Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 235 / Friday, December 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive Comments The FAA received a comment from one commenter. The commenter was Air Methods Corporation. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAAs response to that comment.
Request To Allow Part Replacement Air Methods Corporation requested that paragraph h6 of the proposed AD
be revised to include an option so an operator can replace a part or assembly that has an inspection finding of questionable/intermediate at the operators discretion, instead of having to coordinate with the manufacturer.
The commenter explained that the instructions for replacing a part or assembly that has a determinate inspection finding for example, a crack are already in the service information referenced in EASA AD 20190182 and these same instructions could be used for parts that have a questionable/
intermediate inspection finding.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenters request and will provide clarification regarding the requirement specified in paragraph h6 of this AD.
The FAA identified an error in paragraph h6 of the proposed AD that could have caused an operator to misinterpret when to contact the manufacturer for corrective action if there was an inspection finding of some burr from the liquid penetrant inspection specified in Annex A of the
service information referenced in EASA
AD 20190182. In the proposed AD, paragraph h6 stated Where Annex A
of the service information referenced in EASA AD 20190182 specifies to contact the manufacturer if there is any indication of cracking due to some burr . . . . This language should not have included of cracking because any burr indication finding requires contacting the manufacturer. The FAA has revised paragraph h6 of this AD to remove the words of cracking.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters request to provide an option for the removal and replacement of a part having an indication of some burr, or signs of arcing or burning, without contacting the manufacturer.
The FAA contacted EASA, the foreign authority that has State of Design for these helicopter models, and discussed an option to permit the replacement of a potentially discrepant component without contacting the manufacturer.
Based upon this discussion the FAA
concluded that the affected part is still under investigation and the manufacturer needs to gather additional information from operators to determine the extent of the identified conditions and if additional corrective actions are needed. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Conclusion These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAAs bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the
70365

FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
EASA AD 20190182 requires repetitive inspections of each affected MLG assembly and, depending on the findings, replacement of an affected MLG strut assembly with a serviceable assembly, or application of corrosion preventive compound. EASA AD 2019
0182 allows the installation of an affected MLG strut assembly on any helicopter, provided it is a serviceable assembly, as defined in EASA AD 2019
0182.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.
Costs of Compliance The FAA estimates that this AD
affects 99 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Inspection and application of corrosion protective compound.

2 work-hours $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement actions that would be required based on
Parts cost $17 per inspection cycle.

the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number
Cost per product $187 per inspection cycle.

Cost on U.S. operators $18,513 per inspection cycle.

of aircraft that might need this replacement:

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

ON-CONDITION COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Replacement of damaged MLG strut assembly

3 work-hours $85 per hour = $255

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Dec 09, 2021

Jkt 256001

Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAAs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Parts cost $28,100

Cost per product $28,355

detail the scope of the Agencys authority.
The FAA is 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
E:FRFM10DER1.SGM

10DER1