Comment Info: =================

General Comment: Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as a small business owner to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a manufacture of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they improved the health of many of my customers. I wish to provide you with my personal story, antidotal  data, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Cody Rice, USEPA FROM: Susan Day, Riley Newbert DATE: October 23, 2003 RE: Small Entity Impacts Associated with the Form R D 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) of 1980 ( 5 U. S. C. § 601 et. seq.) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of their actions on small entities, including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and governments. Section 604 of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the Agency certifies under section 605( b) that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically define " a significant economic impact on a substantial number" of small entities.

This memo summarizes the results of a small entity impact analysis for the rule. Specifically, Section 2 provides the definition of a small entity for each industry group covered under the rule. Section 3 describes the general methodology used to determine if the rule results in significant economic impacts to a substantial number of small entities. Section 4 summarizes the results for all small entities affected under the rule. 1 SBA's size standards can be found at: http:// www. sbaonline. sba. gov/ gopher/ Financial Assistance/ Size Standards.

2 USSBA. Office of Advocacy  Statistics  Major Industries by NAICS codes: Private Employer Firms, Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Firm Size 1998 2000. Information from the Small Business Administration on the Internet. http:// www. sba. gov/ advo/ stats/ us88   00i. pdf. Downloaded on October 17, 2003.

2 2.0 DEFINITIONS OF SMALL ENTITIES The RFA utilizes the definition of " small business" found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration ( SBA) to define " small business" by regulation. This analysis uses the SBA's definition of a small business for each industry. 1 SBA's small business size standards vary by industry. In establishing size standards, SBA considers a number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business concern to exercise dominance in an industry. Size standards are based on criteria, such as annual receipts or number of employees, that represent a measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size that a for profit enterprise ( together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business.

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as " small." For example, the default SBA size standard for manufacturing industries is 500 employees. According to information compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 301,639 of 306,303 firms have fewer than 500 employees , at least 98.5 percent of firms would be classified as small businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, this percentage is actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes within manufacturing, the SBA size standard is 750, 1,000, or 1,500 employees.

The RFA defines " small governmental jurisdictions" as governments of cities, counties, towns, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000 people. No small governmental jurisdictions are expected to report as a result of the rule.

The RFA defines " small organizations" as any " not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field." No small organizations are expected to report as a result of the rule.

3.0 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual compliance costs resulting from the rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small entity impacts, 3 For a complete description of the derivation of first and subsequent year incremental compliance costs associated with this rule, please see the October 17, 2003 memorandum " Estimated Burden and Cost of the Form R D".

3 comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenues provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Cost impact percentages are calculated using both the first and subsequent year incremental compliance costs for Form R D filers. 3 Facilities that file a TRI report for dioxin and dioxin like compounds but do not have congener distribution data will incur only incremental costs of rule familiarization. Alternatively, facilities that file a TRI report for dioxin and dioxinlike compounds and do have congener distribution data will incur incremental costs of rule familiarization, report completion, and recordkeeping.

In RY2001, 920 facilities provided congener distributions for dioxin and dioxin like compounds in section 1.4 of Form R; only these facilities are expected to incur incremental costs beyond those associated with rule familiarization. The remaining 395 facilities, out of the total 1,315 facilities that filed a TRI report for dioxin and dioxin like compounds, did not provide a congener distribution in RY2001 and are expected to incur only rule familiarization costs.

The analysis of small entity impacts uses the number of facilities per company for small companies and the annual revenues for each of the small companies. For each company, revenue data and number of facilities per small company were taken from 2003 Dun and Bradstreet data for parent companies, as described in the next section.

The general methodology followed to estimate the impacts on small entities consists of the following steps:

( 1) Estimate the number of facilities expected to submit TRI reports for dioxin;

( 2) Estimate the number of small companies affected ( i. e., the percentage of small companies with at least one reporting facility);

( 3) Develop company level annual compliance cost estimates, based on the number of facilities per company that report for dioxin and provide a congener distribution and the number of facilities per company that report for dioxin and do not provide a congener distribution;

( 4) Identify annual revenues of affected small companies;

( 5) Estimate the company level impact percentages, defined as annual incremental 4 compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues, as a measure of regulatory burden;

( 6) Estimate the number and percentage of small companies with company level annual impact percentages in each of three categories: ( 1) less than one percent of annual revenues; ( 2) between one and three percent of annual revenues; and ( 3) greater than or equal to three percent of annual revenues.

3.1 GENERATION OF COMPANY REVENUE DATA This section describes how revenue and business size data ( a D& B variable denoting small businesses based on SBA definitions) were used to characterize companies in affected industries. Because each facility affected by this rule is currently filing a TRI report for dioxin and dioxin like compounds, it is possible to identify specific parent companies of facilities that are expected to report under this rulemaking using a combination of TRI and D& B data. Using D& B data, it was possible to identify the parent companies of the majority of facilities affected by the rule. Specifically, of the 1,315 potentially affected facilities, 95 percent were linked to a parent company in D& B. Of the identified parent companies, revenue data were obtained for 92 percent, business size information was collected for 99 percent, and both revenue and size information were collected for 92 percent. Using this information, it was possible to classify parent companies as large or small using SBA definitions. Additionally, for each parent company it was possible to identify the number of reporting facilities that provided a congener distribution and the number of facilities that did not provide a congener distribution in RY 2001.

Company revenue and business size data were obtained for affected facilities from Dun and Bradstreet's Market Identifiers On Line Data Base and Dun's Marketing Services, both services of Dun and Bradstreet ( D& B). For over 11 million business locations, D& B provides a wide range of data, including:

Number of employees,

Line of business,

Key financial indicators, ° Business size,

Parent/ headquarters.

Revenue and business size data for parent companies owning affected facilities were obtained from an October 2003 version of Dun's Marketing Services, available through . Parent company revenues are expressed in 2003 dollars. ns selected D& B variables and no financial data other than revenue. The revenue and business size data used in this analysis represent data for ultimate parent companies that own one or more facilities that filed a TRI report for dioxin and 4 The ultimate parent is the uppermost parent or headquarters that encompasses all directly related branches, subsidiaries, or parents of a specific business at a specific location. This analysis assumes that a facility, as defined under TRI, is equivalent to a location as defined by D& B. A " facility," subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements, means all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items that are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person, that is classified under an SIC code covered by the regulations, has 10 or more employees or the equivalent, and manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the specific reporting thresholds. For some industries this may not correspond exactly to the definition of a location by D& B.

5 dioxin like compounds in RY2001.4 Using business size data presented in D& B ( based on SBA definitions), small parent companies were identified. The small entity analysis accounts for parent companies owning one or more affected facilities. The ultimate parent data obtained includes available revenue data of all subsidiaries, divisions, and branches of that parent, including those not individually affected under the rule. The number of TRI facilities per ultimate parent, however, represents the number of facilities owned by that parent company that filed a report for dioxin and dioxin like compounds in RY2001 ( not the total number of facilities per parent company).

3.2 ESTIMATING IMPACTS To evaluate the potential impact of the rule, annual compliance costs are estimated at the ultimate parent company level to be consistent with the financial data obtained from D& B. For purposes of evaluating the impacts on small entities, an " affected" facility is defined as a facility that is expected to submit a TRI report for dioxin or dioxin like compounds. Thus, an " affected" company under this analysis is a company owning at least one " affected" facility.

The analysis of small entity impacts uses the number of facilities per company for small companies and the annual revenue for each small company. Business size information was available for 455 of the 458 identified parent companies ( 99 percent). These data were used to estimate the percentage of parent companies that are classified as " small" approximately 19 percent. This percentage was applied to the total number of affected parent companies ( 481) to estimate the total number of small companies ( 92) with facilities expected to be affected by the rule.

As indicated above, revenue and size data were available for 92 percent of identified parent companies.

actual TRI RY2001 data were used to define the affected facilities, and, subsequently, their ultimate parents, it was possible to determine the number of facilities within 6 each ultimate parent that did and did NOT report a congener distribution for dioxin and dioxinlike compounds. This distinction allows for the generation of company specific compliance costs by accounting for facilities that incur only rule familiarization versus those that incur rule familiarization, report completion and recordkeeping costs.

4.0 RESULTS The estimated impacts to small companies under Options 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below. All small companies have impacts less than one percent of annual revenues. First year impacts for small companies have a maximum value of 0.23 percent, 0.25 percent and 0.16 percent for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. First year average impacts for small companies are 0.01 percent, 0.01 percent, and 0.006 percent for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Similarly, subsequent year impacts for small companies have a maximum value of 0.12 percent, 0.15 percent, and 0.06 percent for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Subsequent year average impacts for small companies are 0.004 percent, 0.005 percent, and 0.002 percent for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES OPTION 1 Estimated Number of Affected Entities Estimated Number of Affected Small Entities Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts of 3 Percent or Greater Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Between 1 and 3 Percent Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Less than 1 Percent First Year 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100 Subsequent Years 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100 7 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES OPTION 2 Estimated Number of Affected Entities Estimated Number of Affected Small Entities Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts of 3 Percent or Greater Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Between 1 and 3 Percent Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Less than 1 Percent First Year 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100 Subsequent Years 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100 8 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES OPTION 3 Estimated Number of Affected Entities Estimated Number of Affected Small Entities Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts of 3 Percent or Greater Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Between 1 and 3 Percent Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Less than 1 Percent First Year 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100 Subsequent Years 481 92 0 0 92 % of Small Entities 0 0 100


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11940-11942]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4832]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0141; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-06-AD;
Amendment 39-16617; AD 2011-05-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Model Arriel 1E2, 1S, and 1S1
Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action supersedes emergency airworthiness directive (AD)
2011-05-51 that was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and
operators of the products listed above. That AD requires inspecting the
fuel ejector in the body of the fuel ejector assembly for proper
installation by checking that the circlip is properly seated in its
groove. That AD was prompted by three reports of incorrectly assembled
low-pressure fuel system ejectors; with one of them resulting in an
uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown. This AD requires the same
actions and compliance times as the emergency AD, after receipt of the
emergency AD, and expands the AD applicability by including helicopters
having one or two affected engines and experiencing no starting
difficulties. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country
to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    In October 2009, Turbomeca issued SB [Service Bulletin] No. 292
73 0826, Version A that instructed operators to check the
effectiveness of the bonding of the ejector jet installed on the
low-pressure fuel system between the tank and the high-pressure fuel
pump.
    So far, Turbomeca have been informed of three discrepancies with
the reassembly of the ejector following a maintenance procedure
performed during accomplishment of Turbomeca SB No. 292 73 0826,
Version A.
    In all three cases, the discrepancies led to a ``one-off''
abnormal evolution of gas generator (NG) rating during engine
starting. In one of these cases, this resulted in an uncommanded in-
flight shutdown, during a cruising phase at 8,000 feet.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded engine in-flight
shutdown of one or both engines in a two-engine helicopter and an
emergency autorotation landing or accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 9, 2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 4, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A292 73
0834, Version B, dated February 8, 2011, listed in the AD as of March
9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive EASA AD No. 2011-0023-E, dated February 9, 2011
(corrected on February 10, 2011) (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    In October 2009, Turbomeca issued SB [Service Bulletin] No. 292
73 0826, Version A that instructed operators to check the
effectiveness of the bonding of the ejector jet installed on the
low-pressure fuel system between the tank and the high-pressure fuel
pump.
    So far, Turbomeca have been informed of three discrepancies with
the reassembly of the ejector following a maintenance procedure
performed during accomplishment of Turbomeca SB No. 292 73 0826,
Version A.
    In all three cases, the discrepancies led to a ``one-off''
abnormal evolution of gas generator (NG) rating during engine
starting. In one of these cases, this resulted in an uncommanded in-
flight shutdown, during a cruising phase at 8,000 feet.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Turbomeca MSB No. A292 73 0834, Version B, dated
February 8, 2011, and SB No. 292 73 0826, Version B, dated February 4,
2011. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for
proper ejector installation.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    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 has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires inspecting the fuel ejector in the body of the fuel
ejector assembly for proper installation by checking that the circlip
is properly seated in its groove, for all affected engines. This AD
requires the same actions and compliance times as emergency AD 2011-05-
51, after receipt of the emergency AD, and expands the AD applicability
by including helicopters having one or two affected engines and
experiencing no starting difficulties.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the high risk of uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown of one or both
engines in a two-engine helicopter and an emergency autorotation
landing or accident.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0141; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NE-06-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
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
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

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 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 this AD:
    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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 adding the following new AD:

2011-05-08 Turbomeca: Amendment 39-16617; Docket No. FAA-2011-0141;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-06-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 9,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes emergency AD 2011-05-51, issued on
February 15, 2011.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1E2, 1S, and 1S1
turboshaft engines that have incorporated Turbomeca Service Bulletin
(SB) No. 292 73 0826, Version A, dated October 13, 2009, or
incorporated Turbomeca Internal Consign No. 298468. These engines
are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter Deutschland MBB
BK117-C2 and BK117-C1, and Sikorsky S-76A series and S-76C series,
helicopters.

Reason

    (d) This AD was prompted by three reports of incorrectly
assembled low-pressure fuel system ejectors; with one of them
resulting in an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown. We are
issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown of
one or both engines in a two-engine helicopter and an emergency
autorotation landing or accident.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Fuel Ejector Inspection

    (f) Inspect the fuel ejector in the body of the fuel ejector
assembly for proper installation by checking that the circlip is
properly seated in its groove. Use Paragraph 2.B of the Instructions
to be Incorporated, of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB)
No. A292 73 0834, Version B, dated February 8, 2011 to do the
inspection. Inspect at the following compliance times:
    (1) For helicopters having at least one of the two affected
engines experiencing starting difficulties, inspect within 5 flight
hours (FH) after receipt of emergency AD 2011-05-51 or after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For helicopters having only one affected engine, and
experiencing starting difficulties in that engine, inspect within 20
FH after receipt of emergency AD 2011-05-51 or after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For helicopters having one or two affected engines and
experiencing no starting difficulties, inspect within 100 FH after
the effective date of this AD.

Inspection Results

    (g) If you find a fuel ejector improperly installed in the body
of the fuel ejector assembly, replace the fuel ejector assembly
before further flight with a serviceable fuel ejector assembly.

Definition

    (h) For the purpose of this AD, starting difficulties occur when
N1 stagnation or variations are encountered. During starting, N1
rise shall be continuous and linear up to ground idle.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (i) Inspections and replacements done using Turbomeca MSB No.
A292 73 0834, Version A, dated February 4, 2011, or Turbomeca SB No.
292 73 0826, Version B, dated February 4, 2011, before the effective
date of this AD, satisfy the requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) For further information about this AD, contact: Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(781) 238-7199; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (l) For copies of the service information referenced in this AD,
contact: Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 559 74 40 00;
fax: 33 559 74 45 15; Web site: http://www.turbomeca-support.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803.
    (m) EASA AD No. 2011-0023-E, dated February 9, 2011 (corrected
on February 10, 2011), also pertains to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292
73 0834, Version B, dated February 8, 2011, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 559 74 40 00; fax: 33 559
74 45 15; Web site: http://www.turbomeca-support.com.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 22, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-4832 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P