66506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent crankshaft failure and

subsequent engine failure, accomplish the

following:

(a) At the next engine overhaul, or

whenever the crankshaft is next removed

from the engine, after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs first, determine if

the crankshaft was manufactured using the

airmelt or vacuum arc remelt (VAR) process

in accordance with the identification

procedure described in TCM Critical SB No.

CSB96–8, dated June 25, 1996. If the

crankshaft was manufactured using the

airmelt process or if the manufacturing

process is unknown, remove the crankshaft

from service and replace with a serviceable

crankshaft manufactured using the VAR

process.

(b) For all TCM IO–360, LTSIO–360, TSIO–

360, IO–520, IO–520, LTSIO–520 and TSIO–

520 and Rolls-Royce, plc IO–360 and TSIO–

360 engine models that have VAR

crankshafts installed, regardless of serial

number; at the next and every subsequent

crankshaft removal from the engine case or

installation of a replacement crankshaft, prior

to crankshaft installation in the engine,

conduct an ultrasonic inspection of the

crankshaft in accordance with the procedures

specified in TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96–

10, dated August 15, 1996, and, if necessary,

replace with a serviceable part.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the ultrasonic

inspection required by this AD does not

fulfill any requirements for magnetic particle

inspection or any other inspections specified

in TCM or Rolls-Royce, plc overhaul

manuals.

(c) The ultrasonic inspection of the

crankshaft must be performed by a nondestructive test (NDT) ultrasonic (UT) Level

II inspector who is qualified under the

guidelines established by the American

Society of Nondestructive Testing or MIL–

STD–410 or FAA-approved equivalent, or

must be trained by TCM personnel or their

designated representative on how to

accomplish and conduct this inspection

procedure. The person approving the engine

for return to service is required to verify that

the UT inspection was accomplished in

accordance with the requirements of this

paragraph.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) The actions required by this AD shall be

done in accordance with the following TCM

service documents:

Document No. Pages Date

CSB96–8 ........... 1–6 June 25, 1996.

Total pages: 6.

MSB96–10 ........ 1–3 August 15, 1996.

Total pages: 3.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Teledyne Continental Motors, P.O. Box

90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone (334) 438–

3411. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

New England Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

January 23, 1998.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

December 12, 1997.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33142 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–SW–50–AD; Amendment

39–10261; AD 97–26–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

France Model SA–360C Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to Eurocopter France Model

SA–360C helicopters. This action

requires replacement of the main gear

box (MGB) input bevel pinion (bevel

pinion). This amendment is prompted

by service reports of bevel pinion

fatigue cracking. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in failure of the

MGB and a subsequent forced landing.

DATES: Effective January 5, 1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

January 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-SW–50-

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Shep Blackman, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft

Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone

(817) 222–5296, (817) 222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Direction Generale De L’Aviation

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on Eurocopter France Model SA–

360C helicopters with MGB, part

number (P/N) 360A32–2000—all dash

numbers, installed. The DGAC advises

that replacement of the MGB bevel

pinion, P/N 360A32–1021–20, is

necessary at 1,000 hours time-in-service

(TIS) intervals to prevent fatigue

cracking of the bevel pinion, failure of

the MGB, and a subsequent forced

landing.

Eurocopter France has issued Service

Bulletin No. 01.35, dated January 14,

1997, which specifies replacement of

the MGB bevel pinion at 1,000 hour TIS

intervals. The DGAC classified this

service bulletin as mandatory and

issued DGAC AD 97–027–041(B), dated

February 12, 1997, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

helicopters in France.

This helicopter model is

manufactured in France and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Eurocopter France

Model SA–360C helicopters of the same

type design registered in the United

States, this AD is being issued to

prevent bevel pinion fatigue cracking,

failure of the MGB, and a subsequent

forced landing. This AD requires

replacement of the bevel pinion at

specified TIS intervals.

None of the Eurocopter France Model

SA–360C helicopters affected by this

AD action are on the U.S. Register. All
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66507

helicopters included in the applicability

of this rule are currently operated by

non-U.S. operators under foreign

registry; therefore, they are not directly

affected by this AD action. However, the

FAA considers that this rule is

necessary to ensure that the unsafe

condition is addressed in the event that

any of these subject helicopters are

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future.

Should an affected helicopter be

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register, it will require approximately

8.5 work hours to accomplish the

required actions, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Required parts

will cost $17,000 per helicopter for each

replacement. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of this AD will be $17,510

per helicopter for each MGB bevel

pinion replacement.

Since this AD action does not affect

any helicopter that is currently on the

U.S. register, it has no adverse economic

impact and imposes no additional

burden on any person. Therefore, notice

and public procedures hereon are

unnecessary and the amendment may be

made effective in less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 97-SW–50-AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that notice

and prior public comment are

unnecessary in promulgating this

regulation and therefore, it can be

issued immediately to correct an unsafe

condition in aircraft since none of these

model helicopters are registered in the

United States, and that it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866. It has been

determined further that this action

involves an emergency regulation under

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it

is determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

97–26–18 Eurocopter France: Amendment

39–10261. Docket No. 97–SW–50–AD.

Applicability: Model SA–360C helicopters

with main gearbox (MGB), part number (P/N)

360A32–2000—all dash numbers, installed,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

helicopters that have been modified, altered,

or repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition, or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the MGB

bevel pinion, failure of the MGB, and a

subsequent forced landing, accomplish the

following:

(a) Before further flight, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours time-inservice (TIS), replace the MGB bevel pinion,

P/N 360A32–1021–20, on MGBs that have

accumulated 900 or more hours TIS since

first installed on any helicopter or since the

last MGB overhaul.

(b) On or before the accumulation of 1,000

hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,000 hours TIS, replace the bevel

pinion, P/N 360A32–1021–20, on MGBs that

have accumulated less than 900 hours TIS

since first installed on any helicopter or since

the last MGB overhaul. This AD revises the

Airworthiness Limitations section of the

maintenance manual by establishing a new

retirement life for the bevel pinion, P/N

360A32–1021–20, of 1,000 hours TIS.

Note 2: Eurocopter France Mandatory

Service Bulletin No. 01.35, dated January 14,

1997, contains additional information

concerning the subject of this AD.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Rotorcraft

Standards Staff, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199
66508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

January 5, 1998.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile

(France) AD 97–027–041(B), dated February

12, 1997.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December

12, 1997.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33145 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–CE–28–AD; Amendment 39–

10259 AD 97–26–16]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company Models 402C and

414A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85–13–03

R2, which currently requires

repetitively inspecting the engine mount

beams for cracks on certain Cessna

Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 402C

and 414A airplanes, and replacing any

cracked beams. This AD requires

incorporating engine mount kits that

will eliminate the need for the repetitive

inspection requirement of AD 85–13–03

R2. This AD results from the Federal

Aviation Administration’s policy on

aging commuter-class aircraft, which is

to eliminate or, in certain instances,

reduce the number of certain repetitive

short-interval inspections when

improved parts or modifications are

available. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

engine mount beam caused by fatigue

cracks, which could result in loss of the

engine with consequent loss of the

airplane.

DATES: Effective February 2, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 2,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

the Cessna Aircraft Company, Product

Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,

Kansas 67277, telephone (316) 941–

7550; facsimile (316) 942–9006. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 90–CE–28–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification

Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,

Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone (316) 946–4129;

facsimile (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

AD 85–13–03 R2, Amendment 39–

5147, currently requires repetitively

inspecting the engine mount beams for

cracks on certain Cessna Aircraft

Company (Cessna) Models 402C and

414A airplanes, and replacing any

cracked beams. On August 9, 1990 (55

FR 32442), a proposal to amend part 39

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would supersede AD 85–13–03 R2 was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

This NPRM proposed to supersede AD

85–13–03 R2 with a new AD that would

have retained the repetitive inspections

initially, and would have required

eventual modification of the engine

mount beams upon the accumulation of

a certain amount of usage time on the

airplane, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspections.

Interested persons were afforded an

opportunity to participate in the making

of this amendment. One comment was

received regarding the NPRM and no

comments were received regarding the

FAA’s determination of the cost to the

public.

Cessna recommended a change to the

original NPRM to account for airplanes

that may have Cessna Kit SK414–19

incorporated without Cessna Kit

SK414–17 ever being incorporated.

Cessna stated that, as written, the NPRM

would not require the 9,600 hour timein-service (TIS) repetitive radiographic

inspections for these airplanes.

The FAA concurred and determined

that any AD action on this issue should

require mandatory incorporation of the

two appropriate Cessna SK414–19–*

kits (five different kits) and then

repetitive radiographic inspections at

9,600-hour TIS intervals on all

airplanes. This would assure that all

airplanes are covered by the repetitive

radiographic inspections.

The FAA re-examined this issue and

determined that the actions proposed in

the original NPRM were still valid safety

issues, but that the engine mount beams

should be modified at a certain time

period for all airplanes instead of

relying on repetitive inspections to

detect cracks until each airplane

accumulates a certain amount of hours

TIS.

Since the comment period for the

original NPRM had closed and revision

of the NPRM to require engine beam

modification at a certain period of time

for all of the affected Cessna Model

402C and 414A airplanes proposed

actions that went beyond the scope of

what was already proposed, the FAA

issued a supplemental NPRM (62 FR

39490, July 23, 1997) to allow additional

time for the public to comment.

Interested persons were again

afforded an opportunity to participate in

the making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received on the supplemental

NPRM.

Comment No. 1: Change of Compliance

Time

One commenter states that the

compliance time of ‘‘within the next 100

hours time-in-service (TIS) after the

effective date of this AD’’ is unrealistic

for airplane owners/operators that have

the Cessna Kit SK414–17 incorporated

on their airplanes. The commenter

states that a more realistic time would

be to coincide with the next 1,600-hour

engine overhaul.

The FAA concurs that this would be

a more realistic compliance time for

these owners/operators with these kits

incorporated on their airplanes. In

addition, the FAA has determined a

more realistic compliance time for those

owners/operators not having the Cessna

Kit SK414–17 incorporated on their

airplanes would be at 200 hours TIS to

coincide with the inspections currently

required by AD 85–13–03 R2. The final

rule has been changed accordingly.

Comment No. 2: The Cost Estimate is

Too Low

Two commenters state that the FAA’s

estimate of the cost impact on the public

is too low by a factor of two or more.

One of these commenters presented an

example of the cost impact for a specific

design configuration, which includes

adding multiple kits to both engines.

This example also includes 30 hours of

labor for engine removal. The

commenters request that the FAA reexamine the cost estimate and then