Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64417 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type certification basis for Airbus 

Model A350–900 series airplanes in lieu 

of § 25.503: 

1. The main landing gear and 

supporting structure must be designed 

for the loads induced by pivoting during 

ground maneuvers. 

(a) The following rational pivoting 

maneuvers must be considered: 

(i) Towing at the nose gear at the 

critical towing angle with no brakes 

applied, including cases with torque 

links disconnected; and separately, 

(ii) Application of symmetrical or 

unsymmetrical forward thrust to aid 

pivoting, with or without braking by 

pilot action on the pedals. 

(b) The airplane is assumed to be in 

static equilibrium, with the loads being 

applied at the ground contact points. 

(c) The limit vertical load factor must 

be 1.0, and: 

(i) For wheels with brakes applied, 

the coefficient of friction must be 0.8, 

(ii) For wheels with brakes not 

applied, the ground tire reactions must 

be based on reliable tire data. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 12, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25398 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0393; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–CE–025–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Twin 

Commander Aircraft LLC Airplanes; 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Availability of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of and request for comments 

on the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for the previously published 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–09– 

05 that applies to certain Twin 

Commander Aircraft LLC Models 690, 

690A, and 690B airplanes. AD 2013–09– 

05 requires inspection for cracking of 

the outer fuselage attachments, the 

lower wing main spar, the vertical 

channels, the upper picture window 

channels, aft cabin pressure web, 

external wing to fuselage fillets, and 

fasteners; repair or replacement of 

damaged parts as necessary; and 

modification of the structure with 

reinforced parts. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), Airframe Branch, ANM– 

120S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057; telephone: (425) 917–6426; 

fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued AD 2013–09–05; 

Amendment 39–17446, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28125) (‘‘AD 2013– 

09–05’’), to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

add an AD that would apply to the 

specified products. AD 2013–09–05 

requires inspection for cracking of the 

outer fuselage attachments, the lower 

wing main spar, the vertical channels, 

the upper picture window channels, aft 

cabin pressure web, external wing to 

fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or 

replacement of damaged parts as 

necessary; and modification of the 

structure with reinforced parts. 

Reason for This Action 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration. The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In accordance with Section 608 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an 

agency head may waive or delay 

completion of some or all of the 

requirements of Section 603 by 

providing a written finding that the final 

rule is being promulgated in response to 

an emergency that makes compliance or 

timely compliance with the provisions 

of Section 603 impracticable. The 

agency issued AD 2013–09–05 in 

response to an immediate safety of flight 

condition that made compliance with 

the provisions of Section 603 

impracticable. After issuing AD 2013– 

09–05, the agency reviewed the AD 

actions and determined that the final 

rule did have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The following presents the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

prepared by the agency as described in 

the RFA. 

1. Reason for Agency Action 

We issued AD 2013–09–05 for certain 

Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Models 

690, 690A, and 690B airplanes. The AD 

requires inspection for cracking of the 

outer fuselage attachments, the lower 

wing main spar, the vertical channels, 

the upper picture window channels, aft 

cabin pressure web, external wing to 

fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or 

replacement of damaged parts as 

necessary; and modification of the 

structure with reinforced parts. The AD 

was prompted by cracks found in the 

upper picture window frame channels, 

left- and right-hand wing main spar 

frame support channels, and aft 

pressure bulkhead web. This condition, 

if not corrected, could result in 

structural failure of the airplane. We 

issued the AD to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

2. Legal Basis and Objectives of the 

Final Rule 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64418 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We issued the AD 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 the AD. 

3. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Final Rule 

Compliance 

Compliance with AD 2013–09–05 

must occur within the times specified, 

unless already done. 

Inspection 

Inspect the airplane structural 

components, at the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through 

(g)(1)(iv) of the AD following Part I of 

Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service 

Bulletin 241, September 26, 2012: 

• For airplanes with 10,000 or more 

hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect 

within the next 30 days after May 29, 

2013 (the effective date of the AD). 

• For airplanes with 7,500 through 

9,999 hours TIS, inspect within the next 

60 days after May 29, 2013 (the effective 

date of the AD). 

• For airplanes with 5,000 through 

7,499 hours TIS, inspect within the next 

6 months after May 29, 2013 (the 

effective date of the AD). 

• For airplanes with less than 5,000 

hours TIS, inspect when the airplane 

accumulates a total of 5,000 hours TIS 

or within the next 12 months after May 

29, 2013 (the effective date of the AD), 

whichever occurs later. 

Repair 

If any damage, cracks, and/or cracks 

that exceed the allowable limits 

specified in the service bulletin are 

found during the inspection required in 

paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, before 

further flight, repair or replace parts as 

necessary following Twin Commander 

Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, 

dated, September 26, 2012. If Twin 

Commander Aircraft LLC Service 

Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012, 

does not give procedures for repair of 

the damaged area, before further flight, 

you must contact Twin Commander 

Aircraft LLC to obtain repair 

instructions approved by the Seattle 

ACO specifically for compliance with 

this AD and incorporate those 

instructions. You can find contact 

information for Twin Commander 

Aircraft LLC in paragraph (l)(2) of the 

AD. 

Modification and Reassembly 

• Before further flight after 

completing the actions in paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of the AD, modify and 

reassemble the airplane using the 

modification and reassembly procedures 

in Part II of Twin Commander Aircraft 

LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, 

September 26, 2012. 

• Although Twin Commander 

Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated 

September 26, 2012, states that at least 

one person on the modification team 

must have completed the Twin 

Commander Aircraft LLC approved 

training, the FAA does not require that 

a mechanic complete this specialized 

training to do the modification work 

required in the AD. Regulations 14 CFR 

65.81(a) and 14 CFR 65.81(b) provide 

criteria about qualifications of those 

performing maintenance; in this case, 

the requirements of the AD. 

4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Final Rule 

There are no rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with AD 2013–09– 

05. 

5. Description and Estimation of the 

Number of Small Entities Affected by 

the Final Rule 

Under the RFA, the FAA must 

determine whether a final rule 

significantly affects a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

determination is typically based on 

small entity size and revenue thresholds 

that vary depending on the affected 

industry. To determine the number of 

small entities affected by the 

airworthiness directive, we searched the 

FAA Aircraft Registry database. The 

database provides ownership 

information for 175 of the airplanes 

affected by AD 2013–09–05, and average 

airplane values for these airplanes are 

available in the Aircraft Bluebook Price 

Digest. 

The FAA aircraft registry categorizes 

owners of affected airplanes as 

individuals, co-owners, corporations, 

and governments. A review of the 

corporations shows that an 

overwhelming majority are privately 

held. In most cases, the information 

about these corporations cannot be 

determined because financial and 

employment data for privately held 

entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA 

believes the number of small business 

entities affected by the AD is 

substantial. 

The serial numbers for the 175 

affected airplanes that we have 

information on was used to look up 

average retail values in the Aircraft 

Bluebook Price Digest. The ‘‘Digest’’ 

provides average retail values by model, 

year, and serial number. It is only a 

guide since the actual condition and 

upgrades to individual airplanes are not 

known. The value range for the 175 

affected airplanes is between $225,000 

and $555,000 per airplane. The range is 

primarily due to age (i.e., the older an 

airplane the lower its retail value versus 

a newer model of the same airplane). 

The total retail value of the affected 

airplanes is equal to the sum of the 

retail value for each individual airplane. 

This summation equals $78.9 million 

(or an average of about $451,000 per 

airplane). 

The economic impact on small 

entities due to the AD is significant. 

This determination is based on the 

percentage of the cost of compliance per 

airplane ($58,090) to the average retail 

value per airplane ($451,000), which is 

estimated to be 12.9 percent. 

Based on the discussion above, 

complying with the AD is determined to 

be significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

6. Alternatives Considered 

The FAA considered possible 

alternative actions and determined the 

actions taken were necessary to address 

the unsafe condition. The FAA did not 

extend the compliance time because we 

needed to act immediately to address 

the immediate safety problem. The 

inspection and modification both 

involve a complex disassembly that 

comprises most of the labor cost 

associated with the AD. Performing the 

modification while the airplane is 

already disassembled for inspection 

saves owners the labor cost of 

disassembling twice. If discrepancies 

are not found in the inspection, no 

repair expense, beyond the mandated 

modification expense, will occur. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64419 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA assessed the 

potential effect of the AD and 

determined that because it addresses an 

immediate safety issue the AD is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

The AD does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this IRFA. Send your comments to an 

address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0393; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

CE–025–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the IRFA as related to the AD 

action. The most helpful comments will 

reference a specific portion of the IRFA 

or related rulemaking document, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

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 we receive 

about the AD. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 22, 2013. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25526 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0740; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NE–24–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt 

& Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D, 

PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, 

PW2043, PW2146, PW2240, PW2337, 

PW2643, and F117–PW–100 turbofan 

engines. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a rupture of the diffuserto-high-pressure turbine (HPT) case 

flange. This proposed AD would require 

a one-time eddy current inspection (ECI) 

of affected engines with certain diffuser 

and HPT cases installed. This AD also 

proposes to require a fluorescentpenetrant inspection (FPI) of the 

diffuser case rear flange and HPT case 

front flange. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent failure of the diffuser-to-HPT 

case flange, which could lead to 

uncontained engine failure and damage 

to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 30, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Pratt & 

Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, 

CT 06108; phone: 860–565–8770; fax: 

860–565–4503. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

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: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7154; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: robert.c.morlath@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0740; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NE–24–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed 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 we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We received a report of an engine 

event in October 2011 that resulted in 

a rupture of the engine diffuser-to-HPT 

case flange. The rupture caused the 

engine cowl doors to break open, which 

resulted in damage to the underside of 

the airplane’s wing. Subsequent 

investigation revealed that the root 

cause of this rupture was a crack that 

originated in HPT case M-flange 

boltholes (the forward flange of the HPT 

case that mates with the rear outer 

flange of the diffuser case). This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in failure of the diffuser-to-HPT case 

flange, which may cause an 

uncontained engine failure and damage 

to the airplane. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS