Document ID: FAA-2014-0337-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Various Restricted Category Helicopters
Posted Date: 2014-06-02T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31233-31236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12737]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0337; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-029-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Restricted Category Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-14-
11 for Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. (AFE), Rotorcraft Development 
Corporation (RDC), and San Joaquin Helicopters (SJH) Model OH-58A, OH-
58A+, and OH-58C helicopters. AD 2012-14-11 currently requires 
inspecting the main rotor mast (mast) for a crack. Since we issued AD 
2012-14-11, we have determined that the area of the mast requiring 
inspection should be expanded and repetitive inspections of the mast 
should be accomplished. This proposed AD would expand the area of the 
mast that requires an inspection for a crack and would require 
repetitive inspections of the mast. The proposed actions are intended 
to prevent failure of the mast and subsequent loss of control of the 
helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 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.
     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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, 
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone 
(562) 627-5228; email john.cecil@faa.gov; or Roger Caldwell, Aerospace 
Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 26805 East 68th 
Ave., Room 214, Denver, CO 80249; telephone (303) 342-1086; email 
roger.caldwell@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

[[Page 31234]]

supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate 
comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or 
if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one 
time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as 
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On July 5, 2012, we issued AD 2012-14-11, amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 
42971, July 23, 2012) for AFE, RDC, and SJH Model OH-58A, OH-58A+, and 
OH-58C helicopters. AD 2012-14-11 requires overhauling the mast and 
performing magnetic particle, fluorescent penetrant, and visual 
inspections for a crack, pitting, or corrosion in the threaded area of 
the mast and associated parts. If there is a crack, pitting, or 
corrosion, AD 2012-14-11 requires replacing the mast with an airworthy 
mast and reporting any crack, pitting, or corrosion found during the 
inspections. AD 2012-14-11 was prompted by two mast failures, one on an 
OH-58A+ and one on an OH-58C helicopter, both used in agricultural 
spraying operations. Investigation revealed that the mast failures were 
caused by fatigue cracking, which initiated from corrosion pitting 
found in or adjacent to the threaded section of the mast approximately 
45 inches from the top of the mast. The actions of AD 2012-14-11 were 
intended to prevent failure of the mast and subsequent loss of control 
of the helicopter.

Comments

    After we issued AD 2012-14-11, amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 42971, 
July 23, 2012), we received comments from two commenters.

Request

    RDC requested that we change the applicability of AD 2012-14-11, 
amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 42971, July 23, 2012), to include Bell Model 
206A and 206B helicopters, stating that these models have an identical 
configuration and could be susceptible to the same corrosion and 
fatigue cracking as the OH-58. We do not agree. A number of hardware 
components on the Bell Model 206A and 206B helicopter masts including 
the seals, packing, and shims are not identical to components used on 
the OH-58. These differences are sufficient to exclude the Bell Model 
206A and 206B helicopters from the applicability of this AD.
    RDC also requested that the use of Grade 1 corrosion preventative 
compound (CPC) be allowed as it provides better protection and more 
adequate sealing of the mast and locking plate, and it is used on 
similar structures on the Bell Model 206A and 206B helicopters. We 
agree with this comment. The proposed AD does not specify the use of 
any particular CPC, and therefore operators may comply using any 
compound and method as long as all work is done as prescribed in the 
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness, or using other methods acceptable to the FAA.
    RDC further recommended installing the lock bead over a seal of 
8802 Type B (ProSeal) sealant and applying a bead on top of the joint 
to enhance seal properties and prevent corrosion. We agree with this 
comment. The proposed AD does not specify the use of any particular 
sealant or prohibit application of an extra bead of sealant. Operators 
may comply as long as all work is done as prescribed in the 
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness, or using other methods acceptable to the FAA.
    RDC also emphasized that keeping the mast support drain holes 
unobstructed and prohibiting pressure washing in the area around the 
support would minimize the amount of water intrusion inside the support 
around the mast seal area. We partially agree with this comment. While 
it is important to emphasize that the mast drain holes remain 
unobstructed and that pressure washing of the mast support area should 
be minimized, we do not agree that these concerns should be mandated by 
the proposed AD.
    RDC further requested that the overhaul interval of the masts 
should be reduced from 2,400 hours time-in service (TIS) to 1,200 hours 
TIS. We agree. The proposed AD includes a requirement to overhaul and 
inspect the mast at intervals not exceeding 1,200 hours TIS or 3 years, 
whichever occurs earlier.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) commented in 
support of the required inspection of the threaded area of the mast for 
a crack, pitting, or corrosion, but requested that the area adjacent to 
the threaded area (identified in AD 2012-14-11 as ``area J'') be added 
to the visual inspection requirements of the proposed AD. The NTSB 
states that a prior accident investigation revealed the mast had 
fractured in this section. We agree with this comment. Although AD 
2012-14-11 does contain a requirement for magnetic particle inspecting 
the entire mast for a crack, we have included the expanded area in the 
visual inspection requirements in the proposed AD.

Actions Since AD 2012-14-11 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-14-11, amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 42971, 
July 23, 2012) we have determined that visually inspecting the area of 
the mast adjacent to the threaded portion should be included in the 
overhaul and that the inspection should be repetitive. We have also 
determined that reporting the findings of any inspection required by AD 
2012-14-11 is unnecessary, and have removed this requirement from the 
proposed AD. Lastly, we have revised the order of the inspections so 
that removing any surface corrosion and performing the visual 
inspection are completed prior to the magnetic particle inspection.

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 these same type 
designs.

Related Service Information

    AFE issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB): 2012-58-01, Revision 1, 
dated February 20, 2012 (ASB 2012-58-01), which specifies overhauling 
and inspecting the mast for any cracks, pitting, or corrosion by 
following the procedures in the United States Army Aviation Unit and 
Intermediate Maintenance Manual TM55-1520-228-23. ASB 2012-58-01 
further specifies replacing any mast with a crack, pitting, or 
corrosion beyond surface rust that is removed with a wire brush or 
steel wool in the threaded portion of the mast.
    RDC has issued ASB No. OH-58-13-01, dated January 30, 2013 (OH-58-
13-01), which describes additional procedures for inspecting the mast 
and establishes an overhaul interval of 1,200 hours TIS or 3 years, 
whichever occurs first.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the mast inspection and overhaul 
requirements of AD 2012-14-11, amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 42971, July 
23, 2012), and would:

[[Page 31235]]

     Change the compliance time for the inspection from within 
30 days to within 90 days (unless accomplished previously within the 
last 12 months);
     Require repeating the inspection every 1,200 hours TIS or 
3 years, whichever occurs earlier;
     Require inspecting, with a 10X or higher magnifying glass, 
the area adjacent to the threaded area of the mast for a crack or 
corrosion pitting; and
     Remove the reporting requirement of AD 2012-14-11.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The service information does not apply to SJH helicopters. Those 
helicopters are included in this AD because they have the same mast 
design and are operated similarly to the AFE and RDC fleets.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 80 helicopters of 
U.S. Registry, and that operators may incur the following costs in 
order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, 
inspecting the mast would require about 20 work hours, for a total cost 
of $1,700 per helicopter, and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet 
of $136,000. Replacing a cracked main rotor mast would require about 20 
work hours, and required parts would cost about $11,891 for a total 
cost per helicopter of $13,591.

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 
2012-14-11, Amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 42971, July 23, 2012), and adding 
the following new AD:

Various Restricted Category Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2014-0337; 
Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-029-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. (AFE), 
Rotorcraft Development Corporation (RDC) (formerly Garlick 
Helicopter Corporation, and Garlick Helicopter, Inc.), and San 
Joaquin Helicopters (SJH) Model OH-58A, OH-58A+, and OH-58C 
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the main 
rotor mast, which could result in failure of the mast and subsequent 
loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected AD

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-14-11, Amendment 39-17125 (77 FR 
42971, July 23, 2012).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 1, 2014.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this 
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been 
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 90 days, unless accomplished previously within the 
last 12 months, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 1,200 
hours TIS or 3 years, whichever occurs earlier:
    (i) Remove any surface rust with a wire brush or steel wool and, 
using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the areas of 
the mast as shown in area E and area J of Figure 1 to Paragraph (f) 
of this AD for pitting, corrosion, or a crack.
    (ii) Overhaul the main rotor mast assembly and magnetic particle 
inspect the mast; mast bearing nut; plate, mast and seal; and 
bearing liner for a crack.
    (iii) Fluorescent penetrant inspect the locking plate for a 
crack.

[[Page 31236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JN14.000

    (2) If there is a crack, pitting, or corrosion, before further 
flight, replace the mast with an airworthy mast.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) For AFE and SJH helicopters, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. 
Send your proposal to: John Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; 
telephone (562) 627-5228; email john.cecil@faa.gov.
    (2) For RDC helicopters, the Manager, Denver Aircraft 
Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your 
proposal to: Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft 
Certification Office, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Room 214, Denver, 
CO 80249; telephone (303) 342-1086; email roger.caldwell@faa.gov.
    (3) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating 
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you 
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, 
the manager of the local flight standards district office or 
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft 
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc., Alert Service Bulletin: 2012-
58-01, Revision 1, dated February 20, 2012, which is not 
incorporated by reference, contains more information about the 
subject of this AD. For Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. service 
information identified in this AD, contact Arrow Falcon Exporters, 
Inc., 2081 South Wildcat Way, Porterville, CA 93257; telephone (559) 
781-8604; fax (559) 781-9271; email afe@arrowfalcon.com.
    (2) Rotorcraft Development Corporation Alert Service Bulletin 
No. OH58-13-01, dated January 30, 2013, which is not incorporated by 
reference, contains more information about the subject of this AD. 
For Rotorcraft Development Corporation service information, contact 
Rotorcraft Development Corporation, PO Box 430, 1004 Eastside 
Highway, Corvallis, MT 59828; telephone (406) 961-4100; fax (406) 
961-4101; or at http://www.rotorcraftdevelopment.com.
    (3) United States Army Technical Manual Aviation Unit and 
Intermediate Maintenance Manual Army Model OH-58A and OH-58C 
Helicopters, TM 55-1520-228-23-1, which is not incorporated by 
reference, contains more information about the subject of this AD. 
For United States Army service information, contact Commander, U.S. 
Army Aviation and Missile Command, ATTN: AMSAM-MMA-NP, Redstone 
Arsenal, AL 35898-5000, telephone (256) 876-4044; or at https://www.logsa.army.mil/etmpdf/files/030000/035016.pdf.
    (4) You may review the service information at the FAA, Office of 
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 
663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300: Main Rotor 
Drive.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 21, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12737 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P