Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66167 

1The OCC calculated the number of small entities 

using the SBA’s size thresholds for commercial 

banks and savings institutions, and trust 

companies, which are $550 million and $38.5 

million, respectively. Consistent with the General 

Principles of Affiliation, 13 CFR 121.103(a), the 

OCC counted the assets of affiliated financial 

institutions when determining whether to classify 

a national bank or Federal savings association as a 

small entity. 

2To estimate average hourly wages we review 

data from May 2017 for wages (by industry and 

occupation) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) for depository credit intermediation (NAICS 

522100). To estimate compensation costs associated 

with the rule, we use $117 per hour, which is based 

on the average of the 90th percentile for seven 

occupations adjusted for inflation, plus an 

additional 34.2 percent to cover private sector 

benefits. 

total assets of $38.5 million of less) or 

to certify that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

In the OCC’s portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

titled ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis’’ of the proposed rule, 

‘‘Regulatory Capital Treatment for High 

Volatility Commercial Real Estate 

(HVCRE) Exposures,’’ the OCC stated 

that the proposal likely would impact a 

substantial number of small entities. 

However, the OCC determined that the 

impact of the proposal would not be 

economically significant. Therefore, the 

OCC certified, for the purpose of the 

RFA, that the proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of OCC-supervised 

small entities. 

The United States Small Business 

Administration, which monitors 

compliance with the RFA, has asked the 

OCC to provide additional detail to 

support its certification. Therefore, the 

OCC is revising the administrative 

record to include additional 

information. 

Correction 

In the third column on page 48996 

and the first column on page 48997, 

revise the section following ‘‘B. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis’’ to 

read as follows: 

‘‘OCC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), requires an 

agency, in connection with a notice of 

proposed rulemaking, to prepare a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

describing the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities (defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

for purposes of the RFA to include 

banking entities with total assets of $550 

million or less) or to certify that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

As of June 30, 2018, the OCC 

supervised 886 small entities.1

Currently, 211 small OCC-supervised 

institutions hold high volatility 

commercial real estate (HVCRE) 

exposures and thus will be directly 

impacted by the proposed rule. 

Therefore, the proposed rule potentially 

affects a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The proposed rule would impact two 

principal areas: (1) The impact 

associated with implementing revisions 

to the capital rule to make the definition 

of an HVCRE exposure consistent with 

the new statutory definition and, (2) the 

impact associated with the time 

required to update policies and 

procedures and to re-evaluate HVCRE 

loan portfolios. 

As described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section in the preamble to 

this proposed rule, the OCC believes the 

change to the definition of HVCRE 

exposure would result in fewer loans 

being deemed HVCRE exposures. 

Therefore, the amount of capital 

required would decrease for impacted 

OCC-supervised entities. 

Further, the OCC believes no 

currently reported non-HVCRE 

acquisition, development, or 

construction (ADC) exposures would be 

reclassified as HVCRE exposures, and 

thus there would be no additional 

compliance burden to OCC-supervised 

entities for the non-HVCRE component 

of their ADC portfolios. The proposed 

rule would not require OCC-supervised 

entities to amend previously filed 

reports as OCC-supervised entities 

adjust their estimates of existing HVCRE 

exposures. This would serve to 

minimize the compliance burden for 

OCC-supervised entities. 

Compliance burdens that OCCsupervised entities may face could 

include: (1) Updating policies and 

procedures to classify newly issued 

HVCRE loans; and (2) time spent reevaluating existing HVCRE exposures in 

order to determine if any are eligible to 

be reclassified and thus receive a lower 

risk-weight of 100 percent. Based on the 

OCC’s supervisory experience, OCC staff 

estimates that it would take an OCCsupervised institution, on average, a 

one-time investment of one business 

week, or 40 hours, to update policies 

and procedures and to re-evaluate their 

HVCRE exposures for loans originated 

after January 1, 2015. 

The OCC’s threshold for a significant 

effect is whether cost increases 

associated with a proposed rule are 

greater than or equal to either 5 percent 

of a small bank’s total annual salaries 

and benefits or 2.5 percent of a small 

bank’s total non-interest expense. The 

estimated compliance costs of $4,680 

per institution (40 hours × $117 per 

hour) 2 would not exceed either of these 

thresholds for a significant impact on 

any of the 886 OCC-supervised small 

entities. 

For this reason, the OCC certifies that 

the proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of OCC-supervised 

small entities.’’ 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

William A. Rowe, 

Chief Risk Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27786 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–8501; Product 

Identifier 2014–SW–042–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposal for Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S–92A 

helicopters. This action revises the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

by increasing the estimated costs of 

compliance and removing the daily 

inspection requirements. We are 

proposing this airworthiness directive 

(AD) to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. Since these actions 

would impose an additional economic 

burden over that proposed in the NPRM, 

we are reopening the comment period to 

allow the public the chance to comment 

on this change. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46002), 

is reopened. 

We must receive comments on this 

SNPRM by February 11, 2019. 

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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66168 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 service information identified in 

this SNPRM, contact Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation, Customer Service 

Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, 

Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1–800– 

Winged–S or 203–416–4299; email: 

wcs_cust_service_eng.gr-sik@lmco.com. 

You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort 

Worth, TX 76177. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

8501; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this SNPRM, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations (phone: 800–647– 

5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristopher Greer, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7799; email 

Kristopher.Greer@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– 

2016–8501; Product Identifier 2014– 

SW–042–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this SNPRM. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

SNPRM 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 SNPRM. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to Sikorsky Model S–92A 

helicopters with certain part-numbered 

frame assemblies installed. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46002). The NPRM 

was prompted by fatigue analysis 

indicating the possible development of 

stress concentrations at the steel 

doublers on the main transmission 

airframe support structure top deck, as 

well as the discovery of a helicopter 

with a crack in the STA 362 frame and 

skin. The NPRM proposed to require 

inspecting the main transmission 

forward and aft frame assemblies and 

adjacent skins for a crack and loose 

fasteners and replacing or repairing any 

cracked part or loose fastener. The 

NPRM also proposed to require 

establishing life limits for certain frame 

assemblies. The proposed requirements 

were intended to detect a crack in a 

frame assembly and prevent failure of a 

frame and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

revised the number of work-hours to 

replace the aircraft frames based upon 

the comments we received. This 

resulted in an overall increase in the 

cost of complying with the proposed 

AD. Since the economic burden is 

higher than that in the NPRM, we are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

the public the chance to comment on 

this new estimate. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM. After our 

NPRM was published, we received the 

following comments from Sikorsky. 

Request To Require Modification of the 

Frame Assembly 

Sikorsky requested that the AD 

require altering the transmission 

support frames in accordance with 

Sikorsky S–92 Alert Service Bulletin 

92–53–012, Basic Issue, dated February 

10, 2014 (ASB 92–53–012), and 

Sikorsky Special Service Instructions 

No. 92–074–E, Revision E, dated April 

9, 2014 (SSI 92–074–E). In support of its 

request, Sikorsky stated this 

modification largely improves the 

fatigue capability of the transmission 

support frames. Sikorsky also requested 

updating language in the preamble to 

reflect requiring the modification. 

We disagree. We determined that the 

alterations to the transmission support 

frames are not required to correct the 

unsafe condition. 

Request To Remove the Daily 

Inspection 

Sikorsky requested that we remove 

the daily repetitive inspection 

requirement from the proposed AD. In 

support of this request, Sikorsky stated 

that the proposed AD’s requirement to 

perform this same inspection every 150 

hours time-in-service (TIS) would 

maintain the safety of the aircraft. 

Sikorsky further stated structural 

analysis reports substantiate the 150- 

hour inspection interval. 

We agree that the daily inspection 

requirement is not necessary to 

maintain the fleet’s airworthiness. After 

reviewing data from Sikorsky’s 

organization designation authorization 

supporting its life limit and continuing 

airworthiness projects, we determined 

that repeating the inspections every 150 

hours would be adequate to detect and 

prevent an unsafe condition. 

Request That the AD Reference the 

Maintenance Manual 

Sikorsky requested that the proposed 

AD reference the main transmission 

support structure inspection task in the 

Sikorsky maintenance manual for the 

150-hour repetitive inspection. In 

support of this request, Sikorsky stated 

this task provides a complete, detailed 

procedure for the inspection 

requirements. 

We agree. We have revised the 

proposed AD to reference the task card 

as guidance for the 150-hour inspection. 

Request To Delay Issuance of the 

Proposed AD 

Sikorsky requested that we delay 

issuing this proposed AD until after 

Sikorsky completes a project to increase 

the life limits of the forward STA 382 

and aft STA 362 frame assemblies. 

We disagree. Because this unsafe 

condition could exist or develop on 

Sikorsky Model S–92A helicopters, the 

proposed actions are necessary to 

ensure safety of the U.S. fleet. Issuance 

of an AD is the appropriate method to 

correct the unsafe condition. Should 

completion of Sikorsky’s certification 

project result in a corrective action that 

removes the unsafe condition, we might 

consider further rulemaking action. 

Request To Correct Part Numbers 

Sikorsky requested that we correct 

two part numbers in Table 4 of the 

Required Actions. Specifically, Sikorsky 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66169 

stated part number ‘‘92070–02108–042’’ 

should be ‘‘92209–02108–042’’ and part 

number ‘‘92080–02108–103’’ should be 

‘‘92209–02108–103.’’ 

We agree. We have revised the table 

accordingly. 

Request To Add Serial Numbers to the 

Applicability 

Sikorsky requested that the proposed 

life limits only apply to helicopters with 

serial numbers 920006 through 920243. 

In support of this request, Sikorsky 

advised that starting with serial number 

920244, helicopters were manufactured 

with an upgraded titanium frame 

configuration that is not affected by the 

proposed AD. 

We disagree. While production 

helicopters starting with serial number 

920244 may not currently have the parts 

that are subject to the unsafe condition 

installed, operators are not required to 

maintain that configuration. Omitting 

the serial numbers allows the proposed 

AD to apply to any Model S–92A 

helicopter if a frame subject to the 

unsafe condition is later installed. 

Request To Clarify Language Regarding 

Life Limit of Altered Parts 

Sikorsky requested that we clarify the 

wording of the 28,500-hour life limit for 

parts that are altered and changed to a 

new part number. Specifically, Sikorsky 

requested that we change ‘‘28,500 hours 

TIS total (regardless of P/N)’’ to ‘‘28,500 

hours TIS total from the original frame 

part number initial service date.’’ 

We disagree. The language in the 

proposed AD clearly states that this life 

limit applies regardless of whether the 

frame assembly part number changes. 

Request To Revise the Compliance Cost 

Sikorsky requested that we revise the 

estimated costs of complying with the 

proposed AD. Specifically, Sikorsky 

advised that the number of hours to 

replace a frame has increased from 

3,360 to 5,000, while the number of 

affected helicopters on the U.S. registry 

has decreased from 80 to 50. 

We agree. We have revised the Costs 

of Compliance section accordingly. 

Request To Revise Summary 

Sikorsky requested that we change the 

last sentence in SUMMARY, which 

identifies the unsafe condition, to be 

consistent with the language in the 

Unsafe Condition paragraph. 

We agree that Sikorsky’s proposal 

provides more consistency. However, 

due to Administrative Committee of the 

Federal Register publishing 

requirements, the specific unsafe 

condition is no longer stated in 

SUMMARY. Thus, no change to this 

SNPRM is necessary. 

Request To Update Contact Information 

Sikorsky requested that we update the 

email address for its Customer Service 

Engineering in both the preamble and 

the proposed AD. 

We agree and have made the 

requested changes. 

Request To Clarify the Related Service 

Information Section 

Sikorsky requested that we revise the 

language in the Related Service 

Information section describing the 

actions in ASB 92–53–012 and SSI 92– 

074–E. Specifically, Sikorsky requests 

that we change ‘‘replacing the fasteners’’ 

to ‘‘removing steel doublers, coldworking holes, oversizing holes, 

trimming skin panels and reassembly 

with interference fit fasteners.’’ In 

support, Sikorsky stated the 

recommended language would provide 

clarification. 

We agree. We have made the 

requested changes accordingly. 

Request To Clarify the Differences 

Section 

Sikorsky requested that we clarify the 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information section. 

Specifically, Sikorsky recommended 

adding ‘‘by this AD’’ to the sentence: 

‘‘Contacting Sikorsky would not be 

required.’’ 

We agree. We have revised the 

proposed AD accordingly. 

Related Service Information 

Sikorsky issued S–92 Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) 92–53–008, Basic Issue, 

dated June 13, 2012 (ASB 92–53–008); 

S–92 ASB 92–53–009, Basic Issue, dated 

December 6, 2012 (ASB 92–53–009); 

and ASB 92–53–012. ASB 92–53–008 

provides procedures for a one-time 

inspection of the main transmission 

frames and beams for a crack, missing 

or loose fastener or collar, damage, 

deformation, and corrosion. ASB 92– 

53–009 specifies an inspection before 

the first flight of the day and a recurring 

150-hour inspection of the interior and 

exterior surfaces of the upper flanges 

and beams. ASB 92–53–012 specifies 

altering the forward and aft 

transmission support frames by 

removing steel doublers, cold-working 

the holes, oversizing the holes, 

trimming skin panels and reassembling 

the parts with interference fit fasteners 

in accordance with SSI 92–074–E. After 

this alteration, the parts are re-identified 

with a new part number. Sikorsky refers 

to this alteration as a service life 

extension program modification. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. Certain changes described 

above expand the scope of the NPRM. 

As a result, we have determined that it 

is necessary to reopen the comment 

period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would establish a life 

limit for certain part-numbered frame 

assemblies by removing from service 

any part that has reached or exceeded 

its new life limit. Frame assemblies that 

are altered under Sikorsky’s service life 

extension program and re-identified 

with a new part number must be 

removed from service upon 

accumulating the life limit of the old 

part-number or within certain hours TIS 

since the alteration, whichever occurs 

first. 

This SNPRM also would require, 

within 150 hours TIS and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, 

inspecting STA 328 frame and STA 362 

frame for a crack or loose fasteners. If 

there is a crack or loose fastener, this 

SNPRM would require repairing or 

replacing any cracked part and any 

loose fastener before further flight. 

Differences Between This SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

The service information requires 

providing certain information to 

Sikorsky, and this proposed AD would 

not. The service information specifies 

performing a fluorescent penetrant 

inspection if there is a suspected crack 

and contacting Sikorsky if there is a 

crack, while this proposed AD would 

only require repairing or replacing any 

cracked part. Contacting Sikorsky would 

not be required by this proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 50 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry. We estimate that operators 

may incur the following costs to comply 

with this proposed AD. Labor costs are 

estimated at $85 per work-hour. We 

estimate a minimal cost to establish and 

revise the life limit of the frame 

assembly. We estimate it would take 1 

work-hour to inspect STA 328 and 362 

frames. No parts would be needed for a 

total cost of $4,250 for the fleet for each 

inspection per inspection cycle. If a 

fastener is replaced, we estimate the 

cost to be minimal. If a frame is 

replaced, it would take 5,000 workVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 Dec 21, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66170 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

hours and required parts would cost 

$296,000 for a total cost of $721,000 per 

helicopter. 

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 proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters: 

Docket No. FAA–2016–8501; Product 

Identifier 2014–SW–042–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model S–92A 

helicopters, certificated in any category, with 

a forward station (STA) 328 or aft STA 362 

frame assembly with a part number (P/N) as 

shown in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 

2 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 3 to paragraph 

(e)(2), or Table 4 to paragraph (e)(2) of this 

AD. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in a main transmission airframe 

support structure. This condition could 

result in failure of a main transmission frame 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by February 

11, 2019. 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Actions 

(1) For helicopters with a frame assembly 

with a P/N shown in Table 1 to paragraph 

(e)(1) or Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, remove from service 

any part that has reached or exceeded its new 

life limit. Forward STA 328 frame assemblies 

that are altered and changed to P/N 92070– 

20124–064, 92070–20124–067, 92070– 

20127–045, 92070–20124–065, 92070– 

20124–047, or 92070–20127–046 must be 

removed from service upon accumulating 

12,000 hours TIS from the alteration or 

28,500 hours TIS total (regardless of P/N) 

from the total original frame part number 

initial service date, whichever occurs first. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66171 

(2) For each frame assembly listed in Table 

1 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 4 to paragraph 

(e)(2) of this AD with 1,801 or more hours 

TIS, and for each frame assembly listed in 

Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 3 to 

paragraph (e)(2) of this AD with 1,301 or 

more hours TIS, within 150 hours TIS and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours 

TIS, do the following inspections. For 

guidance on performing these inspections, 

refer to Sikorsky S–92A–AMM–000 

Maintenance Manual Chapter 53–20–00, 

Task 53–20–00–210–003, dated January 31, 

2018: 

(i) Inspect the STA 328 frame and STA 362 

frame between the left and right butt line 

(BL) 16.5 beams and inspect the area on the 

left and right BL 16.5 beams six inches on 

either side of the mounting pads for a crack 

and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener 

or a crack, repair or replace any cracked part 

and any loose fastener before further flight. 

(ii) Inspect the STA 328 and STA 362 

outboard frames, left and right sides, from the 

BL 16.5 beam to water line 252.25 for a crack 

and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener 

or a crack, repair or replace any cracked part 

and any loose fastener before further flight. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26DE18.011</GPH>

Forward STA 328 Frame 

Assembly PIN 

92070-20124-064 

92070-20124-067 

92070-20127-045 

92070-20124-065 

92070-20124-047 

92070-20127-046 

92070-20124-063 

92070-20124-066 

92070-20127-041 

Aft STA 362 Frame 

Assembly PIN 

92070-20124-041 

92070-20124-044 

92070-20127-042 

92070-20124-042 

92070-20124-045 

92070-20127-049 

92070-20124-043 

92070-20124-046 

92070-20127-050 

92070-20141-050 

92070-20141-051 

92070-20141-052 

Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(1) 

Forward STA 328 Frame 

Assembly PIN 

92070-20097-058 

92080-20047-047 

92070-20097-060 

92080-2004 7-048 

Table 2 to Paragraph (e)(1) 

Life Limit Hours TIS 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

12,000 

Life Limit Hours TIS 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

10,400 

17,000 

17,000 

17,000 

Life Limit Hours TIS 

28,500 

28,500 

28,500 

28,500 
66172 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send 

your proposal to: Kristopher Greer, Aviation 

Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, 

Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 

1200 District Avenue, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238– 

7799; email Kristopher.Greer@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(g) Additional Information 

Sikorsky S–92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 

92–53–008, Basic Issue, dated June 13, 2012; 

ASB 92–53–009, Basic Issue, dated December 

6, 2012; ASB 92–53–012, Basic Issue, dated 

February 10, 2014, and Sikorsky Special 

Service Instructions No. 92–074–E, Revision 

E, dated April 9, 2014, and Sikorsky S–92A– 

AMM–000 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 53– 

20–00, Task 53–20–210–003, dated January 

31, 2018, which are not incorporated by 

reference, contain additional information 

about the subject of this AD. For service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer 

Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, 

Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1–800– 

Winged–S or 203–416–4299; email wcs_cust_

service_eng.gr-sik@lmco.com. You may view 

this information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, 

TX 76177. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code: 5311 Fuselage Main, Frame. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

13, 2018. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27713 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–1011; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–131–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F, and –400ER series airplanes. 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

reports of uncommanded movements of 

the Captain’s and First Officer’s seats. 

This proposed AD would require an 

identification of the part number, and if 

applicable the serial number, of the 

Captain’s and First Officer’s seats, and 

applicable on-condition actions. This 

proposed AD would also require a onetime detailed inspection and repetitive 

checks of the horizontal movement 

system of the Captain’s and First 

Officer’s seats, and applicable oncondition actions. This proposed AD 

would also provide an optional 

terminating action for the repetitive 

checks of the horizontal movement 

system for certain airplanes. We are 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 11, 2019. 

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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster 

Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 

90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; 

internet https://www.myboeingfleet

.com. You may view this referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26DE18.012</GPH> EP26DE18.013</GPH>