dated November 30, 2006. That AD 

requires repetitive inspections to detect 

cracks of the outer V-blades of the thrust 

reverser, and corrective action if 

necessary. The existing AD also 

provides for optional terminating action 

for the repetitive inspections. That AD 

resulted from reports of cracked outer Vblades in the thrust reversers. We issued 

that AD to prevent separation of a thrust 

reverser from the airplane during 

normal reverse thrust or during a 

refused takeoff, which could result in 

impact damage to other airplane areas. 

If a thrust reverser separates from the 

airplane during a refused takeoff, the 

engine could produce forward thrust, 

resulting in unexpected thrust 

asymmetry and a possible runway 

excursion. 

Actions Since Existing AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006), we have received 

reports of cracked outer V-blade fittings 

at the hinge beam end of the thrust 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 40061 

reverser due to relative movement 

between the engine and the thrust 

reverser during flight operation, on 

airplanes on which the optional 

terminating action (Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0061, dated July 6, 2006) specified in 

AD 2006–26–06 had been done. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletins 777–78– 

0061, Revision 1, dated August 28, 

2007, and 777–78–0064, Revision 2, 

dated June 14, 2012. For information on 

the procedures and compliance times, 

see this service information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0468. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006). This proposed AD 

would add new airplanes to the 

applicability. This proposed AD would 

also require, for airplanes on which the 

optional terminating action is done, 

repetitive inspections for cracking in the 

outer V-blade fittings of the hinge beam 

and latch beam ends of each thrust 

reverser half, and replacement of an 

affected thrust reverser half if necessary. 

The phrase ‘‘related investigative 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Related investigative actions’’ are 

follow-on actions that: (1) Are related to 

the primary actions, and (2) are actions 

that further investigate the nature of any 

condition found. Related investigative 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, inspections. 

In addition, the phrase, ‘‘corrective 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Corrective actions’’ are actions 

that correct or address any condition 

found. Corrective actions in an AD 

could include, for example, repairs. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006). Since AD 2006–26– 

06 was issued, the AD format has been 

revised, and certain paragraphs have 

been rearranged. As a result, the 

corresponding paragraph identifiers 

have changed in this proposed AD, as 

listed in the following table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 2006– 

26–06, amendment 39– 

14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006) 

Corresponding 

requirement in 

this proposed 

AD 

paragraph (f) ...................... paragraph (g) 

paragraph (g) ..................... paragraph (h) 

We have removed the reference to 

paragraph (h) of AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006) from paragraph (f) 

of AD 2006–26–06 (paragraph (g) of this 

proposed AD). Paragraph (h) of AD 

2006–26–06 requires reporting and is 

not a method of compliance for doing 

applicable corrective actions as 

specified in paragraph (f) of AD 2006– 

26–06. We have added a reference to 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD 

interim action. The manufacturer is 

currently developing a modification that 

will address the unsafe condition 

identified in this AD. Once this 

modification is developed, approved, 

and available, we might consider 

additional rulemaking. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspections [retained actions from existing AD 

2006–26–06, Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 

77586, December 27, 2006)].

16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 per 

inspection cycle.

$1,360 per inspection 

cycle.

$74,800 per inspection 

cycle. 

Repetitive inspections outer V-blade [new proposed action].82 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,970 per 

inspection cycle.

$6,970 per inspection 

cycle.

$383,350 per inspection cycle. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

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 have 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 above, I 

certify that the 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, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

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) 

2006–26–06, Amendment 39–14864 (71 

FR 77586, December 27, 2006), and 

adding the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0468; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–147–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by August 19, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category, equipped with 

Rolls-Royce engines, as identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 78, Engine exhaust. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracked outer V-blade fittings at the hinge 

beam end of Rolls-Royce engine thrust 

reversers. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

separation of a thrust reverser from the 

airplane during normal reverse thrust or 

during a refused takeoff, which could result 

in unexpected thrust asymmetry and a 

possible runway excursion. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (f) of AD 2006–26–06, Amendment 

39–14864 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006), 

with new service information. For Group 1, 

Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 

2012: Do the detailed inspections to detect 

cracks in the outer V-blade of the thrust 

reversers. Do the inspections in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0064, Revision 1, dated November 

30, 2006; or Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012. 

Do the inspections at the applicable times 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0064, Revision 1, dated November 

30, 2006; except where Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, 

Revision 1, dated November 30, 2006, 

specifies an initial compliance time after the 

date on the service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified time after 

January 11, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2006–26–06). Do applicable corrective 

actions before further flight, in accordance 

with Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 1, dated 

November 30, 2006; or Revision 2, dated June 

14, 2012; or paragraph (m) of this AD. As of 

the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, to 

accomplish the actions required by this 

paragraph. 

(h) Retained Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph restates the credit for 

previous actions specified in paragraph (g) of 

AD 2006–26–06, Amendment 39–14864 (71 

FR 77586, December 27, 2006). For Group 1, 

Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 

2012: Actions done before January 11, 2007 

(the effective date of AD 2006–26–06), in 

accordance with Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, dated August 

7, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with 

the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(i) Retained Optional Terminating Action for 

Paragraph (g) of this AD with New 

Requirements 

This paragraph restates the optional 

terminating action specified in paragraph (i) 

of AD 2006–26–06, Amendment 39–14864 

(71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006), with new 

service information. Accomplishment of the 

actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) 

of this AD terminates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. For airplanes on 

which this terminating action has been 

accomplished, operators must do the 

inspection required by paragraph (j) of this 

AD. 

(1) Accomplishment of the applicable 

inspections and related investigative/ 

corrective actions before the effective date of 

this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0061, dated July 6, 2006; except, where 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0061, dated July 6, 2006, specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for appropriate 

action, repair before further flight using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this 

AD. 

(2) Accomplishment of the applicable 

modification, inspections, and related 

investigative/corrective actions, in 

accordance with Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–78–0061, Revision 1, 

dated August 28, 2007; except, where Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0061, Revision 1, dated August 28, 2007, 

specifies to contact the manufacturer for 

appropriate action, repair before further flight 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of 

this AD. 

(j) New Repetitive Inspections 

For Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes, 

and Groups 2 and 3 airplanes, as identified 

in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

777–78–0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 

2012: At the applicable times specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, except 

as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, do 

a detailed inspection for cracking of the outer 

V-blade fittings at the latch beam end and 

hinge beam end of each thrust reverser half, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 2, 

dated June 14, 2012. 

(1) If no cracking is found, repeat the 

inspections thereafter at the times specified 

in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–78– 

0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012. 

(2) If any cracking is found, before further 

flight, replace the affected thrust reverser half 

with a serviceable thrust reverser half, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 2, 

dated June 14, 2012. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 777–78–0064, 

Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012. 

(k) Service Information Exception 

Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 2, dated June 

14, 2012, specifies an initial compliance time 

‘‘after the date of Revision 2 of this service 

bulletin,’’ this AD requires compliance 

within the specified time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(l) Reporting 

Although Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 777–78–0064, Revision 2, dated June 

14, 2012, specifies to submit certain 

information to the manufacturer, this AD 

does not include that requirement. 

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 40063 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2006–26–06, 

Amendment 39–14864 (71 FR 77586, 

December 27, 2006), are not approved as 

AMOCs for this AD. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Melanie Violette, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6422; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: melanie.violette@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15955 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0556; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–SW–30–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Erickson AirCrane Incorporated Helicopters (Type 

Certificate previously Held by Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) 

Model S–64E helicopters. The existing 

AD requires checks of the main rotor 

blades for a crack. This proposed AD 

would retain the actions of the existing 

AD, would reflect that the type 

certificate (TC) for this model helicopter 

has been transferred to Erickson AirCrane Incorporated (Erickson), and 

expand the applicability to include the 

similar Erickson Model S–64F 

helicopters. This proposed AD is 

prompted by a need to expand the 

applicability to include Model S–64F 

helicopters and clarify the applicable 

main rotor blades by part number. The 

proposed actions are intended to detect 

a crack in the main rotor blade and 

prevent blade separation and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Erickson AirCrane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris 

Erickson/Compliance Officer, 3100 

Willow Springs Rd., PO Box 3247, 

Central Point, OR 97502; telephone 

(541) 664–5544; fax (541) 664–2312; 

email cerickson@ericksonaircrane.com. 

You may review the referenced 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: JC 

Lin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft 

Certification Office, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone 

(817) 222–5170; email 7-AVS-ASW170@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 December 6, 1990, we issued AD 

90–26–12, Amendment 39–6841 (55 FR 

51406, December 14, 1990) for Sikorsky 

Model S–64E helicopters. The AD 

requires repetitive checks of the Blade 

Inspection Method (BIM) indicator of 

each main rotor blade to determine 

whether the blade pressure has been 

compromised by a blade crack. These 

checks, which may be performed by the 

pilot, must be accomplished and 

recorded before the first flight of each 

day and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed three hours time-in-service (TIS) 

for helicopters engaged in seven or more 

external lifts per hour or five hours TIS 

for operations with less than seven 

external lifts per hour or operations 

without an external load, with each 

check-interval measured from the last 

check. Those actions are intended to 

detect fatigue cracks in the blade, which 

could result in separation of the blade 

and loss of control of the helicopter. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS