Discussion \n\n\n\tThe EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0224R1, dated November 11, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0224R1), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1, AS350 B2, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N helicopters. EASA AD 2020-0224R1 revises EASA AD 2020-0224-E, dated October 16, 2020, to expand the list of serviceable parts (post-mod 075580). \n\tThis AD was prompted by two reports of large debonding of the T/R blade leading edge protection shields. According to EASA, the design and assembly procedure of the affected part (pre-mod 075580) is such that rapid debonding can occur if humidity/liquid water reaches the bonding surface between the leading edge and blade spar. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the T/R blade, which could result in loss of tail rotor control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. See the EASA AD for additional background information. \n\nRelated IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tEASA AD 2020-0224R1 specifies repetitively visually inspecting each T/R blade leading edge protection shield and repetitively tap inspecting each T/R blade leading edge. EASA AD 2020-0224R1 also prohibits the installation of an affected part and specifies a longer- term modification to replace each affected part with a serviceable part. EASA AD 2020-0224R1 states that replacing all affected parts with serviceable parts on a helicopter constitutes terminating action for the repetitive visual and tap inspections. \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\nFAA's Determination \n\n\n\tThese helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. \n\nRequirements of This AD \n\n\n\tThis AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0224R1, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under ''Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD.'' Additionally, the owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required visual checks but must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of this AD in the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform these checks because they only involve visually checking affectedT/R blade leading edge protection shields and bonding strips. This action can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations. \n\nExplanation of Required Compliance Information \n\n\n\tIn the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020- 0224R1 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0224R1 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to ''all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled ''Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0224R1 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0224R1 is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0095. \n\nDifferences Between This AD and the EASA AD \n\n\n\tThe EASA AD applies to all Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS \n\n((Page 13161)) \n\n350 B1, AS350 B2, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N helicopters, whereas this AD applies to Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters with certain part-numbered T/R blades installed instead. This AD does not apply toModel AS 350 BB because this model is not FAA type-certificated. The EASA AD requires visually inspecting each T/R blade leading edge protection shield. This AD requires visually checking each T/R blade leading edge protection shield and bonding strip instead and allows a pilot to accomplish these visual checks. The EASA AD requires a longer-term modification of replacing each affected part with a serviceable part, whereas this AD does not. The FAA plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on this longer-term requirement. \n\nFAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date \n\n\n\tSection 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ''good cause'' finds that those procedures are ''impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue afinal rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. \n\tAn unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the visual repetitive checks must be done before each flight and the initial instance of the repetitive tap inspections must be done within 30 hours time-in-service, a time period of up to about 1.5 months based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters. Accordingly, the compliance time for the required actions is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause existspursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. \n\nComments Invited \n\n\n\tThe FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ''Docket No. FAA-2021-0095; Project Identifier MCAI- 2020-01658-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. \n\tExcept for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this AD. \n\nConfidential Business Information \n\n\n\tCBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ''PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email kristin.bradley@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. \n\nRegulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) \n\n\n\tThe requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tThe FAA estimates that this AD affects 450 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD. \n\tVisually checking the T/R blades takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $9,450 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Tap inspecting the T/R blades takes about 0.5 work- hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $19,350 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Replacing a T/R blade takes about 12 work-hours and parts cost about $10,000 for an estimated cost of $11,020 per T/R blade. \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\tThe FAA determined that this AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify this regulation: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, and \n\t(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. \n\n((Page 13162)) \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.