### 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 penaltyformula 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 wouldrequire 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


### 4091 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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.


### 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