Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32069 

4, 2014, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after 

the initial issue date on this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(2) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP767–57–010, Revision 7, dated 

November 4, 2014, specifies to contact 

Boeing for repair instructions: Before further 

flight, repair the cracking using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6487; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: Allen.Rauschendorfer@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 

2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 

98168; telephone 206–762–1171; Internet 

https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. 

You may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 13, 

2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13328 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–1419; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–183–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics 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 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company Model 

188 series airplanes. This proposed AD 

was prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating the left and right lower 

surface panels of the wings are subject 

to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). 

This proposed AD would require 

repetitive inspections for cracking at 

these panels, and repair if necessary. 

The proposed AD would also require a 

one-time bolt-hole eddy current 

inspection of all open holes for 

cracking, repair if necessary, and 

modification. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent fatigue cracking of the left 

and right lower surface panels of the 

wings, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 20, 2015. 

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 Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness 

Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column 

P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 

30063; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 

770–494–5445; email ams.portal@

lmco.com; Internet http://

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/

TechPubs.html. You may view this 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

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–2015– 

1419; 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: Carl 

Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 

30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404– 

474–5605; email: carl.w.gray@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– 

2015–1419; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–183–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 

Structural fatigue damage is 

progressive. It begins as minute cracks, 

and those cracks grow under the action 

of repeated stresses. This can happen 

because of normal operational 

conditions and design attributes, or 

because of isolated situations or 

incidents such as material defects, poor 

fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32070 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can 

occur locally, in small areas or 

structural design details, or globally. 

Global fatigue damage is general 

degradation of large areas of structure 

with similar structural details and stress 

levels. Multiple-site damage is global 

damage that occurs in a large structural 

element such as a single rivet line of a 

lap splice joining two large skin panels. 

Global damage can also occur in 

multiple elements such as adjacent 

frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage 

cracks are typically too small initially to 

be reliably detected with normal 

inspection methods. Without 

intervention, these cracks will grow, 

and eventually compromise the 

structural integrity of the airplane, in a 

condition known as WFD. As an 

airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, 

and will certainly occur if the airplane 

is operated long enough without any 

intervention. 

The FAA’s WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) became effective on 

January 14, 2011. The WFD rule 

requires certain actions to prevent 

structural failure due to WFD 

throughout the operational life of 

certain existing transport category 

airplanes and all of these airplanes that 

will be certificated in the future. For 

existing and future airplanes subject to 

the WFD rule, the rule requires that 

DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) 

of the engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program. 

Operators affected by the WFD rule may 

not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, 

unless an extended LOV is approved. 

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) does not require 

identifying and developing maintenance 

actions if the DAHs can show that such 

actions are not necessary to prevent 

WFD before the airplane reaches the 

LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend 

on accomplishment of future 

maintenance actions. As stated in the 

WFD rule, any maintenance actions 

necessary to reach the LOV will be 

mandated by airworthiness directives 

through separate rulemaking actions. 

In the context of WFD, this action is 

necessary to enable DAHs to propose 

LOVs that allow operators the longest 

operational lives for their airplanes, and 

still ensure that WFD will not occur. 

This approach allows for an 

implementation strategy that provides 

flexibility to DAHs in determining the 

timing of service information 

development (with FAA approval), 

while providing operators with certainty 

regarding the LOV applicable to their 

airplanes. 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

an evaluation by the DAH indicating 

that the left and right lower surface 

panels of the wings are subject to WFD. 

The root cause of WFD is fatigue cracks 

manifesting and growing 

simultaneously at similar structural 

details and stress levels on the outer 

wings. Fatigue cracking is increasingly 

likely as the airplane is being operated 

and is aging; without intervention, 

fatigue cracking of the left and right 

lower surface panels of the wings on the 

inboard and outboard sides of the 

buttock line (BL) 65 splice joint could 

result in reduced structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR part 51 

We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra 

Service Bulletin 88/SB–707C, Revision 

C, dated April 30, 2014. The service 

information describes procedures for 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

left and right lower surface panels of the 

wings on the inboard and outboard 

sides of the BL 65 splice joint, and 

repair if necessary. This service 

information also describes procedures 

for a one-time bolt-hole eddy current 

inspection of all open holes for 

cracking, repair if necessary, and 

modification of the BL 65 wing root 

joint. This service information 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 of this NPRM. 

Related ADs 

This proposed AD is related to AD 

81–03–53, Amendment 39–4243 (Docket 

No. 81–NW–7–AD) (46 FR 52090, 

October 26, 1981); and AD 81–03–53R1, 

Amendment 39–4301 (Docket No. 81– 

NW–97–AD) (47 FR 3347, January 25, 

1982); for all Lockheed Model L–188 

series airplanes. AD 81–03–53R1 

requires inspecting for fuel leakage and 

fatigue cracks, and replacement, as 

necessary, of defective parts on the wing 

lower BL 65 splice joints. 

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 the same 

type designs. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

modification specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

replaced before WFD develops in 

airplanes. Standard inspection 

techniques cannot be relied on to detect 

WFD before it becomes a hazard to 

flight. We will not grant any extensions 

of the compliance time to complete any 

AD-mandated service bulletin related to 

WFD without extensive new data that 

would substantiate and clearly warrant 

such an extension. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

X-ray or ultrasonic inspections.Up to 40 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $3,400 ........... $0 Up to $3,400 ... Up to $13,600. 

Bolt hole inspections .............. 60 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,100 ............................... 0 $5,100 ............. $20,400. 

Modification ............................ 400 work-hours × $85 per hour = $ 34,000 ......................... 5,000 $39,000 ........... $156,000. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary repairs that would be 

required based on the results of the 

proposed inspections. We have no way 

of determining the number of aircraft 

that might need these repairs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32071 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Repair .............................................. 500 work-hours × $85 per hour = $42,500 ............................................... $0 $42,500 

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 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): 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket 

No. FAA–2015–1419; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–183–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by July 20, 

2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 81–03–53, Amendment 

39–4243 (Docket No. 81–NW–7–AD) (46 FR 

52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81–03– 

53R1, Amendment 39–4301 (Docket No. 81– 

NW–97–AD) (47 FR 3347, January 25, 1982). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, 

certificated in any category, serial numbers 

1001 and subsequent. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder indicating the left 

and right lower surface panels of the wings 

are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue 

cracking of the left and right lower surface 

panels of the wings on the inboard and 

outboard sides of the buttock line (BL) 65 

splice joint, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspections and Repair 

At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: 

Inspect for cracking of the inboard and 

outboard sides of the lower splice joint at BL 

65, using X-ray, ultrasonic, and bolt-hole 

eddy current inspection techniques, as 

applicable, and repair any cracking found, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra 

Service Bulletin 88/SB–707C, Revision C, 

dated April 30, 2014. All applicable repairs 

must be done before further flight. Repeat the 

inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,000 

flight hours, until the modification required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD has been done. 

Accomplishing the inspections required by 

this paragraph terminates the inspections 

required by paragraphs A. and B. of AD 81– 

03–53, Amendment 39–4243 (Docket No. 81– 

NW–7–AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); 

and AD 81–03–53R1, Amendment 39–4301 

(Docket No. 81–NW–97–AD) (47 FR 3347–01, 

January 25, 1982). 

(1) Before the accumulation of 19,000 total 

flight hours. 

(2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(h) Modification 

At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do a 

bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all open 

holes for cracking, repair any cracking found 

before further flight, and modify the BL 65 

wing root lower joint, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed 

Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB–707C, 

Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. 

Accomplishing this modification terminates 

the inspections required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 29,000 total 

flight hours. 

(2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(i) No Reporting Required 

Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service 

Bulletin 88/SB–707C, Revision C, dated April 

30, 2014, specifies to submit a report of crack 

findings, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32072 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

GA 30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404– 

474–5605; email: carl.w.gray@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, 

Zone 0252, Column P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, 

Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770–494– 

5444; fax 770–494–5445; email ams.portal@

lmco.com; Internet http://

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/

TechPubs.html. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 

2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13339 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–1935; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–SW–008–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta 

S.p.A. Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta 

S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and 

AW139 helicopters. This proposed AD 

would require visually inspecting 

certain subfloor frames for a crack. This 

proposed AD is prompted by reports of 

cracks on in-service helicopters. The 

proposed actions are intended to detect 

or prevent a crack in the subfloor frame, 

which could result in failure of the pilot 

and co-pilot pedal support frame and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

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

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact 

AgustaWestland, Product Support 

Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 

Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: 

Maurizio D’Angelo; telephone 39–0331– 

664757; fax 39–0331–664680; or at 

http://www.agustawestland.com/

technical-bulletins. You may review the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 

76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

robert.grant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2014– 

0048, dated March 4, 2014, to correct an 

unsafe condition for Agusta Model 

AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a 

serial number (S/N) 31005 through 

31517 (except S/N 31007, 31415, 31431, 

31491, 31500, 31508, and 31516) and S/ 

N 41001 through 41356 (except S/N 

41355). EASA advises that cracks have 

been reported in the subfloor frame at 

station (STA) 2105 on in-service 

helicopters. This condition, if not 

detected and corrected, could lead to 

failure of the pedals supporting the 

frame, which in turn could lead to the 

pedals being inoperative and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter, EASA advises. 

The EASA AD requires repetitive 

inspections of the subfloor frame at STA 

2105 for a crack. The EASA AD also 

requires installation of frame 

reinforcements before further flight if 

there is a crack or within 1,200 flight 

hours if there is no crack. The EASA AD 

provides that installation of the frame 

reinforcements constitutes terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections 

required by the AD. 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of Italy and are 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with Italy, EASA, its 

technical representative, has notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in its 

AD. We are proposing this AD because 

we evaluated all known relevant 

information and determined that an 

unsafe condition is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed AgustaWestland 

Bolletino Tecnico No. 139–311, 

Revision B, dated June 4, 2014 (BT), for 

certain serial-numbered Agusta Model 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS