Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22311 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0233; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–014–AD; Amendment 

39–16665; AD 2011–09–03] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

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

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive 

eddy current inspections to detect 

cracks in the center wing upper and 

lower rainbow fittings, and corrective 

actions if necessary; and repetitive 

replacements of rainbow fittings, which 

would extend the repetitive interval for 

the next inspection. This AD results 

from a report of fatigue cracking of the 

wing upper and lower rainbow fittings 

during durability testing and on inservice airplanes. Analysis of in-service 

cracking has shown that these rainbow 

fittings are susceptible to multiple site 

fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct such fatigue cracks, 

which could grow large and lead to the 

failure of the fitting and a catastrophic 

failure of the center wing. 

DATES: This AD is effective May 26, 

2011. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of May 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: 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, 

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. 

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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document 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: Carl 

Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; phone: (404) 474–5554; fax: 

(404) 474–5606; e-mail: 

Carl.W.Gray@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to all 

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

airplanes. That NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on March 23, 2010 

(75 FR 13695). That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive eddy current 

inspections to detect cracks in the 

center wing upper and lower rainbow 

fittings, and corrective actions if 

necessary; and repetitive replacements 

of rainbow fittings, which would extend 

the repetitive interval for the next 

inspection. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the three commenters. 

Support for the NPRM 

Lynden Air Cargo (LAC) stated that it 

concurs with the intent of the NPRM. 

Request To Extend Comment Period 

LAC requested that we allow at least 

60 days for the comment period. LAC 

stated that Executive Order 12866 

provides for comment periods of ‘‘not 

less than 60 days.’’ LAC pointed out that 

the comment period for the NPRM 

closes 45 days after it was published. 

LAC stated that it does not see a 

justification for a reduced comment 

period because Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82 was originally 

published on December 7, 2004, and 

because it was not an alert bulletin, and 

was approved by the FAA. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to extend the comment period. 

While Executive Order 12866 does not 

specifically require a 60-day comment 

period for AD actions, the FAA has 

established a standard 45-day comment 

period for AD actions issued as NPRMs. 

In addition, the Administrative 

Procedure Act does not prescribe a 

specific amount of time for comment 

periods. No change to the final rule is 

necessary in regard to this issue. 

Request To Clarify Reporting 

Requirements 

LAC requested that we clarify the 

reporting requirements. LAC stated that 

the NPRM would require sending the 

inspection results to Lockheed, but LAC 

stated that it could not find the 

requirement in the regulatory 

requirements of the NPRM. 

We find that clarification is necessary. 

While this AD does not require 

reporting inspection results, operators 

are encouraged to report their findings 

to the manufacturer. We have not 

changed the final rule in regard to this 

issue. 

Request To Clarify the Meaning of 

Interim Action 

LAC requested that we clarify the 

meaning of interim action. LAC asked 

why the FAA considers the NPRM to be 

interim action and if any other 

requirements are under consideration 

that may override or change the 

proposed requirements. 

We agree to provide clarification. We 

consider this final rule to be an interim 

action because no terminating action for 

the inspections exists at this time. If the 

rainbow fitting is replaced, that action 

zeros out the time for the requirements, 

but the initial and repetitive inspections 

are required on the new fitting. At this 

time, no terminating action exists. 

However, the manufacturer might 

redesign the rainbow fitting, which 

could extend the life of the fitting and 

change the inspection requirements, or 

provide a terminating action for the 

inspections. We have not changed the 

final rule in regard to this issue. 

Request To Clarify Cracking in 

Paragraph (k) of the NPRM 

LAC requested that we change ‘‘any 

crack’’ in paragraph (k) of the NPRM to 

‘‘any crack is detected in the rainbow 

fitting.’’ The commenter did not provide 

a reason for this request. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. During inspections required by 

this AD, cracks may be found in the 

surrounding structure (i.e., not in the 

rainbow fitting itself). Many of these 

cracks can be repaired and do not 

require replacing the rainbow fitting. 

However, as stated in paragraph (k) of 

the NPRM, only those cracks found in 

the rainbow fitting require replacing the 

rainbow fitting. We have changed 

paragraph (k) of the final rule to clarify 

that replacement is required only if 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

22312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

cracking is detected ‘‘in the rainbow 

fitting.’’ 

Request To Clarify Requirements for 

Repairing Cracking in Paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of the NPRM 

LAC requested that we clarify the 

requirements for repairing cracking. 

LAC stated that if cracks are found on 

the rainbow fitting during the 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

the NPRM, then it believed that the 

rainbow fitting should be replaced as 

required by paragraph (k) of the NPRM, 

instead of paragraph (l) as stated in the 

NPRM. LAC also questioned the 

wording in paragraph (h) of the NPRM 

that states ‘‘Any cracks found during the 

inspections required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD must be repaired before further 

flight in accordance with the actions 

required by paragraph (l) of this AD.’’ 

LAC stated that it believes that if cracks 

are found on the rainbow fitting then it 

should be replaced according to the 

requirements of paragraph (k) of the 

NPRM. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. The commenter states 

correctly that if cracks are found in the 

rainbow fitting, the fitting must be 

replaced in accordance with paragraph 

(k) of this AD. Cracking in other areas 

must be repaired (i.e., ‘‘corrective 

actions’’ must be done), as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD. 

We corrected typographical errors in 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM to 

refer to paragraph (k) of this AD, rather 

than paragraph (l) of this AD. We also 

changed the phrases referring to repairs 

in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to 

instead refer to doing the actions 

required by paragraph (k) of the AD. In 

addition, we changed the header for 

paragraph (k) of this AD to clarify that 

the paragraph identifies the 

replacement, related investigative 

actions, and corrective actions. 

Further, paragraph (l) of this final rule 

specifies an exception to paragraphs (i) 

and (k) of this AD. Paragraph (l) requires 

repairing certain conditions using a 

method approved by the Manager of the 

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO). We added a reference to this 

exception in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

LAC and Safair Operations (Safair) 

requested that we extend the grace 

period of 600 flight hours for the initial 

inspection for airplanes that have 

accumulated more flight cycles than the 

5,000-flight-cycle threshold. Any 

replacement, if necessary, must be done 

before further flight. LAC stated that 600 

flight hours is not adequate to replace 

the rainbow fittings. LAC recommended 

that we revise the compliance time for 

the replacement to ‘‘before the 

accumulation of 30,000 flight hours on 

the fitting or within 3,000 flight hours 

after the effective date of the AD, 

whichever occurs later.’’ LAC stated that 

this proposed compliance time would 

allow the rainbow fitting to be replaced 

at the next scheduled C-check, and 

would reduce unscheduled down time, 

and maximize maintenance, repair, and 

overhaul (MRO) efficiencies. LAC stated 

that its entire fleet of six Model 382G 

airplanes is already over the 30,000- 

flight-hour limit and will require 

rainbow fitting replacements. 

Safair also stated that the 365-day or 

600-flight-hour compliance time for the 

initial inspection is not sufficient to 

allow a phased-in scheduling of this 

inspection and potential replacement. 

Safair requested that the inspection and 

replacement be scheduled at the next 3- 

or 6-year structural check to allow for 

the most efficient use of planned 

downtime and least interruption to 

operational schedules. Safair stated that 

this revised compliance time would 

allow for the successful provisioning of 

the required materials and tools as the 

parts and specific fasteners have 

significant lead times. LAC also stated 

that it believes that only a limited 

number of MROs are capable of 

replacing the rainbow fittings with a 

limited number of slots available. 

We do not agree with the request to 

extend the compliance time. We are 

aware that some operators use the 

Model 382 airplanes for aid and relief 

missions. We do not intend to interfere 

with these missions, and that is why we 

have provided a grace period of 600 

flight hours to replace the rainbow 

fittings. We consider this safety issue 

resulting from the fatigue cracking in 

the area to be serious enough to require 

that replacement of the rainbow fittings 

be accomplished at the required time. 

We find that exceeding the limits 

required by this AD would not provide 

an adequate level of safety. We have not 

changed the final rule in regard to this 

issue. 

Request To Justify the Requirement for 

the Manager of the Atlanta ACO to 

Approve Repairs 

Lockheed Martin Aircraft and Logistic 

Centers (Lockheed Martin) requested 

that we provide justification for 

requiring repairs to be approved by the 

Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by 

paragraph (l) of the NPRM. Lockheed 

Martin stated that this requirement 

creates an excessive regulatory burden 

for operators and the FAA, and it could 

result in excessive down time. Lockheed 

Martin stated that it accomplishes 

maintenance and repairs around the 

clock, using designated engineering 

representatives. Lockheed Martin also 

stated that this requirement would 

require operators to essentially work the 

same schedule as the ACO, which 

would result in loss of airplane 

availability and subsequent loss of 

revenue, and that would be an excessive 

regulatory burden. 

We agree to explain the rationale for 

this requirement. Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, 

including Appendixes A, B, and C, 

dated May 20, 2009, specifies to contact 

the manufacturer for disposition of 

certain damage that exceeds certain 

repair limits. However, in such cases, 

requiring in an AD that operators 

contact the manufacturer for disposition 

of damage would be delegating our 

rulemaking authority to that 

manufacturer. Instead, we require that 

the action be done in accordance with 

a method approved by the FAA, as 

specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. 

If operators notify the FAA 

immediately when a crack is found 

during an inspection, the FAA should 

have adequate time to respond. 

Operators also should contact Lockheed 

Martin with any finding, and work with 

it to develop a repair to support the 

request for approval of an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC). The 

sooner the operator can provide us with 

the recommended repair, the sooner we 

can review it and approve it. If we find 

an issue with the proposed repair, we 

will notify the operator as soon as 

possible to resolve the issue and to limit 

potential airplane downtime. We have 

not changed the final rule in regard to 

this issue. 

Request To Clarify Testing 

Safair requested that we clarify the 

details of the durability testing that 

resulted in reports of fatigue cracking. 

Safair pointed out that the Summary 

paragraph of the NPRM states ‘‘the 

proposed AD results from a report of 

fatigue cracking of the upper and lower 

rainbow fittings during durability 

testing and on in-service airplanes.’’ 

Safair stated that it is not aware of any 

durability testing carried out on civilian 

airplanes. Furthermore, Safair asked if 

the details of the testing and the results 

can be shared with industry. Safair 

noted some operational civilian 

airplanes have airframes that have 

accumulated more than 90,000 flight 

hours, so they have actually served as a 

real-time durability test. 

We agree to provide clarification. 

Safair is correct that no durability 

testing was carried out on civilian 

airplanes. However, there was a fullWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22313 

scale fatigue test performed on military 

airplanes based on military usage. The 

initial and recurring inspection intervals 

were based on a typical military 

transport usage and were referred to as 

‘‘baseline usage.’’ Recent analysis 

performed by Lockheed Martin on the 

commercial Model 382 airplane 

indicated that commercial operational 

usage has a severity relative to the 

baseline usage of approximately 1.0. We 

cannot share the details of the testing 

with industry because they are 

proprietary data of Lockheed Martin. 

We are aware that there are airplanes 

with over 90,000 flight hours still in 

service, but we also believe that these 

airplanes have already had the rainbow 

fittings replaced at least once. We have 

not changed the final rule in regard to 

this issue. 

Request To Provide Rationale for 

Addressing Only Inboard Fittings 

Safair requested that we provide 

rationale for addressing only the 

inboard fittings. Safair stated that it has 

experienced in-service cracking on 

upper and lower fittings, both inboard 

and outboard. Safair stated that it does 

not understand why the NPRM 

addresses only the inboard upper and 

lower fittings. Safair stated if the AD 

will address an unsafe condition, then 

all rainbow fittings need to be 

addressed. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

unsafe condition, which results from a 

design flaw, applies only to the inboard 

fitting. The same problem has not been 

observed on the outboard fittings, which 

is a different design. However, the 

outboard fitting should still be 

inspected in accordance with the 

maintenance program. If cracks exist in 

the inboard fitting that exceed the 

rework limits, the fitting must be 

replaced in accordance with this final 

rule. The outboard side does not exhibit 

the same cracking because the outboard 

fitting has been redesigned and refit. At 

this time, we have not received 

significant findings to warrant AD 

action on outboard fittings. We have not 

changed the final rule in regard to this 

issue. 

Request To Explain Data Collection 

Safair requested that we explain the 

data collection that justifies taking AD 

action. Safair stated that the cracks it 

observed in the past were not reported 

to Lockheed Martin and were not signs 

of multi-site fatigue damage, but rather 

isolated single instances of cracking, 

apparently brought on by poor 

installation or milling of nodes at 

previous assembly. Safair stated that, as 

Lockheed Martin did not have an FAAapproved method of rainbow fitting 

replacement, it has historically used 

Designated Engineering Representative 

(DER) approved repair schemes based 

on military procedures. 

Safair stated that Lockheed Martin is 

not fully aware of all the historical 

events relating to rainbow fitting 

changes on the civilian fleet because no 

reporting requirement existed to provide 

this information back to Lockheed 

Martin. Safair stated that, as a result, the 

actual data related to civilian-operated 

Model 382 airplanes would appear to be 

contaminated by military data, and the 

military Model C–130 airplanes operate 

under a different flight regime and 

severity of operations. 

Safair stated that the FAA’s assertion 

that it has evaluated all relevant 

information is inaccurate because the 

full data of historical findings have not 

been available or collated by anyone in 

the industry. Safair stated the NPRM 

would require sending inspection 

results back to Lockheed Martin, and, as 

such, it is apparent that no historical 

requirement existed to send these data 

back to Lockheed Martin. 

We find that clarification is necessary. 

Safair’s assertion that this AD requires 

sending inspection results to Lockheed 

Martin is incorrect. As explained 

previously, this AD does not require 

reporting inspection results. 

Most Model 382 operators contact 

Lockheed Martin for assistance when 

cracks are found in the rainbow fittings 

to request instructions for repair or 

replacement. Lockheed Martin 

maintains a database of this 

information. In addition, operators are 

required by section 121.703 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

Part 121.703) to report the occurrence or 

detection of certain failures, 

malfunctions, or defects. Additionally, 

although data exist from military 

airplanes, significant data are collected 

on the civilian fleet. 

Results of fatigue testing on the wings 

have identified this area as the location 

of multi-site fatigue damage. Such 

damage has not been identified on inservice airplanes because the single lead 

crack has been identified and addressed 

before widespread fatigue damage is 

detected. Once widespread fatigue 

damage occurs, the wing can no longer 

carry the limit load and can fail. 

Lockheed Martin has a repair 

drawing, which is approved by the 

FAA, to replace the rainbow fitting. 

Safair is correct that the repair drawing 

that has been used in the past is DERapproved, which makes it FAAapproved. However, when it was 

determined that an AD was required, we 

required that Lockheed Martin include 

procedures for replacing the rainbow 

fitting in Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–82, which we approved. 

No change to this AD is necessary in 

regard to this issue. 

Request To Explain Benefit of 

Replacement Part 

Safair requested that we explain the 

benefit of the replacement part. Safair 

also noted that it is also prudent to note 

that Lockheed Martin has developed an 

‘‘improved’’ rainbow fitting, which is 

currently in process of military 

approval/release. Safair asked how use 

of this improved part will affect the 

proposed AD, as the proposed AD 

makes no reference to part numbers of 

rainbow fittings, and the referenced 

service bulletin covers only the 

unimproved rainbow fittings. Safair 

stated as the release of this part is 

imminent, and if the rainbow fitting 

issue is of sufficient concern to FAA, it 

would seem to make sense to work with 

Lockheed Martin to release the 

improved fitting and mandate its use 

under AD to ensure the best material be 

built into the civilian fleet. Safair asked 

if the FAA considered this as a way 

forward. 

We agree to provide clarification. 

Lockheed Martin has informed us that 

there are released drawings for a hybrid 

rainbow fitting that incorporates as 

much of the Extended Service Life (ESL) 

rainbow fitting as possible into a 

configuration that would fit on a 

standard center wing. This fitting has 

not been completely analyzed or tested 

and the life of the hybrid part on 

commercial aircraft has not been 

evaluated. There are no parts available 

or in production. If Lockheed Martin 

chooses to make the parts available for 

sale then they will be evaluated and, if 

acceptable, we might consider 

additional rulemaking. The operator can 

also seek approval of an AMOC to 

install the new approved parts. We 

consider this a safety issue that must be 

addressed as soon as possible and 

cannot wait for Lockheed Martin to 

complete their evaluation and 

production of the new part. Lockheed 

Martin has informed us that it would be 

at least three years before the parts were 

available for sale if they started 

production today, and there is no plan 

to start production. We have not 

changed the final rule in regard to this 

issue. 

Request To Clarify Requirements for 

Airplanes that Have Accumulated More 

Than 75,000 Flight Hours 

Safair requested that we clarify the 

requirements for airplanes that have 

accumulated more than 75,000 flight 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

22314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

hours on the center wings. Safair asked 

if it is assumed that all airplanes that 

exceed the initial threshold for airframe 

flight hours are automatically assumed 

to have rainbow fittings exceeding the 

initial threshold. Safair stated that some 

airplanes which are in daily service 

have accumulated more than 75,000 

flight hours on the center wings. 

Safair stated that several of these 

airplanes have a long title and previous 

ownership line, and it is not known 

when and if the rainbow fittings were 

previously changed because they are not 

serialized; and no requirement has 

existed to track their lives to date. Safair 

pointed out that this raises the question 

as to how the proposed AD will be 

implemented on those airplanes that 

have accumulated a high number of 

flight hours. Safair asked if an 

‘‘assumption’’ is being made that all 

airplanes exceeding the initial threshold 

for airframe flight hours automatically 

are assumed to have rainbow fittings 

exceeding the initial threshold. 

We agree to provide clarification. If 

there is no record of the rainbow fitting 

being previously replaced and if the 

airplane has accumulated more than 

30,000 total flight hours, then the 

rainbow fitting must be replaced within 

600 flight hours after the effective date 

of the AD. If there is a record of the 

rainbow fitting being replaced but the 

time on the new rainbow fitting exceeds 

30,000 flight hours, then it must be 

replaced within 600 flight hours, as 

required by paragraph (i) of this AD. If 

the rainbow fitting has accumulated less 

than 30,000 total flight hours, it must be 

inspected until 30,000 total flight hours 

are accumulated on the rainbow fitting, 

and then the rainbow fitting must be 

replaced, as required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD. We have not changed the final 

rule in regard to this issue. 

Request To Update Service Information 

Safair noted that Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, dated 

May 20, 2009, has been released and 

asked that the NPRM be revised to refer 

to the most current service information. 

We agree. We have revised this final 

rule to refer to Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, 

including Appendixes A, B, and C, 

dated May 20, 2009. That service 

bulletin contains a change to the parts 

supply address, and does not require 

any additional work for any airplanes. 

We have added a new paragraph (m) to 

this final rule to provide credit for 

actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 3, 

dated April 25, 2008. 

Request To Clarify Repetitive 

Inspection Requirements 

Safair requested that we clarify the 

repetitive inspection requirements. 

Safair stated that the repetitive 

inspection requirements in the NPRM 

are more lenient than Lockheed Martin’s 

prescribed repeat inspection periods. 

Safair asked if the repeat criteria 

automatically apply. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

difference in the specified repetitive 

intervals is that Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, dated 

May 20, 2009, recommends a repetitive 

inspection at 2,000 flight hours after 

30,000 flight hours has been 

accumulated on the fittings. Paragraph 

(h) of this AD requires that repetitive 

inspections be accomplished at intervals 

not to exceed 3,600 flight hours on the 

center wing until the rainbow fitting has 

accumulated 30,000 total flight hours. 

Paragraph (i) of this AD requires that the 

rainbow fitting be replaced before the 

accumulation of 30,000 flight hours or 

within 600 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever is 

later. Where there are differences in the 

repetitive interval specified in the 

service bulletin and this AD, the 

interval specified in this AD prevails. 

However, operators may accomplish the 

actions specified in the AD earlier than 

required. We have not changed the final 

rule in regard to this issue. 

Request To Clarify Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82 

Safair stated that Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 3, 

including Appendixes A and B, dated 

April 25, 2008, advises that Lockheed 

Martin inspection cards—SP–176 

(upper fitting) and SP–257 (lower 

fitting)—cover the intent of the 

inspection of the service bulletin. Safair 

stated that on its Lockheed Martindeveloped maintenance plan, which is 

current with Lockheed Martin 

recommended practices, these 

inspection cards have re-inspection 

periods at 2,500 and 2,700 flight hours 

respectively. Safair stated that the 

NPRM requires re-inspections at 3,600 

hours. Safair asked if this means the less 

stringent conditions of the NPRM, if 

adopted as proposed, should now apply. 

If this is the case, Safair asked if 

Lockheed Martin will be required to 

amend the Standard Maintenance 

Program 515 callout periods. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

inspections in the AD are required, but 

they do not affect the inspections in the 

maintenance program. If the inspections 

are identical, they can be performed 

simultaneously as part of the 

maintenance program. However, the 

compliance times for the specified 

inspections cannot be extended beyond 

those specified in this AD. Where there 

is a conflict between the compliance 

time in this AD and any other service 

information, the compliance time in this 

AD prevails. This could allow doing the 

inspections during a heavy check rather 

than during a special visit on a line 

airplane. We have not changed the final 

rule in regard to this issue. 

Request To Clarify Repairs of Rainbow 

Fittings 

Safair requested that we clarify the 

repair requirements of the rainbow 

fittings. Safair pointed out that the 

second paragraph in the section titled 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin’’ of the NPRM 

seems to allow repairs of rainbow 

fittings if cracks are found during visual 

inspections. Safair noted that the third 

paragraph in this section seems to 

require replacement for cracks found 

during nondestructive (NDT) 

inspections. Safair stated that this seems 

to be inconsistent. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. As explained in the preamble 

of the NPRM, the general visual 

inspection is done on the wing faying 

structure. No corrective actions for 

findings during the general visual 

inspection are provided in Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, 

dated May 20, 2009; therefore, operators 

must repair any damage or cracking in 

accordance with a method approved by 

the FAA, as required by paragraph (l) of 

this AD. 

However, eddy current inspections 

are done on the rainbow fitting and, if 

any cracking is found in the fitting, it 

must be replaced (as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD). During any 

required replacement, an eddy current 

inspection must be done on all opened 

fitting attachment fastener holes in the 

upper and lower surface skin panel, 

stringers, splice, straps, and splice 

angles that are common to the rainbow 

fittings. As specified in the preamble of 

the NPRM, the corrective action for any 

findings in these other areas consists of 

repairing damage within certain limits, 

but damage outside those specified 

limits must be repaired in accordance 

with a method approved by the FAA. 

No change has been made to the final 

rule in this regard. 

Request To Extend the Compliance 

Time 

Safair stated that if the inspections 

currently mandated by Lockheed 

Martin’s maintenance plan continue as 

required, and if there are positive 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22315 

findings as a result of these inspections 

then the damaged rainbow fitting must 

be replaced prior to further flight. 

However, on airplanes where there are 

no crack findings as a result of the 

inspections, in the maintenance plan, 

Safair requests that the airplane may 

continue in service until the next 3- or 

6-year structural check before the 

rainbow fittings are replaced even if the 

time on the fittings has exceeded the 

threshold. 

We disagree. We have provided a 

grace period of 600 flight hours to 

replace the rainbow fittings. We 

consider this safety issue to result from 

the fatigue cracking in the area that is 

serious enough to require that the 

replacement of the rainbow fittings be 

accomplished at the required time. We 

have determined that exceeding the 

limits required by this final rule would 

not provide an adequate level of safety. 

Further, we are aware of the limited 

resources available for replacing the 

rainbow fittings. Lockheed Martin has 

informed us that there are adequate 

supplies of rainbow fittings to support 

this AD. We are also aware that 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–82 

applies to many Model C–130 airplanes 

operated by the military, but the 

rainbow fittings on most of these 

airplanes have already been replaced. 

We have not changed the final rule in 

regard to this issue. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this AD interim action. If 

final action is later identified, we might 

consider further rulemaking then. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 14 

airplanes of U.S. registry. The following 

table provides the estimated costs for 

U.S. operators to comply with this AD. 

TABLE—ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection ...................... 20 $85 None ...................... $1,700 per inspection 

cycle.

14 $23,800 per inspection 

cycle. 

Fitting replacement ........ 2,438 85 $40,000 ................. $247,230 ....................... 14 $3,461,220. 

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), and 

(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. 

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 AD: 

2011–09–03 Lockheed Martin Corporation/ 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: 

Amendment 39–16665. Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0233; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–014–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective May 26, 2011. 

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 airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from a report of fatigue 

cracking of the wing upper and lower 

rainbow fittings during durability testing and 

on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-service 

cracking has shown that these rainbow 

fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue 

damage. The Federal Aviation 

Administration is issuing this AD to detect 

and correct such fatigue cracks, which could 

grow large and lead to the failure of the 

fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center 

wing. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

22316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Initial Inspections 

(g) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do 

eddy current inspections to detect cracking of 

the center wing upper and lower rainbow 

fittings on the left and right side of the 

airplane. Do the actions in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–82, 

Revision 4, including Appendixes A and B, 

dated May 20, 2009. If any crack is found 

during the inspections required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD, before further flight, do the 

actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total 

flight hours on the rainbow fitting. 

(2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours on 

the rainbow fitting after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs first. 

Repetitive Inspection Schedule 

(h) Repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to 

exceed 3,600 flight hours on the center wing, 

until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 

30,000 total flight hours. If any crack is found 

during the inspections required by paragraph 

(h) of this AD, before further flight, do the 

actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Rainbow Fitting Replacements 

(i) Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight 

hours on the rainbow fitting, or within 600 

flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later: Replace the rainbow 

fitting, do all related investigative actions, 

and do all applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, 

including Appendix C, dated May 20, 2009, 

except as required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD. Replace the rainbow fitting thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours. 

Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections 

(j) For upper and lower rainbow fittings 

replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or 

(k) of this AD: Do the eddy current 

inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD within 15,000 flight hours after doing the 

replacement and repeat the eddy current 

inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,600 

flight hours until the rainbow fittings are 

replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or 

(k) of this AD. 

Replacement, Related Investigative Actions, 

and Corrective Actions 

(k) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, any crack is 

detected in the rainbow fitting, before further 

flight, replace the rainbow fitting, do all 

related investigative actions, and do all 

applicable corrective actions, in accordance 

with Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–82, Revision 4, including Appendix 

C, dated May 20, 2009, except as provided by 

paragraph (l) of this AD. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin 

(l) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, 

B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for disposition of 

certain repair conditions or does not specify 

corrective actions if certain conditions are 

found, this AD requires repairing those 

conditions 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. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(m) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–82, 

Revision 3, including Appendixes A, B, and 

C, dated April 25, 2008, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(n)(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. Send information to Attn: 

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. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

the manager of the local flight standards 

district office/certificate holding district 

office. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(o) You must use Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–82, Revision 4, including 

Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, 

to do the actions required by this AD, unless 

the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(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, 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. 

(3) You may review copies of the 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. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 

2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9285 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0379; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–007–AD; Amendment 

39–16670; AD 2011–09–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific 

Aerospace Limited Model 750XL 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

This AD is prompted by a report from the 

manufacturer of finding cracks in rudder 

pedal assemblies at the quadrant attachment 

weld on early 750 XL aircraft. 

This AD requires actions that are 

intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 

2, 2011. 

On May 2, 2011, the Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this AD. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by June 6, 2011. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES