41946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 138 / Friday, July 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0451; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–122–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 DC–9–81 (MD– 

81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD– 

83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of cracks 

emanating from the aft-most barrel nut 

holes of the left and right upper rear 

spar caps of the horizontal stabilizer. 

This proposed AD would require 

repetitive high frequency eddy current 

(ETHF) inspections for cracks in the 

areas around the two aft-most barrel nut 

holes of the upper rear spar caps, and 

corrective actions if necessary; and 

repetitive ETHF inspections for cracks 

in the areas around the two aft-most 

barrel nut holes of any repaired or 

replaced upper rear spar cap, and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

cracks in the horizontal stabilizer, 

which could propagate until an upper 

rear spar cap severs, and result in failure 

of the horizontal stabilizer upper center 

or aft skin panel and adversely affect the 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 2, 2014. 

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 Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206– 

766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5357; 

fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

george.garrido@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– 

2014–0451; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–122–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received reports of cracks 

emanating from the aft-most barrel nut 

holes of the left and right upper rear 

spar caps of the horizontal stabilizer. 

One airplane had accumulated 40,144 

total flight hours and 32,253 total 

landing cycles, while another airplane 

had accumulated 58,296 total flight 

hours and 43,512 total landing cycles. 

Investigations have determined that the 

cracks were caused by fatigue. In both 

cases, the cracks originated inside of the 

barrel nut holes, and radiated vertically 

and in the aft direction from the barrel 

nut holes. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in cracks in the 

horizontal stabilizer, which could 

propagate until an upper rear spar cap 

severs, and result in failure of the 

horizontal stabilizer upper center or aft 

skin panel and adversely affect the 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–55A070, Revision 1, 

dated December 17, 2013. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0451. 

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 design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

repetitive ETHF inspections for cracks 

in the areas around the two aft-most 

barrel nut holes of the left and right 

upper rear spar caps, and corrective 

actions if necessary; and repetitive 

ETHF inspections for cracks in the areas 

around the two aft-most barrel nut holes 

of any the repaired or replaced upper 

rear spar cap, and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

The phrase ‘‘corrective actions’’ is 

used in this proposed AD. ‘‘Corrective 

actions’’ are actions that correct or 

address any condition found. Corrective 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, repairs. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 138 / Friday, July 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41947 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection ...................... 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 per inspection cycle.$0 $425 per inspection 

cycle.

$283,900 per inspection 

cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary repairs and replacements 

that would be required based on the 

results of the proposed inspection. We 

have no way of determining the number 

of aircraft that might need these repairs 

and replacements: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Repair ...................................... Up to 394 work-hours × $85 per hour = $33,490 ................... Up to $32,440 ......................... Up to $65,930. 

Replacement ............................ Up to 394 work-hours × $85 per hour = $33,490 ................... Up to $60,222 ......................... Up to $93,712. 

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): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0451; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–122–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by September 

2, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9– 

82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 

(MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes; certificated 

in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) Code 55, 

Stabilizers. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

emanating from the aft-most barrel nut holes 

of the left and right upper rear spar caps of 

the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct cracks in the 

horizontal stabilizer, which could propagate 

until an upper rear spar cap severs, and 

result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer 

upper center or aft skin panel and adversely 

affect the structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection 

At the applicable compliance time 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, 

Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; except 

as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Do 

a high frequency eddy current inspection 

(ETHF) for cracks in the areas around the two 

aft-most barrel nut holes of the left and right 

upper rear spar caps, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, Revision 1, 

dated December 17, 2013. Thereafter, repeat 

the ETHF inspection at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, 

Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; except 

as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. If 

any cracking is found during any inspection, 

before further flight, do all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, Revision 1, 

dated December 17, 2013. 

(h) Post-Repair/Replacement Actions 

For airplanes on which a splice repair or 

replacement was done, as specified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin MD80–55A070: At the 

applicable compliance time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, 

Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013, do a 

ETHF inspection for cracks at the two aftmost barrel nut holes of any repaired or 

replaced upper rear spar cap, in accordance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

41948 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 138 / Friday, July 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, 

Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013. 

Thereafter, repeat the ETHF inspection at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–55A070, Revision 1, dated 

December 17, 2013. If any cracking is found 

during any inspection, before further flight, 

do all applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–55A070, Revision 1, dated December 

17, 2013. 

(i) Exception to the Service Information 

Specifications 

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–55A070, Revision 1, dated December 

17, 2013, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after 

the original issue date of this service 

bulletin,’’ this AD requires compliance 

within the specified compliance time after 

the effective date of this AD. 

(j) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–55A070, dated May 

22, 2013, which is not incorporated by 

reference in this AD. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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. 

(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, Los Angeles 

ACO to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: 562–627–5357; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: george.garrido@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 

206–766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com.You may review 

copies of the 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 July 11, 

2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16940 Filed 7–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0400; FRL–9913–80– 

Region–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri, Auto Exhaust Emission 

Controls 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take direct 

final action to approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the state of Missouri on 

January 14, 2014, for the purpose of 

removing an outdated rule. This action 

amends the SIP to remove a rule that 

was originally approved in 1972 but has 

now been rescinded. This rule refers to 

exhaust emission control components 

that are no longer manufactured. 

Vehicle manufacturers now produce 

newer technology in exhaust emissions 

equipment in order to meet more 

stringent Federal motor vehicle 

standards. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

August 18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0400, by mail to Paula 

Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7028, 

or by email at higbee.paula@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: July 1, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16701 Filed 7–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0764; FRL–9913–93– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Grant County Sulfur Dioxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

limited maintenance plan submitted by 

the State of New Mexico, dated 

November 1, 2013, for the Grant County 

maintenance area for the 1971 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). New 

Mexico submitted this limited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS