This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

79274 

Vol. 80, No. 244 

Monday, December 21, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3741; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–SW–040–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Eurocopter France) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2013–08– 

17 for Airbus Helicopters Model SA– 

365N, SA–365–N1, AS–365N2, AS 365 

N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters. AD 

2013–08–17 currently requires an initial 

and recurring inspections of the 9- 

degree fuselage frame for a crack and a 

repair of the frame if a crack exists. 

Since we issued AD 2013–08–17, 

additional information has prompted us 

to propose modifying the compliance 

times and expanding the inspection area 

of the 9-inch frame. These proposed 

actions are intended to detect a crack in 

the 9-degree frame to prevent loss of 

structural integrity and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 19, 2016. 

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 by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3741; 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 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) 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 rule, contact Airbus 

Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, 

Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax 

(972) 641–3775; or at http://

www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. 

You may review service information at 

the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, 

Texas 76177. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

robert.grant@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 April 12, 2013, we issued AD 

2013–08–17, Amendment 39–17434 (78 

FR 25380, May 1, 2013), for Eurocopter 

France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model 

SA–365N, SA–365–N1, AS–365N2, AS 

365 N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters. AD 

2013–08–17 requires an initial and 

recurring inspection of the 9-degree 

fuselage frame for a crack and a repair 

of the frame if a crack exists. AD 2013– 

08–17 was prompted by the discovery of 

a crack in the 9-degree frame of a Model 

AS–365N2 helicopter. This type of crack 

could develop on the other specified 

model helicopters because they contain 

the same 9-degree frame. Those actions 

are intended to detect a crack in the 9- 

degree frame to prevent loss of 

structural integrity and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

AD 2013–08–17 was prompted by 

Emergency AD No. 2010–0064–E, dated 

April 6, 2010, issued by EASA, which 

is the Technical Agent for the Member 

States of the European Union, to correct 

an unsafe condition for Model SA– 

365N, SA–365–N1, AS–365N2, AS 365 

N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters. EASA 

advises that a crack was found in the 9- 

degree frame of an AS–365N2 helicopter 

during an inspection. The helicopter 

had logged 10,786 flight hours. The 

crack was located 230 millimeters above 

the cabin floor and had grown over a 

large section of the 9-degree frame on 

the right-hand (RH) side. EASA states 

that the time required for initiation of a 

crack in the area varies according to the 

weight and balance data of the different 

aircraft versions. 

Actions Since AD 2013–08–17 Was 

Issued 

Since we issued AD 2013–08–17, 

Amendment 39–17434 (78 FR 25380, 

May 1, 2013), EASA issued AD No. 

2014–0159, dated July 7, 2014, which 

supersedes EASA Emergency AD No. 

2010–0064–E. Further analysis on the 

strength of the 9-degree frame by Airbus 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79275 

Helicopters indicated that compliance 

times should be modified and the 

inspection area expanded. 

Consequently, we propose issuing this 

AD, which would supersede AD 2013– 

08–17, and reflect the modified 

compliance times and inspection areas. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of France and 

are approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with France, 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 Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Airbus Helicopters has issued an 

Emergency Alert Service Bulletin 

(EASB), Revision 2, dated April 7, 2014, 

containing the following three numbers: 

No. 05.00.57 for the Model SA–365N 

and N1, and AS–365N2 and N3 and for 

military Model AS365F, Fs, Fi, and K 

helicopters; No. 05.39 for Model SA 

366–G1 and military Model SA 366–GA 

helicopters; and No. 05.00.25 for 

military Model AS565MA, MB, SA, SB, 

and UB helicopter. 

The EASB specifies checking at 

regular intervals for a crack in the areas 

of the inner angles and flanges of the 9- 

degree frame on the RH and left hand 

(LH) sides, near the splice. Revision 2 of 

the EASB modifies the compliance 

times, adds a compliance time based on 

take-off/landing cycles, and expands the 

inspection areas up to the junction with 

the upper part of the frame. EASA 

classified this service information as 

mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 

2014–0159 to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these helicopters. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

inspecting the 9-degree fuselage frame 

on the RH and LH sides for a crack, 

using a 10x or higher magnifying glass 

and a light source, in the areas depicted 

in specified portions of the EASB 

applicable to your helicopter. If there is 

a crack, this proposed AD would require 

repairing the frame before further flight. 

For helicopters that have not reached a 

certain hours time-in-service (TIS) or 

landing threshold, the inspection would 

be required within 110 hours TIS after 

reaching whichever threshold occurs 

first, and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 110 hours TIS. For helicopters 

that have reached or exceeded the hours 

TIS or landing threshold, the inspection 

would be required within 110 hours TIS 

since the effective date of the AD and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 

hours TIS. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the EASA AD 

We would not require contacting the 

manufacturer for approved repair 

instructions. We also would not allow 

flight with a known crack. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 40 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry and that labor costs average $85 

a work hour. Based on these estimates, 

we expect the following costs: 

• Inspecting the 9-degree frame 

would require 3 work-hours per 

inspection for a cost of $255 per 

helicopter and $10,200 for the fleet per 

inspection cycle. 

• Repairing the 9-degree frame would 

require 24 work-hours for a labor cost of 

$2,040. Parts would cost $3,350 for a 

total cost of $5,390 per helicopter. 

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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2013–08–17, Amendment 39–17434 (78 

FR 25380, May 1, 2013) and adding the 

following new AD: 

Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter 

France): Docket No. FAA–2015–3741; 

Directorate Identifier 2014–SW–040–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters 

Model SA–365N, SA–365–N1, AS–365N2, 

AS 365 N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in the 9-degree frame, which could 

result in the loss of structural integrity and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2013–08–17, 

Amendment 39–17434 (78 FR 25380, May 1, 

2013). 

(d) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by February 

19, 2016. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(e) 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. 

(f) Required Actions 

(1) Within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after reaching the hours or landings 

threshold, whichever occurs first, listed in 

Table 1 to Paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or 

within 110 hours TIS from the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later, and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours 

TIS, using a 10X or higher magnifying glass 

and a light, inspect the 9-degree fuselage 

frame on the right-hand (RH) and left-hand 

(LH) sides for a crack in the areas depicted 

in Figures 1 and 2 of Airbus Helicopters 

Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 

AS365 05.00.57, Revision 2, dated April 7, 

2014, or EASB No. SA366 05.39, Revision 2, 

dated April 7, 2014, as applicable to your 

model helicopter. For purposes of this AD, a 

landing would be counted anytime the 

helicopter lifts off into the air and then lands 

again regardless of the duration of the 

landing and regardless of whether the engine 

is shut down. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1) 

Helicopter model Hours TIS Landings 

SA–365N .......... 11,490 22,980 

SA–365N1 ........ 10,490 20,980 

AS–365N2 ........ 9,140 18,280 

AS 365 N3 ........ 8,740 17,480 

SA–366G1 ........ 8,390 16,780 

(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, 

repair the frame. Repairing a frame does not 

constitute terminating actions for the 

repetitive inspection requirements of this 

AD. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort 

Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222– 

5110; email 9-ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@

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. 

(h) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 

No. 2014–0159, dated July 7, 2014. You may 

view the EASA AD on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FAA–2015–3741. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 5311, Fuselage Main, Frame. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

11, 2015. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31847 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2015–OPE–0103] 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; 

Negotiator Nominations and Schedule 

of Committee Meetings—Borrower 

Defenses 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Intent to establish negotiated 

rulemaking committee. 

SUMMARY: On October 20, 2015, we 

announced our intention to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking committee to 

prepare proposed regulations for the 

Federal Student Aid programs 

authorized under title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA), and solicited nominations for 

individual negotiators for the 

committee. We are requesting additional 

nominations for individual negotiators 

who represent specific stakeholder 

constituencies for the issues to be 

negotiated to serve on the committee. 

DATES: We must receive your 

nominations for negotiators to serve on 

the committee on or before December 

28, 2015. The dates, times, and locations 

of the committee meetings are set out in 

the Schedule for Negotiations section in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your 

nominations for negotiators to Barbara 

Hoblitzell, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8019, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7649 or by email: 

Barbara.Hoblitzell@ed.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about the content of this 

notice, including information about the 

negotiated rulemaking process or the 

nomination submission process, 

contact: Barbara Hoblitzell, U.S. 

Department of Education, 1990 K Street 

NW., Room 8019, Washington, DC 

20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7649 or by 

email: Barbara.Hoblitzell@ed.gov. 

For information about negotiated 

rulemaking in general, see The 

Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title 

IV Regulations, Frequently Asked 

Questions at www2.ed.gov/policy/

highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/negreg-faq.html. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 20, 2015, we published a notice 

in the Federal Register (80 FR 63478) 

announcing our intention to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking committee to 

address for loans made under the 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

(Direct Loan) Program: (1) The 

procedures to be used for a borrower to 

establish a defense to repayment; (2) the 

criteria that the Department will use to 

identify acts or omissions of an 

institution that constitute defenses to 

repayment of Direct Loans, including 

the creation of a Federal standard; (3) 

the standards and procedures that the 

Department will use to determine the 

liability of the institution for amounts 

based on borrower defenses; (4) the 

effect of borrower defenses on 

institutional capability assessments; and 

(5) other loan discharges. We noted that, 

in addition, the committee may also 

consider if and how these issues will 

affect the Federal Family Education 

Loan (FFEL) Program. 

In that notice, we set a schedule for 

the committee meetings and requested 

nominations for individual negotiators 

who represent stakeholder 

constituencies for the issues to be 

negotiated to serve on the committee. 

We are requesting additional 

nominations for individual negotiators 

who represent the following stakeholder 

constituencies for the issues to be 

negotiated to serve on the committee: 

• State higher education executive 

officers. 

• Institutions of higher education 

eligible to receive Federal assistance 

under title III, parts A, B, and F, and 

title V of the HEA, which include 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions, American Indian Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities, 

Alaska Native and Native HawaiianServing Institutions, Predominantly 

Black Institutions, and other institutions 

with a substantial enrollment of needy 

students as defined in title III of the 

HEA. 

• Two-year public institutions of 

higher education. 

• Private, for-profit institutions of 

higher education. 

• National, regional, or specialized 

accrediting agencies. 

We intend to select negotiators for the 

committee who represent the interests 

significantly affected by the topics 

proposed for negotiations. In so doing, 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS