4090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

example, a recommendation to set 

guidelines for negotiating penalties and 

other remedial measures has yet to be 

considered by the Commission. See id. 

at 2. Accordingly, the Commission 

believes it may be beneficial to revisit 

certain of those issues and to address 

other relevant ADR topics. 

B. Proposals and Issues To Consider 

1. Commission Approval or Rejection of 

ADR Settlements 

From the time the ADR program was 

implemented in 2000, the Commission’s 

only options when reviewing ADR 

settlements have been either to (1) 

accept the agreement without revisions 

or (2) reject the agreement in its entirety 

and dismiss the matter. This policy has 

the advantage of giving ADRO wide 

latitude to fashion agreements without 

Commission involvement—thereby 

speeding up the process—while 

providing respondents with a unique 

incentive by assuring that any 

agreement they sign will represent the 

end of the case (respondents may be 

more likely to use the ADR program if 

they can be confident their settlements 

are not subject to renegotiation). The 

obvious disadvantage is that 

Commission is boxed in; since it cannot 

direct ADR to renegotiate an agreement 

it finds unpalatable, its role as final 

agency arbiter is arguably undermined. 

Also, a respondent may be unduly 

benefited if, for example, an agreement 

with a stiff penalty is dismissed because 

the Commission does not like certain 

language contained therein. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

its ‘‘accept or dismiss’’ policy to 

determine whether the advantages 

outweigh the disadvantages and how 

the policy might be revised to strike a 

more appropriate balance. For example, 

the Commission could simply vote on 

whether to instruct ADRO to renegotiate 

problematic aspects of a settlement 

upon the motion of one Commissioner. 

If a more narrowly tailored approach is 

deemed preferable, ADRO could inform 

respondents at the start of higher 

priority ADR matters (e.g., where the 

amount in violation appears to be above 

a particular amount) that the 

Commission reserves the right to direct 

ADRO to renegotiate any ADR 

settlement brought before it. 

2. Civil Penalties 

Similar to the civil penalty issues 

raised above concerning the traditional 

enforcement process, the Commission 

seeks comment on the penalty scheme 

used by ADRO so the Commission can 

better evaluate the program’s 

effectiveness. The main objective should 

be to achieve a balance so that penalties 

are sufficiently low for respondents to 

prefer participating in the ADR program 

rather than being subject to OGC 

processing, yet high enough to deter 

future violations and promote 

compliance. The Commission 

recognizes that ADR tends to focus more 

on non-monetary ‘‘behavioral’’ remedies 

in its settlements and may offer a wider 

array of settlement options to 

respondents than does OGC (e.g., 

attendance at a Commission-sponsored 

workshop), but the importance of 

securing civil penalties to modify 

behavior should not be understated, 

even in cases where the amounts in 

violation are comparatively low. 

Although respondents may be quick to 

make counteroffers with very small and 

often no penalties, the Commission is 

not necessarily served well by accepting 

such offers. In order for terms of 

settlement to serve as meaningful 

deterrents, the penalty should at least 

exceed the ‘‘cost of doing business’’ for 

the particular respondent involved. 

There still may be sound reasons why 

ADR settlements often contain no or 

minimal penalty amounts, but perhaps 

there should be a fuller airing of the 

reasons for accepting such terms so that 

the Commission can determine whether 

the proper balance of program objectives 

is being achieved and maintained. 

As it has recently done with OGC’s 

civil penalty calculations as discussed 

above, the Commission is considering 

whether to apprise respondents of its 

‘‘opening offer settlement’’ formulas for 

the typical violations it encounters. 

ADRO currently employs a penalty 

formula scheme resembling a scaledback version of the formulas used by 

OGC. After a respondent agrees in 

writing to ‘‘buy in’’ to the ADR process, 

ADRO generally communicates an 

opening offer by telephone (in contrast 

with OGC-drafted written agreements 

containing opening offers approved by 

the Commission) and negotiates terms to 

include in a written settlement. 

Although the ADR program was set up 

to operate without extensive 

Commission involvement—thus 

promoting faster resolution of cases—it 

may nevertheless be in the 

Commission’s interest for ADRO to 

inform it of the parameters for 

negotiation before it begins settlement 

negotiations. Currently, both the 

opening and negotiated figures are 

simultaneously presented to the 

Commission along with an agreement 

already signed by the respondent; the 

Commission does not have any prior 

opportunity to review the opening offer 

as it does with OGC reports 

recommending conciliation. The 

Commission could consider having 

ADRO provide a proposed penalty 

amount in its assignment memorandum 

to the Commission, since the amount in 

violation is generally clear at that time. 

The memoranda could be circulated on 

a no-objection basis to maintain 

efficiency (it is currently circulated on 

an informational basis). The 

Commission recognizes that including 

such information may increase the 

likelihood of Commission objections 

and thus slow down the ADR process; 

accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to maintain adequate 

oversight of ADRO’s civil penalty 

regime. 

VII. Other Issues 

The Commission welcomes comments 

on other issues relevant to these 

enforcement policies and procedures, 

including any comments concerning 

how the FEC might increase the 

fairness, transparency, efficiency and 

effectiveness of the Commission. 

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Donald F. McGahn II, 

Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00959 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0018; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–060–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

Deutschland GmbH Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH 

(Eurocopter) Model MBB–BK 117 C–2 

helicopters. This proposed AD would 

require determining if a certain serialnumbered bevel gear is installed in the 

tailrotor intermediate gear box (IGB). If 

such a bevel gear is installed in the IGB, 

this AD would require recording the 

bevel gear’s reduced life limit in the 

Airworthiness Limitations section of the 

maintenance manual and on the 

component history card or equivalent 

IGB record. If the bevel gear’s life limit 

has been reached or exceeded, this AD 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules 4091 

would require, before further flight, 

replacing the bevel gear with an 

airworthy bevel gear. This proposed AD 

is prompted by the discovery that the 

tooth foot fillets in certain bevel gears 

fell below the minimum dimensions 

required in the design documents to 

ensure safe functioning of the bevel gear 

until reaching its approved life limit. 

The proposed actions are intended to 

prevent failure of a bevel gear before 

reaching its currently approved life 

limit, failure of the IGB, and subsequent 

loss of helicopter control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 19, 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 American 

Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 

telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 

0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http:// 

www.eurocopter.com/techpub. 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: 

Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone 

(817) 222–5110; email 

chinh.vuong@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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2010– 

0096, dated May 25, 2010, to correct an 

unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model 

MBB–BK 117 C–2 helicopters. EASA 

advises that during a recent review of 

the production documents for the bevel 

gears of the IGB, it was discovered that 

certain production batch numbers have 

tooth foot fillets below the required 

minimum values that would ensure the 

approved life limits for this part. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of Germany 

and are approved for operation in the 

United States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with Germany, 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 products of the same 

type design. 

Related Service Information 

Eurocopter has issued Alert Service 

Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C–2–04A–005, 

Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB). 

The ASB specifies determining whether 

certain serial-numbered bevel gears are 

installed in the IGB. The ASB specifies 

recording the reduced life limit for each 

affected bevel gear on the log card of the 

IGB and on the list of life-limited parts. 

If a bevel gear has one of the serial 

numbers listed in Table 1 of the ASB, 

the ASB specifies filling out a reply 

form and copying and sending it to 

Eurocopter. The ASB also specifies 

sending the IGB to a certified overhaul 

facility for replacing the bevel gear if it 

has reached or exceeded its life limit. 

EASA classified this ASB as mandatory 

and issued AD No. 2010–0096, dated 

May 25, 2010, to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these helicopters. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require, 

within 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD: 

• Determining if a certain partnumbered and serial-numbered bevel 

gear is installed in the IGB, and 

recording the reduced life limit of the 

bevel gear on the component history 

card or equivalent record of the IGB. 

• If the bevel gear life limit has been 

reached or is exceeded, before further 

flight, replacing the bevel gear with an 

airworthy bevel gear. 

• Revising the Airworthiness 

Limitations section of the maintenance 

manual by reducing the retirement life 

for each IGB bevel gear, part number (P/ 

N) 4639 310 065, having a serial number 

listed in Table 1 of the ASB, to the life 

limit listed in Table 1 of the ASB. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the EASA AD 

This proposed AD does not require 

sending a copy of the form in the ASB 

to the manufacturer. This proposed AD 

does not require sending the IGB to an 

overhaul facility. Also, this proposed 

AD does not specify a single ferry flight 

not to exceed 20 hours time-in-service 

to a maintenance facility if the bevel 

gear has exceeded the reduced life limit. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 107 helicopters of U.S. 

registry and that the labor rate would 

average $85 per work-hour. We also 

estimate that it would take about a half 

hour to determine whether the IGB is 

affected and to enter the reduced life 

limit on the component history card or 

the equivalent record and to revise the 

Airworthiness Limitations section of the 

maintenance manual. Based on these 

figures, we estimate that the cost per 

helicopter would total about $43, about 

$4,601 for the U.S. fleet. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
4092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

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): 

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0018; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–060–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model MBB–BK 117 C– 

2 helicopters with a bevel gear, part number 

(P/N) 4639 310 065, installed in the tail rotor 

intermediate gear box (IGB), P/N 4639 002 

007, certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

failure of a bevel gear, failure of the tail rotor 

IGB, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

(c) 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. 

(d) Required Actions 

Within 30 days, do the following: 

(1) Determine if a bevel gear with a serial 

number (S/N) listed in Table 1 of Eurocopter 

Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C–2–04A– 

005, Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB), 

is installed in the IGB. 

(i) If a bevel gear listed in Table 1 of the 

ASB is installed in the IGB, record the 

reduced life limit of the bevel gear onto the 

component history card or equivalent record 

of the IGB. 

(ii) If the bevel gear life limit has been 

reached or is exceeded, before further flight, 

replace the bevel gear with an airworthy 

bevel gear. 

(2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations 

section of the maintenance manual by 

reducing the retirement life for each IGB 

bevel gear, P/N 4639 310 065, that has a S/ 

N listed in Table 1 of the ASB to the life limit 

corresponding to that S/N. 

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

chinh.vuong@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. 

(f) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010– 

0096, dated May 25, 2010. 

(g) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6520, Tail Rotor Gearbox. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9, 

2013. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01004 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0962; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–033–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

that would have applied to certain 

Cessna Aircraft Company Models 

172RG, R182, TR182, FR182, 210N, 

T210N, 210R, T210R, P210N, P210R, 

and T303 airplanes. The proposed 

airworthiness directive (AD) would 

have required you to inspect the 

aircraft’s hydraulic power pack wiring 

for incorrect installation, and if needed, 

correct the installation. Since issuance 

of the NPRM, the FAA has re-evaluated 

this airworthiness concern and 

determined that an unsafe condition 

does not exist that would warrant AD 

action. This withdrawal does not 

prevent the FAA from initiating future 

rulemaking on this subject. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, 

Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946–4128; 

fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

richard.rejniak@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. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on September 11, 2012 (77 FR 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with