Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71033 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the 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 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. 

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. Amend § 39.13 by removing 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2014–17– 

08, Amendment 39–17961 (79 FR 

52172, September 3, 2014), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0766; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NE–26–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by January 30, 

2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2014–17–08, 

Amendment 39–17961 (79 FR 52172, 

September 3, 2014). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney 

Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A–114 and PT6A– 

114A turboprop engines. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by several 

incidents of compressor turbine (CT) blade 

failure, causing power loss, and engine 

failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

failure of CT blades, which could lead to 

damage to the engine and damage to the 

airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) For engines installed with CT blades 

other than P&WC single crystal CT blades, 

part numbers (P/Ns) 3072791–01, 3072791– 

02, or 3079351–01, do the following: 

(i) Until removed, per the requirements of 

this AD, borescope inspect the CT blade 

leading and trailing edges, within the 

following intervals, whichever occurs later: 

(A) 150 operating hours after October 8, 

2014; or 

(B) 500 operating hours since new; or 

(C) 500 operating hours since last 

borescope inspection (BSI) of the CT blades; 

or 

(D) Before next flight after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection 

required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD 

every 500 flight hours time since last 

inspection. 

(iii) At the next hot section inspection 

(HSI) after the effective date of this AD, and 

each HSI thereafter, replace the complete set 

of CT blades with any of the following: 

(A) New CT blades; 

(B) CT blades that have passed a two-blade 

metallurgical inspection. Use paragraph 3.B., 

Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC 

Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A–72–1669, 

Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013, to do the 

inspection; or 

(C) P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/Ns 

3072791–01, 3072791–02, or 3079351–01. 

(2) Replacement of the complete set of CT 

blades with single crystal CT blades, P/Ns 

3072791–01, 3072791–02, or 3079351–01 is 

terminating action for the requirements of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. 

(3) By October 8, 2017, replace the 

complete set of CT blades with P&WC single 

crystal CT blades, P/Ns 3072791–01, 

3072791–02, or 3079351–01. 

(g) Credit for Previous Action 

Performance of the metallurgical 

examination specified in paragraph 

(e)(1)(iii)(B) of this AD on CT blades other 

than P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/Ns 

3072791–01, 3072791–02, or 3079351–01, 

before the effective date of this AD fulfils the 

initial inspection requirements of paragraph 

(e)(1)(i) of this AD. However, you must still 

comply with the repetitive BSI requirement 

of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD until you 

complete the mandatory terminating action 

of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) AMOCs previously approved for AD 

2014–17–08, Amendment 39–17961 (79 FR 

52172, September 3, 2014) are approved for 

this AD. 

(2) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 

39.19 to make your request. You may email 

your request to: ANE–AD–AMOC@faa.gov. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7154; fax: 781–238–7199; 

email: robert.c.morlath@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation AD CF–2013–21R1, dated 

November 13, 2013, for more information. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0766-0008. 

(3) P&WC SB No. PT6A–72–1669, Revision 

9, dated June 28, 2013, which is not 

incorporated by reference in this AD, can be 

obtained from P&WC, using the contact 

information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD. 

(4) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada 

Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, 

Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800–268– 

8000; fax: 450–647–2888; Internet: 

www.pwc.ca. 

(5) Guidance for performing the BSI of the 

CT blades leading and trailing edges can be 

found in paragraph 3.A, Accomplishment 

Instructions, P&WC SB No. PT6A–72–1669, 

Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013. 

(6) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

November 20, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28188 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0779; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–052–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 

382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the outer wings are 

subject to widespread fatigue damage 

(WFD). This proposed AD would 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

require replacing certain outer wings 

with new or certain serviceable outer 

wings. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent fatigue cracking of the outer 

wing, and to prohibit exceeding the 

limit of validity (LOV), which could 

result in reduced structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 15, 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–2014– 

0779; 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– 

2014–0779; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–052–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, 

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 final 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 for all Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 

382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes was 

prompted by an evaluation by the DAH 

indicating that the outer 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; and 

without intervention, fatigue cracking of 

the outer wing could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–96, dated December 16, 

2013. This service bulletin describes 

procedures for replacing outer wings 

having serial numbers 3946 through 

4541 inclusive, and for replacing 

manufacturing end product replacement 

outer wings 14Y series having part 

numbers 388021–9/-10 with new or 

certain serviceable outer wings. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71035 

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, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Operators should note that Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–96, dated 

December 16, 2013, states that airplanes 

with more than 30,000 total flight hours 

on certain outer wings should be 

grounded until the outer wings are 

replaced. The manufacturer has 

informed us that there is a 28-month 

lead time for obtaining replacement 

outer wings. We find 30 months after 

the effective date of this AD for 

airplanes having outer wings that have 

accumulated 30,000 total flight hours or 

more to be an appropriate compliance 

time to complete outer wing 

replacement. In developing the 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the degree of urgency 

associated with addressing the unsafe 

condition, the maximum interval of 

time allowable for all affected airplanes 

to continue to operate without 

compromising safety, and the 

availability of required parts. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

replacement 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 20 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 

Left and right outer wing replacement ............ 1,500 work-hours × $85 per hour = $127,500 $8,000,000 $8,127,500 $162,550,000 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This section presents the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

that was prepared for this action. We 

have reworded and reformatted this 

analysis for publication in the Federal 

Register. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–354) (RFA) establishes 

‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance 

that agencies shall endeavor, consistent 

with the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

The FAA finds that this proposed rule 

would have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of entities. 

Therefore, under Section 603(b) of the 

RFA, the IRFA must address: 

• A description of reasons the agency 

is considering the action; 

• A statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposed rule; 

• A description of the record keeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule; 

• All federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

rule; 

• A description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply; and 

• A description of alternatives 

considered. 

The following provides a detailed 

description of each of the six items 

specified previously. 

1. A Description of Reasons the Agency 

Is Considering the Action 

We are proposing to adopt a new AD 

for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company 

Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 

airplanes because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. This proposed rule was 

prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the outer wings are 

subject to WFD. This proposed rule 

would require replacing certain outer 

wings with new or certain serviceable 

outer wings. 

2. A Statement of the Legal Basis and 

Objectives for the Proposed Rule 

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 propose 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. The objective of this proposed 

AD is to prevent fatigue cracking of the 

outer wing, which has resulted in an 

accident, and to prohibit exceeding the 

LOV. 

3. A Description of the Record Keeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements of 

the Proposed Rule 

The agency expects only minimal 

documentation, reporting, and recordkeeping compliance requirements to 

result from this proposed rule. Every 

operator (including small businesses 

and businesses with greater than 1,500 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

employees) will incur a paperwork 

burden. 

4. All Federal Rules That May 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Proposed Rule 

We are unaware that this proposed 

rule will overlap, duplicate, or conflict 

with existing Federal rules. 

5. A Description and an Estimated 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply 

Operators affected by this proposed 

rule would be required to comply with 

the AD requirements within 30 months 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

The FAA uses current U.S. operators’ 

employment and annual revenue in 

order to determine the number of 

operators this proposed rule affects. 

To determine the economic impact of 

this proposed rule on small business 

operators, the agency began by 

identifying the affected firms, gathering 

operational data, and establishing the 

compliance cost impact. We obtained a 

list of U.S. operators who would be 

affected by this proposed rule from the 

FAA Flight Standards Service National 

Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) 

database and from private fleet data 

providers. Using information provided 

by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Form 41 filings, the 

World Aviation Directory & Aerospace 

Database (WAD), and the Internet, the 

agency obtained company revenue and 

employment for many of the operators. 

We determined that nine operators 

could be affected by this proposed rule. 

Many of these are air cargo operators. Of 

the nine operators, there are seven that 

publically reported annual employment 

and operating revenue data. All seven 

operators that reported annual 

employment data are below the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) size 

standard of 1,500 employees for a small 

business in the air transport industry. 

Due to the sparse amount of publicly 

available data on internal company 

financial and employment statistics for 

small entities, it is not feasible to 

identify how many of the remaining 

carriers would also qualify as small 

businesses. Based on the publically 

available data, this proposed rule would 

have an impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. 

To assess this proposed rule’s cost 

impact to small business operators, we 

determined the additional cost this 

rulemaking would add to the seven 

operators. 

We use the average hourly labor cost 

(including benefits) as a basis to 

estimate costs for the outer wing 

replacement of the affected aircraft. In 

order to estimate the impact on small 

entities, we sum the incremental costs 

of this proposed rule, and use that 

estimate to calculate an average cost per 

operator. We then use that average to 

estimate the total cost burden on 

operators that we identify as meeting 

the above definition of small entities. 

Specifically, we estimate each 

operator’s total compliance cost by 

multiplying our estimate of the average 

cost per outer wing replacement by the 

number of affected aircraft each of the 

seven air carriers operate that meet the 

SBA’s size standard for a small business 

of 1,500 employees. 

From the summer 2013 edition of the 

Airliner Price Guide, we determined the 

used retail value of the affected aircraft, 

which ranges between $1.92 and $2.91 

million. In the preamble of this 

proposed rule, we estimate that it would 

cost an operator about $8.1 million to 

replace the outer wing. In other words, 

this proposed rule would cost between 

three to four times the retail value of the 

aircraft. 

On the basis of these estimates, we 

conclude that this proposed rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

6. A Description of Alternatives 

Considered 

The FAA considered alternatives as it 

developed the proposed rule. A 

discussion of those alternatives follows. 

Alternative 1: The Status Quo 

The status quo alternative has no 

compliance costs, but to continue 

operation of the affected aircraft 

constitutes a known unsafe condition. 

Therefore, we rejected this status quo 

alternative. 

Alternative 2: Excluding Certain Small 

Entities 

We considered excluding certain 

operators from compliance with the 

proposed rule because they are small 

entities; however, the affected aircraft 

operated by small entities could 

experience WFD, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane that has led to catastrophic 

accidents. Thus, we did not find this 

alternative to be acceptable. 

Alternative 3: Extending the Final 

Compliance Date for Small Entities 

Extending the compliance date for 

small entities reduces the costs to small 

entities over the analysis interval. Under 

this alternative, we expect that the 

projected cost of the proposed rule 

would still be significant for some of the 

operators studied. As the airplane ages, 

the wing deteriorates, making a flight 

less safe. Thus, we also found this 

alternative to be unacceptable. 

Therefore, this rulemaking will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

invite public comments regarding this 

determination. 

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 proposed 

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: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71037 

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–2014–0779; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–052–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by January 15, 

2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 2012–06–09, 

Amendment 39–16990 (77 FR 21404, April 

10, 2012); AD 2011–15–02, Amendment 39– 

16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15, 2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 

382G airplanes, certificated in any category. 

(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 that 

the outer wings are subject to widespread 

fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent fatigue cracking of the outer wing, 

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) Outer Wing Replacement 

For airplanes with outer wings having 

serial numbers (S/Ns) 3946 through 4541 

inclusive, or manufacturing end product 

(MEP) replacement outer wings 14Y series 

having part numbers (P/Ns) 388021–9/–10: 

Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight 

hours on the outer wings, or within 30 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later, except as specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD, replace the outer 

wings as provided in paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–96, dated 

December 16, 2013. 

(h) Acceptable Replacement Wings 

(1) Outer wings having S/Ns 3946 through 

4541 inclusive, and MEP replacement outer 

wings 14Y series having P/Ns 388021–9/–10, 

are acceptable for the outer wing replacement 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 

provided that the replacement outer wing has 

accumulated less than 30,000 total flight 

hours. Upon reaching 30,000 total flight 

hours, the replacement outer wing must be 

replaced as required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

(2) Outer wings having S/Ns 4542 and 

subsequent, or all MEP replacement outer 

wings, except for 14Y series having P/Ns 

388021–9/–10, that have accumulated less 

than 75,000 total flight hours are acceptable 

for the outer wing replacement required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–96, dated 

December 16, 2013, describes an option to 

salvage certain system components when 

replacing an outer wing. An operator may 

need to recertify compliance with AD 2012– 

06–09, Amendment 39–16990 (77 FR 21404, 

April 10, 2012); and AD 2011–15–02, 

Amendment 39–16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15, 

2011); if salvaged components are used in a 

replacement wing. 

(i) Wings With Previous Military Usage 

For airplanes that have any wing with 

previous military usage: Within 30 days after 

the effective date of this AD, contact the 

Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA, for a compliance time to 

accomplish the actions required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD. For a compliance time to be 

approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as 

required by this paragraph, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically refer to this 

AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

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 

November 19, 2014. 

Suzanne Masterson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28304 Filed 11–28–14; 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] 

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 The 

Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes 

equipped with a main deck side cargo 

door (MDSCD). This proposed 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 proposed AD would require 

revising the airplane flight manual to 

incorporate limitations for carrying 

certain payloads. We are proposing 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. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 15, 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS