AD 2015-13-04

This AD is effective September 1, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 1, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 5, 2014 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).

For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0164.

Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7758; fax: 781-238-7199; email: mark.riley@faa.gov.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014), (“AD 2014-19-05”). AD 2014-19-05 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6017). The NPRM proposed to continue to require an initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB on certain higher risk Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model engines. That NPRM also proposed to continue to require repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB for all Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines at every engine shop visit.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

One commenter requested that sufficient time be allowed to comply with this AD to account for the availability of the vibration test equipment and Turbomeca technical representatives. The commenter indicated that the initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB requires use of Turbomeca-specified vibration test equipment and is performed by Turbomeca technical personnel.

We do not agree. The compliance times in the AD provide sufficient time for the operator to perform the required maintenance. Operators can also procure the required vibration test equipment to perform the test. We did not change this AD.

One commenter requested that we revise the AD to make the definition of “shop visit” consistent with EASA AD 2014-0036. The EASA AD specifies that the repetitive vibration check of the engine AGB be performed during a “qualifying shop visit,” which is when the engine is “overhauled or repaired in a qualified Repair Center.” The commenter indicated that because of the modularity of the Arriel engine, it is possible to separate a major mating flange during “Level 2” or “Level 1 maintenance.”

We do not agree. We do not find specific criteria in EASA AD 2014-0036's definition of “engine shop visit” for when the repetitive AGB vibration check should be conducted. We did not change this AD.

One commenter requested that the repetitive vibration check required by this AD be eliminated. The commenter indicated that this vibration check is already incorporated in Turbomeca Level 4 maintenance, and in subsequent test requirements, so it will always be done. Further, adding this requirement to the AD only adds to the cost and paperwork requirements for operators.

We do not agree. The repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB are required to prevent failure of the AGB. We did not change this AD.

Turbomeca S.A. updated the service bulletins (SBs) referenced in this AD. We reviewed the updated SBs and found they adequately addressed the unsafe condition. Therefore, we revised this AD to reference the updated versions of the SBs. This AD now references Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014. We also revised compliance paragraph (e) of this AD to refer to the corresponding paragraphs used in these updated MSBs to require the vibration checks.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014; and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for vibration checks. 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 of this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 1,268 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 hours per engine to comply with the inspection requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $431,120.

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.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014), and adding the following new AD: