40050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

No. 2010–0058, dated March 30, 2010. You 

may view the EASA AD at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0555. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6710, Main Rotor Control. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 18, 

2013. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15956 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0540; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–185–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747– 

400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes. The existing AD 

currently requires repetitive inspections 

for wear damage and cracks of the 

fuselage skin in the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, 

a detailed inspection for wear damage 

and cracks of the surface of any skin 

repair doubler in the area, and 

corrective actions if necessary. For 

airplanes on which the fuselage skin has 

been blended to remove wear damage, 

the existing AD also requires repetitive 

external detailed inspections or high 

frequency eddy current inspections for 

cracks of the blended area of the 

fuselage skin, and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since we issued that AD, we 

have received a report of wear through 

the fuselage skin that occurred sooner 

than the repetitive inspection interval 

specified in the existing AD. This 

proposed AD would reduce the 

repetitive inspection interval and 

change certain corrective actions. We 

are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct wear damage and cracks of the 

fuselage skin in the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin 

in sections 46 and 48, which could 

cause in-flight depressurization of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H– 

65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; phone: 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206– 

766–5680; Internet: https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: Bill.Ashforth@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0540; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–185–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On June 19, 2009, we issued AD 

2009–14–02, Amendment 39–15951 (74 

FR 30919, June 29, 2009), on the 

products listed above, which 

superseded AD 2002–26–15, 

Amendment 39–13003 (68 FR 476, 

January 6, 2003). AD 2009–14–02 

requires repetitive inspections for wear 

damage and cracks of the fuselage skin 

in the interface area of the vertical 

stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, a 

detailed inspection for wear damage and 

cracks of the surface of any skin repair 

doubler in the area, and corrective 

actions if necessary. For airplanes on 

which the fuselage skin has been 

blended to remove wear damage, AD 

2009–14–02 also requires repetitive 

external detailed inspections or high 

frequency eddy current inspections for 

cracks of the blended area of the 

fuselage skin, and corrective actions if 

necessary. AD 2009–14–02 resulted 

from reports of skin wear damage on 

airplanes with fewer than 8,000 total 

flight cycles. Additionally, there were 

three reports of skin wear damage on 

airplanes on which Boeing Material 

Specifications (BMS) 10–86 Teflonfilled coating was applied (terminating 

action per AD 2002–26–15). We issued 

AD 2009–14–02 to detect and correct 

wear damage and cracks of the fuselage 

skin in the interface area of the vertical 

stabilizer seal and fuselage skin in 

sections 46 and 48, which could cause 

in-flight depressurization of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, 

June 29, 2009) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, 

June 29, 2009), we have received a 

report of wear through the fuselage skin 

between body station (STA) 2598 and 

STA 2638, stringers S–2L to S–3L. The 

wear developed in less than 3,657 flight 

hours since the previous inspection, 

which was less than the repetitive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 40051 

inspection interval specified in AD 

2009–14–02. The wear occurred through 

both the Teflon filled coating and the 

full thickness of the 0.050-inch-thick 

skin to create a hole approximately 16 

inches in length. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, 

dated October 17, 2011. For information 

on the procedures and compliance 

times, see this service information at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for Docket No. FAA–2013–0540. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

Although this proposed AD does not 

explicitly restate the requirements of AD 

2009–14–02, Amendment 39–15951 (74 

FR 30919, June 29, 2009), this proposed 

AD would retain certain requirements of 

AD 2009–14–02. Those requirements are 

referenced in the service information 

identified previously, which, in turn, is 

referenced in paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

this proposed AD. This proposed AD 

would reduce the repetitive inspection 

interval and add rub strip installation 

for airplanes with wear or blend that 

exceeds structural repair manual limits. 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

The phrase ‘‘corrective actions’’ is 

used in this proposed AD. ‘‘Corrective 

actions’’ are actions that correct or 

address any condition found. Corrective 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, repairs. 

We have also clarified the 

applicability in paragraph (c) of AD 

2009–14–02, Amendment 39–15951 (74 

FR 30919, June 29, 2009), which 

specifies ‘‘Boeing Model 747–100, 747– 

100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747– 

200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes, certificated in any 

category, as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 

1, dated March 27, 2008.’’ The 

effectivity of that service information 

lists all Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747– 

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747– 

200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 

747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes. Therefore, the applicability of 

this proposed AD specifies ‘‘all The 

Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747– 

100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747– 

200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes, certificated in any 

category.’’ 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 

2011, specifies certain optional 

economic-based actions. This proposed 

AD would not require those actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 917 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection [retained actions from existing AD 2009–14–02, Amendment 39 

15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009)].

12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 $0 $1,020 .................... $935,340. 

Inspection and application of BMS 10– 

86 Teflon-filled coating [retained actions from existing AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, 

June 29, 2009)].

8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 

per inspection cycle.

$0 $680 per inspection 

cycle.

$623,560 per inspection cycles. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

of the costs of this proposed AD may be 

covered under warranty, thereby 

reducing the cost impact on affected 

individuals. We do not control warranty 

coverage for affected individuals. As a 

result, we have included all costs in our 

cost estimate. 

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 have 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 above, I 

certify that the 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, 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

2009–14–02, Amendment 39–15951 (74 

FR 30919, June 29, 2009), and adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0540; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–185–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by August 19, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, June 

29, 2009). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747– 

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 

747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted a report of wear 

through the fuselage skin that occurred 

sooner than the previous repetitive 

inspection interval. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct wear damage and cracks 

of the fuselage skin in the interface area of 

the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin 

in sections 46 and 48, which could cause inflight depressurization of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Detailed Inspection 

At the applicable compliance time 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ’’Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011 (the 

effective date of AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, June 

29, 2009) is August 3, 2009), except as 

specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do 

a detailed inspection of the fuselage skin and 

any skin repair doubler surface for wear 

damage and cracking at the vertical stabilizer 

seal interface, apply Boeing Material 

Specifications (BMS) 10–86 Teflon-filled 

coating, and do all applicable corrective 

actions, except as specified in paragraph 

(j)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, 

dated October 17, 2011. Do all applicable 

corrective actions at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

’’Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, dated 

October 17, 2011. Repeat the detailed 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed the applicable repetitive interval 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ’’Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, except as 

specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. The 

effective date of AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, June 

29, 2009) is August 3, 2009. 

(h) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current 

(HFEC) Inspections 

For airplanes on which the skin is blended 

forward of station 2360 without external 

reinforcement: At the applicable compliance 

time specified in Table 4 in paragraph 1.E., 

’’Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, dated 

October 17, 2011, do an external surface 

HFEC inspection of the blended area of the 

fuselage skin and the surface of any repair 

doubler for cracks, apply BMS 10–86 Teflonfilled coating, and do all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, 

dated October 17, 2011. Do all applicable 

corrective actions at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

’’Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 3, dated 

October 17, 2011. Repeat the HFEC 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed the compliance time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ’’Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011. The 

effective date of AD 2009–14–02, 

Amendment 39–15951 (74 FR 30919, June 

29, 2009) is August 3, 2009. 

(i) Optional Terminating Action 

Installation of CRES rub strips in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 

2011, except as specified in paragraph (j)(3) 

of this AD, is terminating action for the 

inspections specified in paragraphs (g) and 

(h) of this AD at the locations of the CRES 

rub strip installations only. 

(j) Exceptions to Service Information 

(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 

2011, specifies a compliance time after the 

‘‘Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) Part 3 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, Revision 3, dated October 17, 

2011, is not a requirement of this AD. 

(3) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53– 

2721, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2011, 

specifies to contact Boeing for a modification 

or for instructions: Before further flight, 

contact the FAA for instructions using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 

AD, and accomplish those instructions. 

(k) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if the corresponding actions were performed 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008; or Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 2, 

dated July 15, 2010; which are not 

incorporated by reference in this AD. As of 

the effective date of this AD, only Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, can be 

used. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, 

if the corresponding actions were performed 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2721, dated 

May 28, 2009; or Revision 1, dated June 24, 

2010; which are not incorporated by 

reference in this AD. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Installation of CRES rub strips approved 

as AMOCs for AD 2009–14–02, Amendment 

39–15951 (74 FR 30919, June 29, 2009), are 

approved as AMOCs for this AD. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: Bill.Ashforth@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 40053 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; phone: 206–544– 

5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; 

Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

You may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15948 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0554; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–SW–009–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 EC135 P1, EC135 

P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, 

and EC135 T2+ helicopters. This 

proposed AD would require analyzing 

the main gearbox (MGB) oil for 

indications of metal chips or pieces, 

reviewing the MGB log or equivalent 

record, and inspecting certain teeth in 

the MGB after two chip indications. 

This proposed AD is prompted by a 

partial tooth rupture found in an MGB 

that was returned to the manufacturer 

for repairs. The proposed actions are 

intended to detect wear in the MGB that 

could lead to a gear tooth rupture, 

failure of the MGB, loss of power to the 

main rotor, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 3, 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 a copy of 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, Aerospace Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, TX 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. 2009– 

0106R1, dated November 3, 2011, to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

Eurocopter Model 635 military 

helicopter and Model EC135 P1, EC135 

P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, 

and EC135 T2+ helicopters. EASA 

advises that an MGB was returned to the 

manufacturer for repair after ‘‘several 

chip indications.’’ According to EASA, 

a partial tooth rupture was detected 

after disassembly of the gearbox and 

removal of a drive pinion. EASA states 

the tooth rupture was determined to 

have been caused by wear. 

EASA AD No. 2009–0106R1 revises 

EASA Emergency AD 2009–0106–E, 

dated April 30, 2009, which superseded 

Emergency AD 2008–0116–E dated June 

17, 2008. The most recent EASA AD 

includes requirements and timetables 

for oil sampling and analysis; checking 

the gearbox log card for chip 

indications; and corrective measures for 

chip indications. It also states that a 

prescribed modification to the MGB 

would be terminating action for the AD. 

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 these same 

type designs. 

Related Service Information 

Eurocopter issued Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) EC135–63A–012 on 

August 8, 2007, which was followed by 

five revisions, the most recent of which 

was issued September 6, 2011. The 

ASBs prescribe procedures to monitor 

and detect wear in time to prevent MGB 

tooth ruptures in main transmissions for 

EC135 and EC635 model helicopters. 

Revision 5 of the ASB prescribes 

procedures for taking and analyzing 

scheduled oil samples, identifying and 

addressing chip indications, and 

inspecting certain teeth in gearboxes. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS