Discussion \n\n\n\tThe European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2008-0165, dated August 28, 2008 (AD No. 2008-0165), which supersedes EASA Emergency AD No. 2006-0321-E, dated October 18, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Model SA-365C, SA- 365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters. EASA issued AD No. 2008-0165 as a result of the issuance of Revision 3 of Eurocopter \n\n((Page 35347)) \n\nEmergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) Numbers 05.00.51, 05.35, 05.28, and 05.00.21 (military only). EASA advises that their AD was issued following three reported cases of deterioration of a Starflex arm end. They state that in two of these cases, the deterioration caused high amplitude vibrations in flight, compelling the pilot to carry out a precautionary landing. EASA further states that if the Starflex arm end fails, high-amplitude vibrations could make it difficult to control the helicopter. \n\nRelated Service Information \n\n\n\tEurocopter has issued one EASB, which applies to four different series helicopters, each with a different EASB number: No. 05.00.51 for the 365N series; No. 05.35 for the 366G1; No. 05.28 for the 365C series; and No. 05.00.21 for non-type certificated military helicopters; all Revision 3, and all dated August 18, 2008. This EASB specifies ''checks of the bushes'' installed on Starflex arm ends and reduces the interval between successive checks ''in order to be able to detect any bush bonding failure or distortion of a Starflex arm end as rapidly as possible.'' EASA classified this EASB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2008-0165 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters. \n\nFAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination \n\n\n\tThese helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of member states of the European Union and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in their AD. 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 helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent the failure of the Starflex, high amplitude vibrations in flight, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS, visually inspecting the adhesive bead between the bushing and the Starflex arm for a crack, a gap, or loss of the adhesive bead, inspecting the Starflex arm ends for delamination, and replacing the Starflex if any of these conditions are found. Accomplish the actions by following specified portions of the EASB described previously. \n\tTheshort compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity and controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, the actions described previously are required at very short TIS intervals, and this AD must be issued immediately. \n\tSince a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. \n\nDifferences Between This AD and the EASA AD \n\n\n\tWe have reviewed the EASA AD, and our AD differs from the EASA AD as follows: \n\tThe EASA AD uses the term ''check.'' We instead use the term ''inspect.'' \n\tThe EASA AD uses the terms ''bush'' and ''bushes.'' We instead use the terms ''bushing'' and ''bushings.'' \n\tThe EASA AD uses the term ''flying hours.'' We instead use the term ''time-in-service.'' \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD will affect about 37 helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.25 work-hour per helicopter to inspect the Starflex arm end, and 10 work-hours to remove and replace the Starflex star, if necessary. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $33,794. Based on these figures, we estimate that the total annual cost of this AD on U.S. operators is $50,369, assuming 20 inspections are conducted on each helicopter and assuming one Starflex star is replaced each year. \n\nComments Invited \n\n\n\tThis AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ''Docket No. FAA-2011-0551; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-13-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments. \n\tWe 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 docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tWe have 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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: \n\t1. Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; \n\t2. Is not a ''significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and \n\t3. 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\tWe prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation. \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\tWe 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. \n\n((Page 35348)) \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.