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


### 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.


### 39943 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

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 theaft 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 beconcentrically 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.