Background \n\n\n\tThe EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0028, dated February 15, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0028) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model \n\n((Page 38910)) \n\nSA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. \n\tThe FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2021 (86 FR 15431). The NPRM was prompted by a report that damage (scorch marks) was found on an internal life raft installation that contained a half rescue kit. Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by an unsuitable folding process for the life raft, which led to compression of the flashlight batteryin the half rescue kit. This compression caused an electrolyte leakage, followed by a short-circuit that damaged the internal life raft. The NPRM proposed to require identifying the part number and serial number of each half rescue kit located in the internal life raft installation and, depending on the findings, inspecting the life raft for damage, inspecting the condition of the flashlight battery, testing the flashlight battery, and replacing the life raft or flashlight battery (including the leak test) as applicable, as specified in an EASA AD. \n\tThe FAA is issuing this AD to address leakage of the flashlight battery in a half rescue kit, which could result in damage to the internal life raft, and subsequent failure of the internal life raft to deploy (for example after a ditching), which could impede or prevent safe evacuation of the occupants from the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information. \n\nDiscussion of Final Airworthiness Directive \n\nCommentsThe FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. \n\nCosts of Compliance Update \n\n\n\tThe NPRM did not include the kit cost for the on-condition action specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2016-0028. The FAA has received this cost data and has updated the costs of compliance accordingly. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tThe FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor changes. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require actions specified in EASA AD 2016-0028 through incorporation by reference, except for certain differences. The FAA has obtained approval to use this process from certain manufacturers, including Airbus Helicopters; however, the FAA has not worked with Zodiac Aerospace (which has been merged into Safran Aerosystems) for approval of this process. EASAAD 2016-0028 specifies using Zodiac Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 025-64-13, Revision 0, dated November 23, 2015 (SB 025-64-13 Rev 0) or Revision 1, dated January 19, 2016 (SB 025-64-13 Rev 1), to accomplish a certain action. In light of this, an exception has been added into this final rule to directly use SB 025-64-13 Rev 0 or SB 025-64-13 Rev 1, instead of using SB 025-64-13 Rev 0 or SB 025- 64-13 Rev 1 through incorporation by reference of EASA AD 2016-0028. \n\tThe FAA has determined that these minor changes: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. \n\nRelated Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tEASA AD 2016-0028 specifies identifying the part number and serial number of each half rescue kit located in the internal life raft installation, inspecting the life raft for damage (scorch marks), inspecting the condition ofthe flashlight battery (including cracks, impacts, swelling, damage, distorted case, and the connecting wire), testing the flashlight battery (turning on the flashlight), and replacing the life raft or flashlight battery (including the leak test). \n\tThe FAA reviewed SB 025-64-13 Rev 0, which specifies procedures to visually inspect the condition of the life raft and battery, and test the battery. The FAA also reviewed SB 025-64-13 Rev 1, which specifies the same procedures as SB 025-64-13 Rev 0, except SB 025-64-13 Rev 1 corrects the serial numbers identified in the effectivity. \n\tThis material 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. \n\nDifferences Between This AD and the MCAI \n\n\n\tAlthough the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies to return damaged life rafts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. \n\tWhere EASA AD 2016-0028 refers to its effective date or to January 7, 2016 (the effective date of EASA AD 2015-0242), this AD requires compliance within 3 months after the effective date of this AD. \n\tAlthough the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies that trained and authorized Zodiac Aerospace personnel must do the inspection of the half rescue kit, this AD does not require that Zodiac Aerospace personnel do the inspection. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs for Required Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tLabor cost Parts cost product operators ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85............................. $3,000 $3,085 $92,550 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on- condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions: \n\n((Page 38911)) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\tEstimated Costs of On-Condition Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tLabor cost Parts cost Cost per product ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $637.50 Up to $78,154...................... Up to $78,791.50. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tAccording to Zodiac Aerospace, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tThe 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 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\t(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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.