Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69595 

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the aviation 

authority for France, issued French 

Airworthiness Directive 2001–545(B) 

R1, dated October 16, 2002 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

The operational life limits of the aircraft 

servo-controls, and in particular of the 

elevator servo-controls given in the Revision 

8 of AMM Chapter 05–11–00 Configuration 1 

(dated September 15, 1999) are not addressed 

by the definition of the structural life limits 

of Safe Life items as defined in Section 9.1 

(Life limits/Monitored parts) of the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (located in 

the MPD Section 9) which replaces the 

aircraft AMM Chapter 05–11. As a result 

these life limits are removed from the above 

documents and integrated into this [French] 

Airworthiness Directive (AD). 

In addition, this [French] AD restates the 

life limits requirements of AD 95–032–008(B) 

R1, and introduces provisional operational 

life limits for P/N’s SC–4800–7A and SC– 

4800–9. 

The aim of this [French] AD is to require 

the removal and replacement of the servocontrols when they have reached their 

operational life limits. 

The Revision 1 of this [French] AD aims to 

increase the operational life limit in active 

mode of Elevator Servo-controls P/N SC4800 

listed in paragraph COMPLIANCE 3.2.3. of 

this [French] AD, following new test results 

demonstrating a provisional life of 40,000 

cycles and to remove reference of P/N 

SC4800–2 amendments A, B, C, D, E, F or G 

and SC4800–4 amendment H which are not 

anymore in service under this identification. 

The NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 

2003) resulted from reports of cracking 

in the end caps and along the barrel on 

elevator servo-controls that exceeded 

their operational life limits, which 

could lead to hydraulic leakage and 

internal damage within the servocontrol. The proposed actions were 

intended to prevent hydraulic leakage 

and internal damage of the elevator 

servo-controls due to cracks in the end 

caps and along the barrel, which could 

result in a reduction in the elevator’s 

protection against vibration or loss of 

the hydraulic circuit, and consequent 

reduced controllability of the airplane. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Actions Since NPRM (68 FR 54694, 

September 18, 2003) Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM (68 FR 

54694, September 18, 2003), we have 

determined that more restrictive 

maintenance requirements and 

airworthiness limitations are necessary 

to adequately address the identified 

unsafe condition. French Airworthiness 

Directive 2001–545(B) R1, dated 

October 16, 2002, was superseded by 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012– 

0020, dated January 30, 2012, which 

mandates the use of Airbus A330 

Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(ALS) Part 4—Aging Systems 

Maintenance, Revision 03, dated 

September 9, 2011. The replacement 

requirements and thresholds for parts 

originally defined in the NPRM are now 

contained in Airbus A330 ALS Part 4— 

Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 

03, dated September 9, 2011. We have 

issued NPRM Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0834, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM– 

045–AD (78 FR 66861, November 7, 

2013), which corresponds to EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2012–0020, 

dated January 30, 2012. The NPRM, 

FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0834, 

Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–045– 

AD, applies to certain Airbus Model 

A330 and A340 series airplanes and 

proposes to mandate the requirements 

now contained in Airbus A330 ALS Part 

4—Aging Systems Maintenance, 

Revision 03, dated September 9, 2011. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (68 

FR 54694, September 18, 2003) or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, we have 

determined that more restrictive 

maintenance requirements and 

airworthiness limitations are necessary 

to adequately address the unsafe 

condition identified in the NPRM (68 

FR 54694, September 18, 2003), and that 

additional rulemaking is necessary. 

Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. 

Withdrawal of the NPRM (68 FR 

54694, September 18, 2003) does not 

preclude the FAA from issuing another 

related action or commit the FAA to any 

course of action in the future. 

Regulatory Impact 

Since this action only withdraws an 

NPRM (68 FR 54694, September 18, 

2003), it is neither a proposed nor a 

final rule and therefore is not covered 

under Executive Order 12866, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0972, Directorate 

Identifier 2002–NM–009–AD, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54694). 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 24, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27839 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0943; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–001–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; 

AgustaWestland S.p.A. (Type 

Certificate Formerly Held by Agusta 

S.p.A.) (Agusta) Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta 

Model A109C, A109E, A109K2, and 

A119 helicopters. This proposed AD 

would require recurring visual 

inspections of the tail rotor (T/R) blade 

retaining bolts (bolts) for a crack, 

corrosion, damage, or missing cadmium 

plating in the central part of the bolt. If 

a crack is not detected by the initial 

visual inspection then this proposed AD 

would require a liquid penetrant 

inspection. Replacing a cracked or 

damaged bolt would be required before 

further flight. This proposed AD is 

prompted by two reported incidents of 

cracked bolts. The proposed actions are 

intended to detect an unairworthy bolt 

and prevent failure of a bolt, release of 

a T/R blade, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 21, 2014. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
69596 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 

foreign authority’s 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 

AgustaWestland, Customer Support & 

Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 

Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: 

Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39–0331– 

711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at 

http://www.agustawestland.com/

technical-bullettins. 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: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; 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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, issued EASA AD No. 2013–0009, 

dated January 11, 2013, to correct an 

unsafe condition for the Agusta Model 

A109C, A109K2, A109E, and A119 

helicopters, all serial numbers. EASA 

advises that cracks were reported in 

bolts, part number (P/N) 109–8131–09– 

1, installed on a Model A109K2 and a 

Model A109E helicopter. EASA further 

states that investigations conducted by 

Agusta revealed the cracks were in the 

same area of the bolts and corresponded 

with corrosion pits. EASA specified that 

this condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could cause damage to, or 

loss of, a T/R blade, possibly resulting 

in loss of control of the helicopter. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of Italy and are 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with Italy, 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 

Agusta issued Bollettino Tecnico (BT) 

No. 109–135 for Model A109C 

helicopters, No. 109EP–125 for Model 

A109E helicopters, No. 109K–55 for 

Model A109K2 helicopters, and No. 

119–052 for Model A119 helicopters. 

All of the BTs are dated December 19, 

2012. The BTs specify to perform a 

visual inspection of bolt, P/N 109– 

8131–09–1, in accordance with the 

maintenance manual applicable to the 

model helicopter for condition, 

corrosion, and nicks. The BTs specify 

replacement of the bolt if there is any 

damage, even if minor, or if there is 

missing cadmium plating in the central 

part of the bolt. The BTs state that if a 

crack is not revealed from the visual 

inspection, then to perform a liquid 

penetrant inspection. The BTs further 

specify repeating the visual inspection 

of the bolts at intervals specific to the 

model helicopter. The BTs state the 

results of the inspections must be 

communicated to AgustaWestland. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require a 

visual inspection of each bolt, P/N 109– 

8131–09–1, for a crack, corrosion, a 

nick, other damage, or missing cadmium 

plating in the central part of the bolt. 

For bolts with less than 400 hours timein-service (TIS), the inspection would 

be required before exceeding 500 hours 

TIS. For bolts with 400 or more hours 

TIS, the inspection would be required 

within 100 hours TIS or 2 months, 

whichever occurs first. If a crack is not 

detected by the visual inspection, this 

proposed AD would require a liquid 

penetrant inspection of the bolts in 

accordance with Annex A of the 

manufacturer’s service information. 

Thereafter, this proposed AD would 

require repeating the visual inspection. 

For Model A109C helicopters, the 

inspections would be required at 

intervals not to exceed 300 additional 

hours TIS or 6 months, whichever 

occurs first. For Model A109E, A109K2, 

and A119 helicopters, the inspections 

would be required at intervals not to 

exceed 200 additional hours TIS or 6 

months, whichever occurs first. If there 

is a crack, corrosion, damage, or missing 

cadmium plating in the central part of 

the bolt, this proposed AD would 

require replacing the bolt with an 

airworthy bolt before further flight. This 

proposed AD would also prohibit 

installing any bolt that has accumulated 

more than 400 hours TIS on any 

helicopter unless it has passed the 

visual and liquid penetrant inspections 

proposed in this AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD to be 

an interim action. If final action is later 

identified, we might consider additional 

rulemaking. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 132 helicopters of U. S. 

Registry. We estimate that operators 

may incur the following costs in order 

to comply with this AD. We estimate it 

would take 2 work-hours to perform the 

initial visual and liquid penetrant 

inspections and 1 work-hour to perform 

each recurring visual inspection at an 

average labor cost of $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, it would cost 

about $170 to perform the initial 

inspections and about $85 to perform 

each recurring visual inspection. A 

replacement bolt would cost 

approximately $1,067; no additional 

labor cost would be expected for 

replacement. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69597 

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 proposed 

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): 

AgustaWestland S.p.A. (Type Certificate 

formerly held by Agusta S.p.A) (Agusta) 

Helicopters: Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0943; Directorate Identifier 2013–SW– 

001–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Agusta Model A109C, 

A109E, A109K2, and A119 helicopters with 

a tail rotor blade retaining bolt (bolt), part 

number 109–8131–09–1, installed, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in a bolt. This condition could result 

in failure of a bolt, release of a tail rotor 

blade, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by January 21, 

2014. 

(d) 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. 

(e) Required Actions 

For each bolt with less than 400 hours 

time-in-service (TIS), before exceeding 500 

hours TIS on the bolt, and for each bolt with 

400 or more hours TIS, before accumulating 

an additional 100 hours TIS or 2 months on 

the bolt, whichever occurs first: 

(1) Visually inspect each bolt for a crack, 

damage, corrosion, a nick, or missing 

cadmium plating in the central part of the 

bolt. 

(i) If there is a crack, corrosion, a nick, any 

other damage, or missing cadmium plating in 

the central part of the bolt, before further 

flight, replace the bolt with an airworthy bolt. 

(ii) If there is not a crack as a result of the 

initial visual inspection as required by 

paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, liquid-penetrant 

inspect the bolt in accordance with Annex A 

of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109–135 for 

Model A109C helicopters, No. 109EP–125 for 

Model A109E helicopters, No. 109K–55 for 

Model A109K2 helicopters, or No. 119–052 

for Model A119 helicopters, all dated 

December 19, 2012, as applicable to your 

model helicopter. If there is a crack, before 

further flight, replace the bolt with an 

airworthy bolt. 

(2) Thereafter, for Agusta Model A109C 

helicopters, repeat the required actions of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this AD at intervals not to 

exceed 300 additional hours TIS or 6 months, 

whichever occurs first. For Agusta Model 

A109E, A109K2, and A119 helicopters, 

repeat the required actions of paragraph (e)(1) 

of this AD at intervals not to exceed 200 

additional hours TIS or 6 months, whichever 

occurs first. 

(3) Do not install a bolt that has 

accumulated more than 400 hours TIS on any 

helicopter unless it has passed the required 

actions of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. 

(f) 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, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222– 

5110; email robert.grant@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. 

(g) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 

No. 2013–0009, dated January 11, 2013. You 

may view the EASA AD in the AD Docket on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6400, Tail Rotor. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30, 

2013. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27634 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0967; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–042–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero 

Industries S.p.A Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Piaggio 

Aero Industries S.p.A Model P–180 

airplanes that would supersede an 

existing AD. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1