[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24363-24366]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09767]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0442; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-24-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Sikorsky-Manufactured Transport
and Restricted Category Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising the proposals in an earlier notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for certain Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)
Model S-61A, D, E, L, N, NM (serial number 61454), R, and V; Croman
Corporation Model SH-3H, Carson Helicopters, Inc., Model S-61L; Glacier
Helicopters, Inc. Model CH-3E; Robinson Air Crane, Inc. Model CH-3E,
CH-3C, HH-3C, and HH-3E; and Siller Helicopters Model CH-3E and SH-3A
helicopters. The NPRM proposed superseding an existing AD but retaining
some requirements of that AD, removing certain dowel pin bores,
expanding the applicability to include additional helicopters, and
implementing a new retirement life for each main rotor shaft (MRS)
based on a reevaluation of the MRS service life. This SNPRM is prompted
by the comments received in response to the NPRM and a reevaluation of
the relevant data. The proposed actions are intended to prevent MRS
structural failure, loss of power to the main rotor, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by June 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 383-
4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Lee, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

    On April 10, 2008, we issued an NPRM (73 FR 21556, April 22, 2008)
proposing to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation Model S-61A, D, E, L, N, NM, R, and V; Croman
Corporation Model SH-3H, Carson Helicopters, Inc. Model S-61L; Glacier
Helicopters, Inc. Model CH-3E; Robinson Air Crane, Inc. Model CH-3E,
CH-3C, HH-3C and HH-3E; and Siller Helicopters Model CH-3E and SH-3A
helicopters. That NPRM proposed superseding AD 98-26-02, published in
the Federal Register on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69177), that only
applied to the affected Sikorsky model helicopters. That NPRM proposed
retaining some of the requirements of the existing AD but also proposed
determining a new retirement life for each MRS, removing from service
any MRS with oversized dowel pin bores, and expanding the applicability
to include certain restricted category models that were inadvertently
omitted in the current AD. That NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer's
reevaluation of the retirement life for the MRS based on torque,
ground-air-ground (GAG) cycle, and fatigue testing. Those proposals
were intended to prevent MRS structural failure, loss of power to the
main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (73 FR 21556, April 22, 2008), we have
determined a need to revise the proposed requirements, based on our
review of the data and the comments

received. These supplemental proposals are intended to extend the hours
time-in-service (TIS) required for identifying the MRS as a repetitive
external lift (REL) MRS to coincide with the nondestructive inspection
(NDI) so that only one disassembly of the shaft is required, which
would reduce the down time required to disassemble the shaft. Also,
this action proposes to extend the time required to replace the MRS.
    This action also proposes to modify a paragraph in the AD that
imposes a factor of 30 for unknown flight time. This has been changed
to a factor of 13.6. This action proposes to add the determination of
the shaft cycle count for the purpose of establishing the life limit.
Also, this action proposes to allow additional Revision A service
information that can be used to modify an REL MRS for its life limit
determination.
    We are reopening the comment period to allow the public to comment
on these proposed changes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 21556, April 22, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM, and the FAA's response to those comments.

Request

    One commenter stated there was a difference between AD 98-26-02 and
the NPRM in how many lifts constitute the shaft being REL. The
commenter stated that a shaft that had 6 lifts per hour is REL under AD
98-26-02 but would not be considered REL (more than 6 lift cycles per
hour) under the NPRM.
    We agree. The proposed AD is changed to match AD 98-26-02. Those
shafts that have 6 or more lifts per hour are REL shafts.
    Two commenters commented on the requirement to identify the REL
MRS. One commenter stated that the compliance time to identify the REL
MRS should be extended from 5 hours to 10 hours. Another commenter
asked if the identification of REL MRS on the component history card
would be sufficient and stated that the marking requirement of the REL
MRS would require an extended down time and lost revenue.
    We partially agree. We still believe the physical REL MRS should be
identified and marking the component history card alone is
insufficient. However, to avoid unnecessary down time, we are proposing
to mark the MRS to coincide with the NDI at 1,100 hours TIS, at which
time, the shaft would be disassembled anyway thus avoiding
unnecessarily disassembling the MRS just to mark it.
    One commenter stated that mentioning the identification of the TS-
281 marking in the proposed ``Note 2'' could result in a serviceable
MRS being rejected. The commenter further states that an MRS can have
the TS-281 marking but not have oversized dowel pin holes.
    We disagree. The proposed AD would not require all shafts marked
with the TS-281 marking to be removed from service. Only those shafts
that have oversized dowel pin bores would be required to be removed
from service.
    A commenter stated that compliance time (grace period) should be
extended for the MRS over life limit because the steel plates
referenced in the service information may not be available. Another
commenter, the manufacturer, further stated that cycle limits should be
added to the grace period.
    We disagree. Providing a grace period within which to comply with a
retirement life essentially extends the retirement life and would not
be appropriate. Also, this AD does not mandate modifying the
configuration using the steel plates in SB 61B35-53A, and therefore the
availability of that part does not factor into the compliance times
identified.
    Another commenter stated that the lack of documented failures
supports keeping the existing life limits in place and does not support
the additional cycle limits to the MRS due to flawed testing. The
commenter further stated that there have been no reported cracks in the
MRS in the 9+ years since issuing AD 98-26-02. The commenter also
stated that the life limits were generated using a flawed test program.
Based on an approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual, the chart shows that at
above 20 degrees Celsius and 1000-foot pressure altitude, the
helicopter cannot produce 103 per cent torque. The capability of the
helicopter reaching 103 percent torque was one of the reasons the
commenter gave that the testing was flawed. Due to that capability, the
testing at the 96 percent torque value was indicated to be more
realistic (the test specimen lasted for longer than 1.4 million
cycles). The second example of flawed testing given by the commenter
was that using the 200,000 cycle in the presentation and without using
the mean or working curve, the factor of 30 gives an equivalent time of
over 6,660 flight hours. This would allow several 1000-hour inspections
based on the overhaul manual to remove any of the fretting damage.
Therefore, the fretting damage would have been repaired, resulting in a
significant increase in cycles to failure.
    We partially agree. During certain operations, the helicopter can
reach 103 percent torque depending on the temperature and altitude
adjustments. The ability of the helicopter to reach 103 percent torque
was one of the reasons given for flawed testing. Based on logging
surveys conducted by Sikorsky, the current usage spectrum of some
operators exceeds those that generated the MRS life limits. However,
there have been no new reported cracks. During the time histories of
engine torque available during an operator logging survey, the 103 per
cent engine torque was seen during those operations. Because the torque
value can be reached during logging operations, it is a realistic
torque value for determining the new life limit.
    The second example provided of flawed testing is based on
inspecting the specimen by following the overhaul manual and repairing
any damage. However, when performing fatigue tests for life limit
certification of the helicopter, these tests are carried out for the
life of the part without any stoppage for inspections or repairs. The
allowable cycles are further reduced due to the limited number of test
specimens to represent the manufacturing variability and other unknown
factors. Therefore, those cycles are modified using a reduction factor
to determine a life limit. Since the testing to determine life limits
does not consider repairs, the testing performed was not flawed.
Therefore, we are proposing to retain the new life limits.
    The same commenter stated that the lack of documented failures
supports keeping the existing life limits in place and does not support
the additional cycle limits to the MRS because the 30,000 cycle limit
would reduce the actual flight hour time to as low as 1,000 hours
(using imposed 30 cycles per flight hour factor). The commenter further
stated that the significant decrease in life limit from 2,200 hours to
1,000 hours is not justified.
    We partially agree. Providing the factor of 30 to the unknown
flight time to determine the component lift cycle count would reduce
the existing life limit to below those of AD 98-26-02. Therefore, we
are modifying the requirements by imposing a factor of 13.6 for the
lift cycle count to the unknown flight time.
    The manufacturer stated that we should require incorporating
Customer Service Notice (CSN) 6135-10A and Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
61B35-53A for unmodified REL MRS and reference these instead of the
prior revisions. The

commenter further stated that we should require replacing the planetary
assembly and MRS assembly attaching hardware with the high strength
steel hardware for unmodified REL MRS because the titanium planetary
plates have a history of cracks in REL operations.
    We partially agree. The titanium plates continue to be airworthy so
long as the compliance times for the unmodified REL MRS times are
followed. Because they are still airworthy parts, incorporating CSN
6135-10A and ASB 61B35-53A, both dated April 29, 2004, will not be
required for unmodified REL MRS. Operators continuing to use the
unmodified REL MRS will continue to have a lower life limit as
identified in AD 98-26-02 for the unmodified REL MRS in comparison to
the life of a modified REL MRS. However, the later versions of the CSN
and ASB (Revision A) will not be incorporated because that is
unnecessary to correct the unsafe condition. The previous versions are
equivalent to CSN 6135-10A and ASB 61B35-53A for determining a modified
REL MRS configuration. Therefore, for modified REL MRS, we propose
adding CSN 6135-10A and ASB 61B35-53A to provide credit for those
modified by following the original ASB and CSN or revision A to those
documents.
    The manufacturer also stated that the compliance time (grace
period) for the non-REL MRS should be reduced to 150 from 1500 hours
TIS.
    We disagree. Sikorsky issued ASB 61B35-69, which specified
replacing a non-REL MRS at the next main gearbox overhaul or within 6
months. However, as these shafts have exceeded the life limit for the
part, it should be replaced with an airworthy part. Therefore, we are
proposing to remove the grace period.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of these same type
designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain some of the requirements from the
current AD 98-26-02 (63 FR 69177, December 16, 1998): Recording the
number of external lift cycles, determining whether the shaft is REL or
non-REL, marking the REL shafts at the time of the NDI, and conducting
an NDI for shafts used in REL operations and replacing it if a crack is
found.
    The proposed AD would also require calculating a 250-hour TIS
moving average of lift cycles to determine whether the MRS is an REL
MRS, determine a new retirement life for each MRS based on hour TIS and
lift cycles, remove from service any MRS with oversized dowel pin
bores, and expand the applicability to include certain restricted
category models that were inadvertently omitted in the existing AD.
Also, this proposed action would extend the retirement life of modified
REL MRS from 2,200 hours TIS to 5,000 hours TIS but also implement
lift-cycle retirement lives. Lastly, this action proposes allowing the
use of Revision A service information to modify the REL MRS for life
limit determination.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 60 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this proposed AD: It would take about 2.2 work
hours to NDI an REL MRS at $85 per work hour plus a $50 consumable
cost, for a total cost of $237 per helicopter and $14,220 for the U.S.
fleet. It would take 2.2 work hours at $85 per work hour to replace an
MRS, and parts would cost $44,753, for a total cost of $44,940 per
helicopter.

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, 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 Amendment 39-10943 (63 FR
69177, December 16, 1998), and by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; Croman Corporation; Carson
Helicopters, Inc.; Glacier Helicopters, Inc.; Robinson Air Crane,
Inc.; and Siller Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2008-0442; Directorate
Identifier 2007-SW-24-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-61A, D, E, L, N, NM (serial number
(S/N) 61454), R, V, CH-3C, CH-3E, HH-3C, HH-3E, SH-3A, and SH-3H
helicopters with main rotor shaft (MRS), part number (P/N) S6135-
20640-001, S6135-20640-002, or S6137-23040-001, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as MRS structural failure,
loss of power to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 98-26-02 (63 FR 69177, December 16, 1998),
Amendment 39-10943, Docket No. 96-SW-29-AD.

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 24, 2013.

(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 10 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Create a component history card or equivalent record for
each MRS.
    (ii) If there is no record of the hours TIS on an individual
MRS, substitute the helicopter's hours TIS.
    (iii) If the record of lift cycles on an individual MRS is
incomplete, add the known number of lift cycles to a number
calculated by multiplying the number of hours TIS of the individual
MRS by the average lift cycles calculated according to the
instructions in Section I of Appendix I of this AD or by a factor of
13.6, whichever is higher.
    (iv) At the end of each day's operations, record the number of
external lift cycles (lift cycles) performed and the hours TIS. An
external lift cycle is defined as a flight cycle in which an
external load is picked up, the helicopter is repositioned (through
flight or hover), and the helicopter hovers and releases the load
and departs or lands and departs.
    (2) Within 250 hours TIS, determine whether the MRS is a
repetitive external lift (REL) or non-REL MRS.
    (i) Calculate the first moving average of lift cycles by
following the instructions in Section I of Appendix I of this AD.
    (A) If the calculation results in 6 or more lift cycles per hour
TIS, the MRS is an REL-MRS.
    (B) If the calculation results in less than 6 lift cycles per
hour TIS, the MRS is a Non-REL MRS.
    (ii) If the MRS is a Non-REL MRS based on the calculation
performed in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(i), thereafter at
intervals of 50 hour TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles per
hour TIS by following the instructions in Section II of Appendix 1
of this AD.
    (iii) Once an MRS is determined to be an REL MRS, you no longer
need to perform the 250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but you
must continue to count and record the lift cycles and number of
hours TIS.
    (iv) If an MRS is determined to be an REL MRS, it remains an REL
MRS for the rest of its service life and is subject to the
retirement times for an REL MRS.
    (3) Within 1,100 hours TIS:
    (i) Conduct a Non-Destructive Inspection for a crack on each
MRS. If there is a crack in an MRS, before further flight, replace
it with an airworthy MRS.
    (ii) If an MRS is determined to be an REL MRS, identify it as an
REL MRS by etching ``REL'' on the outside diameter of the MRS near
the part S/N by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
3.C., of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 61B35-69, dated April
19, 2004.
    (4) Replace each MRS with an airworthy MRS on or before reaching
the revised retirement life as follows:
    (i) For an REL MRS that is not modified by following Sikorsky
Customer Service Notice (CSN) 6135-10, dated March 18, 1987, and ASB
No. 61B35-53, dated December 2, 1981 (unmodified REL MRS), the
retirement life is 30,000 lift cycles or 1,500 hours TIS, whichever
occurs first.
    (ii) For an REL MRS that is modified by following Sikorsky CSN
6135-10, dated March 18, 1987, and Sikorsky ASB No. 61B35-53 dated
December 2, 1981, or CSN 6135-10A, Revision A, and ASB 61B35-53A,
Revision A, both dated April 19, 2004 (modified REL MRS), the
retirement life is 30,000 lift cycles or 5,000 hours TIS, whichever
occurs first.
    (iii) For a non-REL MRS, the retirement life is 13,000 hours
TIS.
    (5) Establish or revise the retirement lives of the MRS as
indicated in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (e)(4)(iii) of this AD by
recording the new or revised retirement life on the MRS component
history card or equivalent record.
    (6) Within 50 hours TIS, remove from service any MRS with
oversized (0.8860'' or greater diameter) dowel pin bores.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to Jeffrey Lee,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781)
238-7161, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under 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) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation issued an All Operators Letter
(AOL) CCS-61-AOL-04-0005, dated May 18, 2004, with an example and
additional information about tracking cycles and the moving average
procedure. This AOL is not incorporated by reference but contains
additional information about the subject of this AD.
    (2) The Overhaul and Repair Instruction (ORI) Number 6135-281,
Part B, Step 5, and ORI 6137-041, Section III, Oversize Dowel Pin
Bore Repair and identified on the flange as TS-281 or TS-041-3,
which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional
information about the subject of this AD.
    (3) For more information about the AOL or the ORI, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

APPENDIX I

Section I: The First Moving Average of Lift Cycles per Hour TIS

    The first moving average calculation is performed on the MRS
assembly when the external lift component history card record
reflects that the MRS assembly has reached its first 250 hours TIS.
To perform the calculation, divide the total number of lift cycles
performed during the first 250 hours TIS by 250. The result will be
the first moving average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS.

Section II: Subsequent Moving Average of Lift Cycles per Hour TIS

    Subsequent moving average calculations are performed on the MRS
assembly at intervals of 50 hour TIS after the first moving average
calculation. Subtract the total number of lift cycles performed
during the first 50-hour TIS interval used in the previous moving
average calculation from the total number of lift cycles performed
on the MRS assembly during the previous 300 hours TIS. Divide this
result by 250. The result will be the next or subsequent moving
average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS.

Section III: Sample Calculation for Subsequent 50 Hour TIS
Intervals

    Assume the total number of lift cycles for the first 50 hour TIS
interval used in the previous moving average calculation = 450 lift
cycles and the total number of lift cycles for the previous 300
hours TIS = 2700 lift cycles. The subsequent moving average of lift
cycles per hour TIS = (2700-450) divided by 250 = 9 lift cycles per
hour TIS.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 16, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09767 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P