Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54501 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety 

Authority of Australia, AD number AD/GAF– 

N22/69 Amdt 6, dated September 10, 2009, 

Nomad Alert Service Bulletin ANMD–27–53, 

dated February 20, 2008, and Nomad Alert 

Service Bulletin ANMD–57–18, Rev 1, dated 

August 14, 2006, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 15, 2009. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25443 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0951; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–SW–52–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, 

C, D, D1, AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

specified Eurocopter France 

(Eurocopter) model helicopters. This 

proposed AD results from a mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) AD issued by the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which 

is the Technical Agent for the Member 

States of the European Community. The 

AD MCAI states ‘‘EASA issued 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006– 

0251 and its revisions following a case 

of total failure and a case of a crack 

discovered on the support shaft of the 

sliding door rear roller. Metallurgical 

and metallographic analyses revealed a 

nonconformity concerning the heat 

treatment of the material. Since then, 

other cases of cracks and failures of the 

roller support shaft rear attach fitting 

had been reported. This condition, if not 

corrected, could lead to the loss of the 

sliding door in flight.’’ 

Separation of a sliding door in flight 

creates an unsafe condition because the 

door could come into contact with the 

rotor system. The proposed AD would 

require actions that are intended to 

address this unsafe condition. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 23, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 

Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 

75053–4005, telephone (972) 641–3460, 

fax (972) 641–3527. 

Examining the 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Gary 

Roach, ASW–111, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137, telephone (817) 222–5130, fax 

(817) 222–5961. 

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–2009–0951; Directorate Identifier 

2007–SW–52–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 based on 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 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No. 

2007–0236, dated August 31, 2007, to 

correct an unsafe condition for specified 

Eurocopter model helicopters. The 

MCAI AD states that EASA issued AD 

2006–0251 and its revisions following a 

case of total failure and a case of a crack 

discovered on the support shaft of the 

sliding door rear roller. Metallurgical 

and metallographic analyses revealed a 

nonconformity concerning the heat 

treatment of the material. Since then, 

other cases of cracks and failures of the 

roller support shaft rear attach fitting 

had been reported. EASA AD No. 2007– 

0236 supersedes EASA AD No. 2006– 

0251R2 but retains the requirements for 

repetitive inspections until replacement 

of current parts with improved parts. 

EASA AD No. 2007–0236 also prohibits 

installation of another roller support 

fitting part number (P/N) 350A25–1270– 

22 on any AS350 or AS355 helicopter. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI AD and service 

information in the AD docket. 

Related Service Information 

On July 18, 2006, Eurocopter issued 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 

52.00.30 for modifying the AS350 series 

helicopters and ASB No. 52.00.23 for 

modifying the AS355 series helicopters. 

These ASBs contained modifications 

073298 and 073308. The following day, 

Eurocopter issued ASB No. 05.00.45 for 

the AS355 model helicopters and No. 

05.00.47 for the AS350 model 

helicopters, both dated July 19, 2006. 

Later, Eurocopter issued Revision 1 to 

ASB No. 52.00.23 for the AS355 model 

helicopters and No. 52.00.30 for the 

AS350 model helicopters, both dated 

June 29, 2007, to modify the sliding 

door medium roller and fitting. The 

actions described in the MCAI AD are 

intended to correct the same unsafe 

condition as that identified in the 

service information. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
54502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FAA’s Evaluation and Unsafe Condition 

Determination 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of France and is 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with France, EASA, their 

technical agent, has notified us of the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI 

AD. We are proposing this AD because 

we evaluated all information provided 

by EASA and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of these same 

type designs. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI AD 

This AD differs from EASA AD No. 

2007–0236 as follows: 

• We use the word ‘‘inspect’’ to 

describe the actions required by a 

mechanic versus the word ‘‘check,’’ 

which is how we describe the actions 

allowed by a pilot. 

• We refer to the compliance time as 

‘‘hours time-in-service (TIS)’’ rather 

than ‘‘flying hours.’’ 

• We do not require an operator to 

tell the manufacturer if a crack is found 

in the shaft. 

• We are not including the Model L1, 

which is a military model helicopter; 

but we are including the Models 350C 

and D1 helicopters. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect about 725 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 4 work-hours per helicopter 

to inspect and modify the sliding doors. 

The average labor rate is $80 per workhour. Required parts would cost about 

$7,000 per helicopter. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$5,307,000. 

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 above, 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); and 

3. 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 AD: 

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA–2009– 

0951; Directorate Identifier 2007–SW– 

52–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 23, 2009. 

Other Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Eurocopter France 

Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, C, D, D1, 

AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, with 

sliding door pre-MOD 073298 or pre-MOD 

073308, installed, certificated in any 

category. 

Reason 

(d) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) AD states 

‘‘EASA issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2006–0251 and its revisions following a case 

of total failure and a case of a crack 

discovered on the support shaft of the sliding 

door rear roller. Metallurgical and 

metallographic analyses revealed a 

nonconformity concerning the heat treatment 

of the material. Since then, other cases of 

cracks and failures of the roller support shaft 

rear attach fitting had been reported. This 

condition, if not corrected, could lead to the 

loss of the sliding door in flight.’’ Separation 

of a sliding door in flight creates an unsafe 

condition because the door could come into 

contact with the rotor system. This AD 

requires actions that are intended to address 

this unsafe condition. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Required as indicated. 

(1) For a sliding door with less than 90 

hours time-in-service (TIS), on or before 

accumulating a total of 110 hours TIS, unless 

already done, conduct the visual and dye 

penetrant inspections of the support shaft of 

the rear roller and the rear fitting (fitting) of 

the sliding door for a crack by reference to 

Figure 1 and by following the Operational 

Procedure, paragraph 2.B.1 and 2.B.2, of 

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 

05.00.47 dated July 19, 2006, for the Model 

AS350 helicopters (ASB 05.00.47) or ASB 

No. 05.00.45 dated July 19, 2006, for the 

Model AS355 helicopters (ASB 05.00.45), 

except you are not required to contact the 

manufacturer. 

(i) If no crack is found in the shaft or 

fitting, reinstall the shaft on the fitting, fit the 

spring pins, and plug the pin holes by 

following the Operational Procedure, 

paragraph 2.B.2. of ASB 05.00.47 or 05.00.45, 

whichever is appropriate for your model 

helicopter. 

(ii) If you find a crack in the fitting, replace 

the fitting with an airworthy fitting before 

further flight. 

(iii) If you find a crack in the shaft, replace 

the shaft with an airworthy shaft before 

further flight, by reference to Figure 1 and 

following paragraph 2.B.3. of ASB 05.00.47 

or 05.00.45, whichever is appropriate for 

your model helicopter. 

(2) For a sliding door with 90 or more 

hours TIS, within the next 20 hours TIS, 

unless already done, and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, 

conduct the visual and dye penetrant 

inspections of the support shaft of the rear 

roller and the fitting of the sliding door for 

a crack by reference to Figure 1 and by 

following the Operational Procedure, 

paragraph 2.B.1 and 2.B.2, of ASB 05.00.47 

or ASB 05.00.45, whichever is appropriate 

for your model helicopter, except you are not 

required to contact the manufacturer. 

(i) If no crack is found in the shaft and 

fitting, reinstall the shaft or fitting, fit the 

spring pins, and plug the pin holes by 

following the Operational Procedure, 

paragraph 2.B.2. of ASB 05.00.47 or 05.00.45, 

whichever is appropriate for your model 

helicopter. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54503 

1 18 CFR 131.80. 

2http://www.ferc.gov/QF. 

(ii) If you find a crack in the fitting, replace 

the fitting with an airworthy fitting before 

further flight. 

(iii) If you find a crack in the shaft, replace 

the shaft with an airworthy shaft before 

further flight by reference to Figure 1 and by 

following paragraph 2.B.3. of ASB 05.00.47 

or 05.45, whichever is appropriate for your 

model helicopter. 

(3) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install any of the following parts on any 

helicopter: 

(i) Left-hand sliding door, part number 

(P/N) 350A25–0030–00XX, 350A25–0120– 

00XX, and 350AMR–0227–0052; 

(ii) Right-hand sliding door, P/N 350A25– 

0030–01XX, 350A25–0120–01XX, 350A25– 

0120–03XX, and 350AMR–0227–0051; 

(iii) Rail roller pin, P/N 350A25–1275–20; 

and 

(iv) Cast roller support fittings, P/N 

350A25–1270–20 and P/N 350A25–1270–22. 

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI 

AD 

(f) This AD differs from EASA AD No. 

2007–0236 as follows: 

(1) We use the word ‘‘inspect’’ to describe 

the actions required by a mechanic versus the 

word ‘‘check,’’ which is how we describe the 

actions allowed by a pilot. 

(2) We refer to the compliance time as 

hours time-in-service (TIS) rather than flying 

hours. 

(3) We do not require an operator to inform 

the manufacturer if a crack is found in the 

shaft as specified in the service information. 

(4) We do not include the Model L1, which 

is a military model helicopter; but we are 

including the Models 350C and D1 

helicopters. 

Other Information 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, ATTN: DOT 

FAA, Southwest Region, Gary Roach, ASW– 

111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations 

and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 

222–5130, fax (817) 222–5961, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested, using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) MCAI EASA AD No. 2007–0236, dated 

August 31, 2007, contains related 

information. 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 

(i) JASC Code 5344: Fuselage Door Hinges. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 8, 

2009. 

Larry M. Kelly, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25440 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 131 and 292 

[Docket No. RM09–23–000] 

Revisions to Form, Procedures, and 

Criteria for Certification of Qualifying 

Facility Status for a Small Power 

Production or Cogeneration Facility 

October 15, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

proposes to revise its regulations, which 

currently provide the FERC Form No. 

556 (Form 556) that is used in the 

certification of qualifying status for an 

existing or proposed small power 

production or cogeneration facility. The 

Commission proposes to revise its 

regulations to remove the contents of 

the Form No. 556 from the regulations, 

and, in their place, to provide that an 

applicant seeking to certify qualifying 

facility (QF) status of a small power 

production or cogeneration facility must 

complete, and electronically file, the 

Form No. 556 that is in effect at the time 

of filing. We propose to revise and 

reformat the Form No. 556 to clarify the 

content of the form and to take 

advantage of newer technologies that 

will reduce both the filing burden for 

applicants and the processing burden 

for the Commission. We also propose to 

exempt generating facilities with net 

power production capacities of 1 MW or 

less from the QF certification 

requirement, and to codify the 

Commission’s authority to waive the QF 

certification requirement for good cause. 

Finally, we propose to clarify, simplify 

or correct certain sections of the 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before December 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. RM09–23–000, 

by one of the following methods: 

Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments via the eFiling link found in 

the Comment Procedures Section of the 

preamble. 

Mail: Commenters unable to file 

comments electronically must mail or 

hand deliver an original and 14 copies 

of their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to 

the Comment Procedures Section of the 

preamble for additional information on 

how to file paper comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tom Dautel (Technical Information), 

Division of Economic and Technical 

Analysis, Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(202) 502–6196, E-mail: 

thomas.dautel@ferc.gov. 

Paul Singh (Technical Information), 

Division of Tariffs and Market 

Development—West, Office of Energy 

Market Regulation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

Telephone: (202) 502–8576, E-mail: 

paul.singh@ferc.gov. 

S.L. Higginbottom (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8561, Email: samuel.higginbottom@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission proposes to revise 

§ 131.80 of its regulations,1 which 

currently sets forth the FERC Form No. 

556 (Form 556) that is used in the 

certification of qualifying status for an 

existing or proposed small power 

production or cogeneration facility. 

Section 131.80 now contains Form No. 

556 and general instructions for 

completing the form. The Commission 

proposes to revise § 131.80 of its 

regulations to remove the contents of 

the Form No. 556 and, in their place, 

provide that an applicant seeking to 

certify qualifying facility (QF) status of 

a small power production or 

cogeneration facility must complete and 

file the Form No. 556 that is in effect at 

the time of filing, which will be made 

available for download from the 

Commission’s QF Web site.2 The 

Commission also proposes to require 

that the Form No. 556 be submitted to 

the Commission electronically. 

2. The Commission proposes to revise 

and reformat the Form No. 556 to clarify 

the content of the form and to take 

advantage of newer technologies that 

will reduce both the filing burden for 

applicants and the processing burden 

for the Commission. 

3. The Commission also proposes 

revisions to the procedures, standards 

and criteria for QF status provided in 

Part 292 of its regulations to accomplish 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS