262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

inclusive, 19000110 through 19000139 

inclusive, 19000141 through 19000158 

inclusive, 19000160 through 19000176 

inclusive, 19000178 through 19000202 

inclusive, 19000204 through 19000213 

inclusive, and 19000215. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: It 

has been found the possibility of missing 

points of sealant application on the vapor 

barrier assembly in the wing stub rear box. 

In the event of fuel tank leak in this region 

associated with an unsealed vapor barrier 

assembly, migration of flammable vapors and 

fluids to middle electronic bay may occur, 

which then could lead to an uncontained fire 

event if the flammable vapors finds an 

ignition source. The required actions include 

a detailed inspection for gaps, voids, or holes 

in the sealant. Corrective actions include 

applying sealant into any gaps, voids, or 

holes. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Actions 

(g) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Within 6,000 flight hours or 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the 

vapor barrier assembly in the wing stub rear 

box for missing sealant which forms gaps, 

voids or holes, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Service Bulletin 170–57–0036, dated March 

13, 2009 (for Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 

STD, –100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, 

and –200 SU airplanes); or Embraer Service 

Bulletin 190–57–0027, dated March 18, 2009 

(for Model ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, –100 

IGW, –200 STD, –200 LR, and –200 IGW 

airplanes). 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate access procedures 

may be required.’’ 

(2) If the vapor barrier sealant is found to 

be correctly applied in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Service Bulletin 170–57–0036, dated March 

13, 2009 (for Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 

STD, –100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, 

and –200 SU airplanes); or Embraer Service 

Bulletin 190–57–0027, dated March 18, 2009 

(for Model ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, –100 

IGW, –200 STD, –200 LR, and –200 IGW 

airplanes); no further action is required by 

this AD. 

(3) If any vapor barrier sealant is found 

missing (gaps, voids or holes) during the 

inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight apply sealant into 

the applicable gaps, voids, and holes, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 170– 

57–0036, dated March 13, 2009 (for Model 

ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, –100 SE, –100 

SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and –200 SU 

airplanes); or Embraer Service Bulletin 190– 

57–0027, dated March 18, 2009 (for Model 

ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, –100 IGW, –200 

STD, –200 LR, and –200 IGW airplanes). 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–2848; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using 

any approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify your 

principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

The AMOC approval letter must specifically 

reference this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directives 2009–07–01 and 2009–07–02, both 

effective July 13, 2009; Embraer Service 

Bulletin 170–57–0036, dated March 13, 2009; 

and Embraer Service Bulletin 190–57–0027, 

dated March 18, 2009; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 28, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–31276 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1228; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–015–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company Model 382, 

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

require repetitive inspections for any 

damage of the lower surface of the 

center wing box, and corrective actions 

if necessary. This proposed AD results 

from reports of fatigue cracks of the 

lower surface of the center wing box. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct such cracks, which could result 

in the structural failure of the wings. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 263 

P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, 

Georgia 30063; telephone 770–494– 

5444; fax 770–494–5445; e-mail 

ams.portal@lmco.com; Internet http:// 

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/ 

TechPubs.html. You may review copies 

of the referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221 or 425–227– 

1152. 

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 

(telephone 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, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; telephone (404) 474–5554; fax 

(404) 474–5606. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1228; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–015–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 fatigue 

cracks of the lower surface of the center 

wing box. Large fatigue cracks, some 

with multiple origins indicating link-up 

of smaller fatigue cracks, and 

generalized small fatigue cracks have 

been found during wing durability 

testing and in-service operations. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in reduced wing residual strength below 

the design limit load capacity, which 

could result in the structural failure of 

the wings. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 

2, dated August 23, 2007, including 

Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, 

Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007. The 

service bulletin describes procedures for 

doing repetitive nondestructive 

inspections of the lower surface of the 

center wing box (including the panel, 

stringers, beam caps, panel repairs, 

fittings, and cold-work holes) for any 

damage (including cracking, corrosion, 

structural deformation, and dents), and 

corrective action, if necessary. The 

corrective action includes contacting 

Lockheed for repair instructions. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all relevant information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. This proposed AD would 

require accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information 

described previously, except as 

discussed under ‘‘Differences Between 

the Proposed AD and Relevant Service 

Information.’’ 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Relevant Service Information 

Although the service bulletin 

specifies that operators may contact the 

manufacturer for disposition of certain 

repair conditions, this proposed AD 

would require operators to repair those 

conditions using a method approved by 

the FAA. 

Although the service bulletin 

specifies that operators can adjust 

thresholds and intervals, use alternate 

repetitive inspection intervals, and use 

alternate inspection methods if 

applicable, this proposed AD would 

require any alternate methods to be 

approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. 

Although the service bulletin 

provides a longer compliance time of 

22,000 flight hours to inspect coldworked holes, this AD would require all 

holes to be inspected within 10,000 

flight hours, as reports indicate that 

fatigue cracks are of sufficient size and 

density, requiring a shorter compliance 

time. 

Operators should note that, although 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 

2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D, 

E, F, and G, Revision 1, dated March 8, 

2007, describe procedures for 

submitting a report of any damages, this 

proposed AD would not require such 

action. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 15 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 2,000 work-hours per 

product to comply with this proposed 

AD. The average labor rate is $80 per 

work-hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this proposed AD to 

the U.S. operators to be $2,400,000, or 

$160,000 per airplane. 

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), and 

3. 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

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 AD: 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket 

No. FAA–2009–1228; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–015–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by February 

19, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

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

382G series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of fatigue 

cracks of the lower surface of the center wing 

box. The Federal Aviation Administration is 

issuing this AD to detect and correct such 

cracks, which could result in the structural 

failure of the wings. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection 

(g) At the times specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, whichever 

occurs latest: Do a nondestructive inspection 

of the lower surface of the center wing box 

for any damage, in accordance with 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82– 

790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, 

including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and 

G, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007. Repeat 

the inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 10,000 flight hours. 

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 

total flight hours on the center wing. 

(2) Within 365 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(3) Within 10,000 flight hours on the center 

wing box after the accomplishment of the 

service bulletin if done before the effective 

date of this AD. 

Note 1: These inspection procedures 

supplement the existing Hercules Air 

Freighter progressive inspection procedures 

and previously issued Lockheed Martin 

service bulletins. After the effective date of 

this AD, there are no inspection procedures 

in those documents that fully meet the 

requirements of this AD. 

Corrective Action 

(h) If any damage is found during any 

inspection required by this AD: Before 

further flight, repair any damage using a 

method approved by the Manager, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For 

a repair method to be approved by the 

Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this 

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter 

must specifically refer to this AD. 

Exceptions to the Service Bulletin 

(i) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, 

including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and 

G, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007, specifies 

that operators may adjust thresholds and 

intervals, use alternative repetitive 

inspection intervals, and use alternative 

inspection methods, if applicable. However, 

this AD requires that any alternative methods 

or intervals be approved by the Manager, 

Atlanta ACO. For any alternative methods or 

intervals 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) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–85 (82–790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 

2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, 

and G, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007, 

specifies that alternative repetitive 

inspections intervals may be used for coldworked holes, this AD does not allow the 

longer interval. This AD requires that all 

cold-worked and non-cold worked holes be 

re-inspected at 10,000-flight-hour intervals. 

(k) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–85 (82–790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 

2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, 

and G, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007, 

describes procedures for submitting a report 

of any damages, this AD does not require 

such action. 

Inspections Accomplished in Accordance 

With Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783) 

(l) Inspections accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD, in accordance with 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 (82– 

783), Revision 1, dated August 22, 2006, 

including Appendix B, dated March 18, 

2005, are considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding action 

specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Carl Gray, 

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE– 

117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

GA 30337; telephone (404) 474–5554; fax 

(404) 474–5606. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 23, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–31289 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1004; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NE–36–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc RB211–Trent 800 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

During 2004, an incident was reported 

involving uncontained multiple 

intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine blade 

release on a Trent 700 engine. The blade 

release was the result of an overspeed of the 

IP turbine rotor that was initiated by an 

internal fire in the high-pressure/ 

intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) bearing 

chamber. Post-incident analysis and 

investigation has established that blockage of 

the HP/IP turbine bearing oil vent tube due 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS