This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

39941 

Vol. 80, No. 133 

Monday, July 13, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0758; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–062–AD; Amendment 

39–18202; AD 2015–14–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Kaman 

Aerospace Corporation (Kaman) 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Kaman 

Model K–1200 helicopters with certain 

main rotor blades (MRB) installed. This 

AD requires inspecting each MRB for a 

crack or damage. This AD was prompted 

by a report that a crack was found on 

an MRB during a tear-down inspection. 

The actions are intended to detect a 

crack in the MRB, which could lead to 

failure of the MRB and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Kaman 

Aerospace Corporation, Old Windsor 

Rd., P.O. Box 2, Bloomfield, 

Connecticut 06002–0002; telephone 

(860) 242–4461; fax (860) 243–7047; or 

at http://www.kamanaero.com. You may 

review a copy of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

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 AD, the economic 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations Office (phone: 

800–647–5527) is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations 

Office, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification 

Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7763; email 

nicholas.faust@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On October 3, 2014, at 79 FR 59697, 

the Federal Register published our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 by adding an AD that would apply 

to Kaman Model K–1200 helicopters 

with certain part-numbered MRBs 

installed. The NPRM proposed to 

require performing repetitive X-Ray and 

visual inspections of each wooden MRB 

for a crack, wood split, void, or 

delamination at intervals not exceeding 

1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS). If 

there is a crack, wood split, void, or 

delamination, the NPRM proposed to 

require repairing or replacing the MRB 

before further flight. The NPRM also 

proposed accomplishing the required 

inspections and repairs by a method 

approved by the Manager of the Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office. 

The NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracks found in the MRB spar during 

X-ray and teardown inspections with 

the MRB removed from the helicopter. 

The proposed requirements were 

intended to detect a crack in the MRB, 

which could lead to failure of the MRB 

and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

Since we issued the NPRM, we 

discovered a typographical error in 

paragraph (a) of this AD, where we 

incorrectly stated the design approval 

holder’s name as Kaman Aerospace 

Incorporated instead of Kaman 

Aerospace Corporation, as specified by 

the current FAA type certificate. We 

have corrected this error. 

Comments 

After our NPRM (79 FR 59697, 

October 3, 2014), was published, we 

received comments from one 

commenter. 

Request 

Kaman suggested, without 

explanation, clarifying the description 

of the cost to replace an MRB set in the 

Cost of Compliance section by adding 

the word ‘‘non-repairable’’ before ‘‘MRB 

set.’’ 

We disagree. Operators may elect to 

replace a repairable MRB set instead of 

having the MRBs repaired. The ability to 

repair a MRB set does not change the 

cost of replacement. 

Kaman also suggested, without 

explanation, changing the compliance 

time in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD to 

state, ‘‘When the MRB reaches 3,000 

hours TIS and before it reaches 3,050 

hours TIS . . .’’ 

We disagree. This AD requires an 

initial inspection before 3,000 hours TIS 

but allows an additional 50 hours TIS 

for any MRBs that have already 

accumulated 3,000 hours TIS as of the 

effective date of this AD. The suggested 

language would change two 

requirements. First, it would allow the 

additional 50 hours TIS for all affected 

helicopters and is inconsistent with 

Kaman’s service information. Second, it 

would prohibit blades to be inspected 

before they accumulate 3,000 hours. 

FAA’s Determination 

We have reviewed the relevant 

information, considered the comments 

received, and determined that an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of these same 

type designs and that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

requirements as proposed with minor 

editorial change described previously. 

This change is consistent with the intent 

of the proposals in the NPRM (79 FR 

59697, October 3, 2014) and will not 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator nor increase the scope of the 

AD. 

Related Service Information 

We reviewed Kaman Maintenance 

Manual 04–00–00, Continued 

Airworthiness, Revision 31, dated 

August 1, 2013, which establishes the 

airworthiness limitations for the Model 

K–1200 helicopter. The airworthiness 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39942 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

limitations establish an MRB life limit 

of 8,000 hours TIS and also establish a 

recurring 1,000 hour Rotor Blade Spar 

Inspection for each MRB with 3,000 or 

more hours TIS. 

We also reviewed Kaman 

Maintenance Manual 05–20–06, 1,000 

Hour Rotor Blade Spar Inspection, 

Revision 31, dated August 1, 2013, 

which specifies returning each MRB to 

Kaman every 1,000 hours for inspection 

after the MRB accumulates 3,000 hours 

TIS. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

11 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We 

estimate that operators may incur the 

following costs in order to comply with 

this AD. At an average labor cost of $85 

per work-hour, inspecting each matched 

pair of main rotor blades requires about 

160 work-hours and required parts cost 

about $2,000, for a cost per MRB set of 

$15,600 and a cost per helicopter of 

$31,200 per inspection cycle. If 

required, repairing a cracked MRB 

requires about 335 work-hours and 

required parts cost about $15,000, for a 

cost per MRB of $43,475. Replacing an 

MRB set requires about 4 work-hours, 

and required parts cost about $495,000, 

for a cost per helicopter of $495,340. 

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 

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; 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. 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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): 

2015–14–04 Kaman Aerospace 

Corporation: Amendment 39–18202; 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0758; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–062–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Kaman Aerospace 

Corporation (Kaman) Model K–1200 

helicopters with a main rotor blade (MRB) 

part number K911001–009, K911001–010, 

K911001–109, or K911001–110 installed, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in an MRB, which could lead to failure 

of the MRB and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

(c) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective August 17, 

2015. 

(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) Before the MRB reaches 3,000 hours 

time-in-service (TIS) or within 50 hours TIS, 

whichever occurs later, and thereafter at 

intervals not exceeding 1,000 hours TIS: 

(i) X-Ray inspect each MRB between 

station (STA) 30 and 289 for a crack, a wood 

split, a void, and delamination. 

(ii) Using a 10X or higher power 

magnifying glass, inspect each spar plank 

between STA 33 and STA 78 for a wood split 

or a crack, and inspect each spar plank to 

plank glueline for a void or delamination. 

(2) If there is a crack, wood split, void, or 

delamination within maximum repair 

damage limits in an MRB, before further 

flight, repair the MRB. If there is a crack, 

wood split, void, or delamination exceeding 

maximum repair damage limits in an MRB, 

before further flight, replace the MRB with an 

airworthy MRB. 

(3) Each inspection and repair procedure 

required for compliance with Paragraphs 

(e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD must be 

accomplished by a method approved by the 

Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO). For a repair method to be approved 

by the Manager, Boston ACO, as required by 

this AD, the Manager’s approval letter must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 

01803; telephone (781) 238–7763; email 

nicholas.faust@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 

Kaman Aerospace Corporation 

Maintenance Manual 04–00–00, Continued 

Airworthiness, Revision 31, dated August 1, 

2013, and Kaman Aerospace Corporation 

Maintenance Manual 05–20–06, 1,000 Hour 

Rotor Blade Spar Inspection, Revision 31, 

dated August 1, 2013, which are not 

incorporated by reference, contain additional 

information about the subject of this AD. For 

service information identified in this AD, 

contact Kaman Aerospace Corporation, Old 

Windsor Rd., P.O. Box 2, Bloomfield, 

Connecticut 06002–0002; telephone (860) 

242–4461; fax (860) 243–7047; or at http://

www.kamanaero.com. You may review a 

copy of this service information at the FAA, 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6210, Main Rotor MRB. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39943 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 29, 

2015. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16939 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0780; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–168–AD; Amendment 

39–18207; AD 2015–14–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for The 

Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes 

equipped with a main deck side cargo 

door (MDSCD). This AD was prompted 

by recent testing that indicates that 

intermodal containers, when loaded as 

cargo, under certain flight-load 

conditions, can shift and impact the 

adjacent fuselage frames. This AD 

requires revising the airplane flight 

manual (AFM) to incorporate 

limitations for carrying certain 

payloads. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent intermodal containers loaded in 

the offset method from shifting during 

flight gust loads and damaging fuselage 

frames, which could lead to the 

structural failure of the aft fuselage in 

flight and subsequent in-flight breakup 

of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 

2015. 

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–2014– 

0780; 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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven C. Fox, Senior Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6425; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

steven.fox@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to The Boeing Company Model 

747 airplanes equipped with an 

MDSCD. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on December 1, 2014 

(79 FR 71037). The NPRM was 

prompted by recent testing, which 

indicates that intermodal containers, 

when loaded as cargo, under certain 

flight-load conditions, can shift and 

impact the adjacent fuselage frames. The 

NPRM proposed to require revising the 

AFM to incorporate limitations for 

carrying certain payloads. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent intermodal 

containers loaded in the offset method 

from shifting during flight gust loads 

and damaging fuselage frames, which 

could lead to the structural failure of the 

aft fuselage in flight and subsequent inflight breakup of the airplane. 

Background 

Intermodal containers are common in 

the cargo shipping industry and 

transported by ships, trains, and trucks. 

The focus of this final rule is an 

intermodal container that is nominally 

20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8.5 feet 

tall. This nominally sized intermodal 

container includes the dimensions of an 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) container ISO 

668–1CC. Because the intermodal 

containers themselves do not meet the 

requirements of FAA Technical 

Standard Order TSO–C90D, ‘‘Cargo 

Pallets, Nets and Containers (Unit Load 

Devices),’’ the lower surface on these 

intermodal containers is incompatible 

with most airplane cargo-loading 

systems (CLSs). These intermodal 

containers, however, can be 

concentrically loaded on an FAAapproved TSO–C90D pallet with a 

certified net combination and loaded in 

the center of the airplane, restrained by 

the CLS or a series of straps connected 

to the aircraft structure in accordance 

with the airplane’s FAA-approved 

Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) 

procedures for cargo that is not a Unit 

Load Device (ULD). 

The WBM is part of the Operating 

Limitations section of the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM). In accordance 

with 14 CFR 21.41, the Operating 

Limitations are part of the airplane type 

certificate and, therefore, can be 

modified only by changing that 

certificate; that is, by obtaining an 

amended or supplemental type 

certificate. Revisions to the AFM are 

approved as AFM supplements, and the 

approval is based on a finding that, with 

the AFM revisions, the airplane 

continues to meet the applicable 

airworthiness standards. Operators are 

required to comply with the Operating 

Limitations by 14 CFR 91.9(a). 

The FAA has become aware that some 

operators, both domestic and foreign, 

are not loading these containers in the 

center of the airplane, but rather in the 

standard left and right pallet positions. 

When loaded in this manner, the 8-foot, 

6-inch, height of the intermodal 

container interferes with the fuselage, so 

some operators have been transporting 

these intermodal containers shifted 

inboard, off of the FAA-approved TSO 

pallets, and attached to the pallet only 

with a net and/or straps. This method of 

transport is referred to as the ‘‘offset 

method.’’ The practice of offsetting the 

intermodal containers results in the 

certified pallet-net combination having 

slack in the net by the amount of the 

offset. FAA observations have found the 

offset for intermodal containers is as 

much as 9 inches, with the 

corresponding 9 inches of slack in the 

TSO pallet net. 

Although additional cargo straps have 

been used to restrain the intermodal 

containers to the pallets, the FAA 

determined that these straps are not 

effective, and the intermodal container 

can shift in flight. In 2013, a U.S. cargo 

operator requested permission from the 

FAA to carry intermodal containers on 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes using the 

offset method—similar to procedures 

used by other U.S. and non-U.S. air 

carriers. Based on the FAA’s review of 

the offset method, it denied the 

operator’s request. 

Industry Testing of the Offset Method 

In March 2014, some U.S. cargo 

operators and Boeing conducted a series 

of full-scale tests, witnessed by the 

FAA, to demonstrate that carrying 

intermodal containers by the offset 

method could be shown safe and 

compliant to the applicable regulations. 

The test procedures were developed by 

engineers from Boeing and some U.S. 

cargo operators, and were intended to 

show compliance for flight loads on 

Model 747 airplanes only. The results 

produced CLS failures and excessive 

deflections. The preliminary test results 

confirmed the FAA’s safety concerns. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES