35108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and is admitted for a period not to 

exceed 30 days to visit within the State 

of New Mexico within 55 miles of the 

border or the area south of and 

including Interstate Highway I–10, 

whichever is further north; or 

(D) In possession of a valid visa and 

passport and is admitted for a period 

not to exceed 72 hours to visit within 

the State of New Mexico within 55 

miles of the border or the area south of 

and including Interstate Highway I–10, 

whichever is further north. 

* * * * * 

Janet Napolitano, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13946 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0502; Special 

Conditions No. 29–030–SC] 

Special Conditions: Eurocopter 

France, EC175B; Use of 30-Minute 

Power Rating 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Eurocopter France Model 

EC175B helicopter. This model 

helicopter will have the novel or 

unusual design feature of a 30-minute 

power rating, generally intended to be 

used for hovering at increased power for 

search and rescue missions. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is June 3, 2013. We 

must receive your comments by July 29, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2013–0502 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, 

DC, 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery of Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 

a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://regulations.gov, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides. Using the search function of 

the docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the electronic form of all 

comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room @12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Haight, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 

ASW–111, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5204; 

facsimile (817) 222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Reason for No Prior Notice and 

Comment before Adoption 

The FAA has determined that notice 

and opportunity for public comment are 

impractical because we do not expect 

substantive comments, and because this 

special condition only affects this one 

manufacturer. We also considered that 

these procedures would significantly 

delay the issuance of the design 

approval, and thus, the delivery of the 

affected aircraft. As certification for the 

Eurocopter France model EC175B is 

imminent, the FAA finds that good 

cause exists for making these special 

conditions effective upon issuance. 

Comments Invited 

While we did not precede this with a 

notice of proposed special conditions, 

we invite interested people to take part 

in this rulemaking by sending written 

comments, data, or views. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the special conditions, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive by the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

Background and Discussion 

On March 10, 2008, Eurocopter 

France applied for a Type Certificate for 

the new model EC175B. The EC175B is 

a Transport Category, 14 CFR part 29, 

twin engine conventional helicopter 

designed for civil operations. This 

model will be certificated with Category 

A performance and under dual pilot 

instrument flight rules, powered by two 

Pratt & Whitney PT6C–67E engines with 

a dual channel Full Authority Digital 

Engine Control system, have five main 

rotor blades, a maximum gross weight of 

15,400 pounds, and a velocity not to 

exceed 175 knots. The EC175B model 

will have an integrated modular 

avionics suite with four 6x8 inch multifunction displays termed the Common 

Integrated Global Avionics for Light 

Helicopters. This rotorcraft will be 

capable of carrying 16 passengers and 2 

crew members. Its initial customer base 

will be offshore oil and Search and 

Rescue operations. 

Eurocopter France proposes that the 

EC175B model use a novel and unusual 

design feature, which is a 30-minute 

power rating, identified in the Pratt & 

Whitney Canada PT6C–67E engine type 

certificate data sheet (TCDS) [FAA 

TCDS No. E00068EN]. 14 CFR 1.1 

defines ‘‘rated takeoff power’’ as limited 

in use to no more than 5 minutes for 

takeoff operation. Thus, the use of 

takeoff power for 30 minutes will 

require special airworthiness standards, 

known as special conditions, to address 

the use of this 30-minute power rating 

and its effects on the rotorcraft. The use 

of this power will be limited to 50 

minutes per flight based on engine 

durability considerations. These special 

conditions will add requirements to the 

existing airworthiness standards in 14 

CFR 29.1049 (Hovering cooling test 

procedures), § 29.1305 (Powerplant 

instruments), and § 29.1521 (Powerplant 

limitations). 

For the EC175B, the European 

Aviation Safety Agency has issued CRI 

E–01, which documents the special 

conditions. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 35109 

The following is a summary of the 

final special conditions: 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 29.1049, the aircraft cooling effects 

due to use of the 30-minute power 

rating must be accounted for in the 

testing. 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 29.1305, since this new 30-minute 

power rating has a time limit associated 

with its use, the pilot must have the 

means to identify: 

• When the rated engine power level 

is achieved, 

• When the event begins, 

• When the time interval expires, and 

• When the cumulative time in one 

flight is reached. 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 29.1521, Powerplant Limitations, the 

use of takeoff power for 30 minutes 

must be limited to not more than 30 

minutes per use and no more than 50 

minutes per flight. This is based upon 

the definition of ‘‘rated takeoff power’’ 

in 14 CFR 1.1, which limits the use of 

rated takeoff power to periods of not 

over 5 minutes for takeoff operation. 

Furthermore, the Model EC175B 

rotorcraft flight manual must include 

limitations on use of the 30-minute 

power rating to state: 

• Continuous use above maximum 

continuous power (MCP) is limited to 

30 minutes, and 

• Cumulative use above MCP is 

limited to 50 minutes per flight. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under 14 CFR 21.17, Eurocopter 

France must show that the EC175B 

model helicopter meets the applicable 

provisions of part 29, as amended by 

Amendment 29–1 through 29–52, dated 

April 5, 2010. In addition, the 

certification basis includes certain later 

amended sections of part 29 that are not 

relevant to these special conditions. 

The Administrator has determined 

that the applicable airworthiness 

regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 29) do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for the EC175B model 

helicopter because of a novel or unusual 

design feature. Therefore, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the EC175B must comply 

with the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the 

FAA must issue a finding of regulatory 

adequacy under section 611 of Public 

Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise Control Act of 

1972.’’ 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in § 11.19, in accordance with 

§ 11.38, and they become part of the 

type certification basis under 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The EC175B model helicopter will 

incorporate a novel or unusual design 

feature, which is: 

• A 30-minute power rating. 

Applicability 

These special conditions are 

applicable to the Eurocopter France 

model EC175B helicopter. Should 

Eurocopter France apply at a later date 

for an amendment to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

feature, the special conditions would 

apply to that model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on the 

Eurocopter France model EC175B 

helicopter. It is not a rule of general 

applicability, and it affects only the 

applicant who applied to the FAA for 

approval of this feature. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

conditions are issued as part of the type 

certification basis for Eurocopter France 

model EC175B helicopter. Unless stated 

otherwise, all requirements in 

§§ 29.1049, 29.1305, and 29.1521 

remain unchanged. 

(a) Section 29.1049 Hovering cooling 

test procedures, Final Rule. Docket No. 

5084; issued October 13, 1964. In 

addition to the requirements of this 

section, the special condition states: 

‘‘The hovering cooling provisions at 

the 30-minute power rating must be 

shown— 

(a) At maximum weight or at the 

greatest weight at which the rotorcraft 

can hover (if less), at sea level, with the 

power required to hover but not more 

than the 30-minute power, in the 

ground effect in still air, until: 

• At least 5 minutes after the 

occurrence of the highest temperature 

recorded; or 

• the continuous time limit of the 30- 

minute power rating if the highest 

temperature recorded is not stabilized 

before. 

(b) At maximum weight, and at the 

altitude resulting in zero rate of climb 

for this configuration, until: 

• At least 5 minutes after the 

occurrence of the highest temperature 

recorded; or 

• the continuous time limit of the 30- 

minute power rating if the highest 

temperature recorded is not stabilized 

before.’’ 

(b) Section 29.1305 Powerplant 

instruments, at Amendment 29–40. In 

addition to the requirements of this 

section, the special condition is similar 

to § 29.1305(a)(25) for the 30-minute 

power rating and states: 

‘‘For rotorcraft with a 30-minute 

power rating, a means must be provided 

to alert the pilot when the engine is at 

the 30-minute power level, when the 

event begins, when the time interval 

expires, and when the cumulative time 

in one flight is reached.’’ 

(c) Section 29.1521 Powerplant 

limitations, at Amendment 29–41. In 

addition to the requirements of this 

section, the special condition is similar 

to § 29.1521(b) and states: 

‘‘Use of the 30-minute power must be 

limited to no more than 30 minutes per 

use, and no more than 50 minutes per 

flight. The use of the 30-minute power 

must also be limited by: 

(1) The maximum rotational speed, 

which may not be greater than— 

(i) The maximum value determined 

by the rotor design; or 

(ii) The maximum value demonstrated 

during the type tests; 

(2) The maximum allowable turbine 

inlet or turbine outlet gas temperature 

(for turbine engines); 

(3) The maximum allowable power or 

torque for each engine, considering the 

power input limitations of the 

transmission with all engines operating; 

(4) The maximum allowable power or 

torque for each engine considering the 

power input limitations of the 

transmission with one engine 

inoperative; 

(5) The time limit for the use of the 

power corresponding to the limitations 

established in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section; and 

(6) If the time limit established in 

paragraph (b)(6) of this paragraph 

exceeds 2 minutes— 

(i) The maximum allowable engine 

and transmission oil temperatures.’’ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on June 3, 

2013. 

Kimberly K. Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13800 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0983; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–001–AD; Amendment 

39–17457; AD 2013–10–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

all Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–31, 

PA–31–325, and PA–31–350 airplanes. 

That AD currently requires a detailed 

repetitive inspection of the exhaust 

system downstream of the turbochargers 

and repair or replacement of parts as 

necessary. This new AD requires visual 

repetitive inspections, expanding the 

inspection scope to include the entirety 

of each airplane exhaust system. This 

AD was prompted by reports of exhaust 

system failures upstream of aircraft 

turbochargers and between recurring 

detailed inspections. We are issuing this 

AD to correct the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective July 17, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of July 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Piper 

Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero 

Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 

567–4361; fax: (772) 978–6573; Internet: 

www.piper.com/home/pages/ 

Publications.cfm. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, FAA, Small 

Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 

4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Wechsler, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; telephone: (404) 474–5575; fax: 

(404) 474–5606; email: 

gary.wechsler@faa. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 82–16–05 R1, 

amendment 39–5278 (51 FR 11707, 

April 7, 1986). That AD applies to the 

specified products. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57534). The 

NPRM included a detailed inspection 

that involved disassembling the v-band 

couplings. We removed that detailed 

inspection, and we added a table listing 

specific parts and inspection criteria to 

clarify the visual inspection. We also 

identified that airplanes with the STC 

SA240CH heat exchanger installed may 

not have all of the parts requiring the 

visual inspection. (Information on STC 

SA240CH may be found at http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/30C512E870BE

421D86257297005B6822?Open

Document&Highlight=sa240ch.) We 

determined that these changes will not 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator or increase the scope of the AD 

over what was originally proposed in 

the NPRM. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Revise Cost of Compliance 

Douglas Deering and Terry Mangione 

stated the compliance costs are too high 

and could lead to cost saving attempts 

in other places. Douglas Deering added 

the cost does not include clamps and 

gaskets. 

We partially agree. We agree that the 

cost of compliance per airplane may 

vary depending on the location in 

which compliance is made because the 

cost of labor and parts varies throughout 

the United States of America. We 

disagree with the claim that the cost of 

compliance is too great because of the 

safety risk the current design poses. 

Additionally, the cost of replacing 

clamps and gaskets is part of the oncondition costs, which cannot be 

predicted because of the multitude and 

manner of environments in which these 

airplanes operate result in widely 

varying exhaust system conditions over 

time. 

We did not make any changes to this 

final rule AD action as a result of this 

comment. 

Eliminate or Change Visual Inspection 

Compliance Requirement 

Douglas Deering, Joe Miller, and 

Lycoming Engines suggested 

eliminating the visual inspection 

compliance requirement and instead 

visually inspecting the entire exhaust 

system at 100 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) or every other engine inspection 

event if maintained by an FAAapproved aircraft inspection program 

(AAIP). Visual inspections are already 

required under AAIP, 100-hour, and 

annual inspections; and Lycoming 

engine operations manuals currently 

recommend 50-hour visual inspections 

of the entire exhaust manifold for leaks. 

We agree that manufacturer’s 

maintenance instructions include visual 

inspection requirements for exhaust and 

turbocharger systems. However, these 

manufacturer’s maintenance 

instructions are only recommendations 

from which operators may base 

individual, FAA approved, maintenance 

programs on. Thus, AAIP, 100-hour, and 

annual inspection programs may or may 

not include the inspections proposed by 

this AD. The only way to ensure that a 

level of maintenance is performed to 

mitigate the safety risk the current 

design poses is through mandating these 

inspections, hence the need for the AD. 

We disagree with the request to 

eliminate the recurring 50-hour visual 

inspection compliance requirement 

because a visual inspection to look for 

specific signs of imminent failure at 

intervals less than 100 hours was 

determined necessary to mitigate the 

safety risk the current design poses. The 

inspections required by AAIP, 100-hour 

and annual inspections, and Lycoming 

engine manual requirements do not 

mitigate the unsafe condition identified 

in this AD. 

We changed this final rule AD action 

to clarify the visual inspection process. 

We added a table of part numbers 

requiring inspection and the signs of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES