28626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

STATE REFERENDUM RESULTS—Continued 

[February 1, 2011 through February 28, 2011] 

State Yes votes No votes Total eligible 

votes 

New York ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

North Dakota ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................... 38 13 51 

Oregon ......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

South Dakota ............................................................................................................................... 6 0 6 

Texas ........................................................................................................................................... 486 45 531 

Utah ............................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Vermont ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Washington .................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Wyoming ...................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Combined Total for States with 3 or Fewer Eligible Votes: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee & Virginia ........................................................... 11 2 13 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 917 287 1,204 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425. 

Dated: May 12, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12134 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1228; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–015–AD; Amendment 

39–16666; AD 2011–09–04] 

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 the 

products listed above. This AD requires 

repetitive inspections for any damage of 

the lower surface of the center wing box, 

and corrective actions if necessary. This 

AD was prompted by reports of fatigue 

cracks of the lower surface of the center 

wing box. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct such cracks, which 

could result in the structural failure of 

the wings. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 22, 

2011. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of June 22, 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. 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. 

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 (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

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, 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 the 

specified products. That NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 5, 2010 (75 FR 262). That NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive 

inspections for any damage of the lower 

surface of the center wing box, and 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company (LM Aero) recognized and 

agreed with the need to adopt an AD. 

Lynden Air Cargo (LAC) agreed in 

concept that the inspections in the 

NPRM are beneficial and enhance 

safety. 

Requests To Clarify Paragraph (l) of the 

NPRM 

LAC and Safair Operations (Pty) Ltd 

(Safair) asked that we clarify paragraph 

(l) of the NPRM, which states that 

‘‘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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 28627 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD.’’ The 

commenters pointed out that Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), 

Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, 

refers to Appendix A, rather than 

Appendix B, of Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–83 (82–783), Revision 

1. The commenters asked if the 

reference to Appendix B is a typo and, 

if not, why we consider Appendix B of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783), Revision 1, as an acceptable 

means of compliance with the actions 

specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM. 

The commenters pointed out that 

neither Appendix A nor Appendix B of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783), Revision 1, is an acceptable 

means of compliance for the whole AD. 

We agree to clarify paragraph (l) of the 

NPRM. There are no corresponding 

actions in this AD for the inspections in 

Appendix B of Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–83 (82–783), Revision 

1; the inspection in Appendix B of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783) and the inspections in 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790) are different. We refer to 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

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

E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated 

March 8, 2007, as the appropriate source 

of service information for doing the 

actions in this AD. Therefore, paragraph 

(l) of the NPRM does not provide any 

credit for any of the actions in 

paragraph (g) of the AD and, as a result, 

we have removed paragraph (l) of the 

NPRM. 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 2, does refer to 

Appendix A of Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–83 (82–783), Revision 

1, for guidance about performing part of 

the actions required by this AD—in this 

case, the non-destructive test of the 

center wing lower surface panels at the 

rainbow fittings. The reference in 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 2, to Appendix A of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783), Revision 1, is correct and 

provides sufficient guidance for 

operators to perform the non-destructive 

test of the center wing lower surface 

panels at the rainbow fittings. 

Requests for Clarification of Credit for 

Various Revisions of Service 

Information 

LAC and Safair requested that we 

clarify which revisions of Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790) are 

acceptable for compliance with the 

actions proposed in the NPRM. 

LAC noted that there are some minor 

differences between revisions of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790) that have a negligible effect on 

the intent of the proposed AD and stated 

that there are no compelling safety 

reasons that would justify reaccomplishment of that service bulletin 

before the next inspection period. LAC 

requested that, if compliance with 

earlier revisions of that service bulletin 

is not acceptable, we capture the cost of 

re-inspections in the cost estimate. LAC 

also stated that although it 

accomplished Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), dated 

August 4, 2005, it removed the wing 

attach angles to facilitate the inspection 

and then installed new attach angles 

even before this action was specified in 

later revisions of that service bulletin. 

Safair stated that Lockheed Service 

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

2, dated August 23, 2007, is apparently 

not currently FAA-approved, although 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), dated August 4, 2005, appears 

to be. 

Safair also requested clarification 

about what is meant in the Compliance 

paragraph (paragraph (f)) of the NPRM, 

which states ‘‘unless the actions have 

already been done.’’ Safair stated that it 

is unclear which revision of Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790) 

would satisfy having ‘‘already been 

done.’’ Safair also noted that in 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), dated August 4, 2005, the drag 

angle (wing attach angle) is not 

removed, and Safair asked if any credit 

would be given for having performed 

the (other) actions in that service 

bulletin. 

We agree with the requests to clarify 

which revisions of the service 

information are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

this AD. Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–85 (82–790), Revision 2, dated 

August 23, 2007, including Appendixes 

A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, 

all dated March 8, 2007, has been 

approved by the FAA. Lockheed Service 

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

1, dated March 8, 2007, has also been 

approved by the FAA, and is acceptable 

for doing the inspections required by 

this AD if done before the effective date 

of this AD. 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), dated August 4, 2005, is also 

acceptable for compliance with 

inspections required by this AD, if the 

actions in that service bulletin are done 

before the effective date of this AD. 

The phrase in paragraph (f) of this 

AD, ‘‘unless the actions have already 

been done,’’ refers to requirements of the 

AD that have been done before the 

effective date of the AD. For example, if, 

before the effective date of the AD, an 

operator performed an inspection in 

accordance with Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), dated 

August 4, 2005; Revision 1, dated March 

8, 2007; or Revision 2, August 23, 2007, 

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

and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 

8, 2007; that operator would be in 

compliance with the intent of the AD for 

that inspection; however, all inspections 

done after the effective date of the AD 

must be accomplished 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, all Revision 1, all dated 

March 8, 2007. 

We have added new paragraphs (l) 

and (m) to this AD to give credit to 

operators that have accomplished the 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD using Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–85 (82–790), dated August 4, 

2005; or Revision 1, dated March 8, 

2007. 

Requests To Revise Costs of Compliance 

Safair suggested that we revisit the 

Costs of Compliance section, which lists 

only work-hours and appears to have 

ignored the material and loss of earnings 

due to extended downtime. LAC also 

stated that the section should be revised 

to address fixed costs that continue to 

accrue while the airplane is down. LAC 

also pointed out that the costs beyond 

the 2,000 work-hours specified in the 

NPRM for the inspection are another 

1,000 to 3,000 work-hours for defect 

rectification, cold working, angle 

replacement, reassembly, and 

restoration. LAC stated that part and 

material costs, including replacement 

wing attach angles and fasteners, are 

approximately $30,000 per airplane. 

LAC estimated that the average 

maintenance costs to comply with the 

actions proposed in the NPRM would be 

$350,000 per airplane, per inspection 

cycle. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s requests to change the 

costs of compliance. We disagree with 

the requests to address the costs of 

extended downtime. We included a 

grace period in this AD so that the effect 

on operations would be minimized and 

the inspections could be scheduled 

during regular maintenance checks. We 

have not changed the Costs of 

Compliance in this regard. We agree 

with the request to include the costs for 

the corrective action (defect 

rectification, etc.). Since we issued the 

NPRM, FAA policy has been revised to 

allow for inclusion of on-condition costs 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
28628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(e.g., costs that depend on inspection 

findings). Therefore, we have added a 

table in the Costs of Compliance section 

of this AD that includes an estimate of 

the cost of the corrective actions. 

Requests To Differentiate Inspection 

Intervals for Different Fasteners 

LM Aero believed that there should be 

a differentiation between the repetitive 

inspection intervals for Taper-Lok 

fastened joints (original production 

configuration) and the inspection 

intervals for Hi-Tigue fasteners installed 

in cold-worked holes. LM Aero pointed 

out that this differentiation is outlined 

in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007 (10,000-flight-hour re-inspection 

for Taper-Loks and 20,000 flight hours 

for Hi-Tigues in cold-worked holes). LM 

Aero stated that the installation process 

for Hi-Tigue fasteners removes small 

fatigue cracks that are below the 

detection threshold for the bolt hole 

eddy current inspection, and is effective 

in retarding the growth of very short 

fatigue cracks, which could remain in 

the structure after inspection and oversizing. LM Aero added that this allows 

the post-inspection flaw size to be set to 

0.05 inch and that the post-inspection 

flaw size for Taper-Lok fasteners is set 

to 0.15 inch, which results in a shorter 

repetitive inspection interval. LM Aero 

stated that not acknowledging this 

improvement in terms of an increase in 

recurring inspection intervals would 

limit, if not end, an operator’s 

consideration of this life-enhancing 

repair fastener system for aircraft. LM 

Aero believed operators that invested in 

Hi-Tigue fasteners should be 

compensated by allowing a repetitive 

interval of 20,000 flight hours. 

LM Aero also stated that the 

implementation of the widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD) rule, FAA–2006– 

24281 (75 FR 69746, November 15, 

2010), would require that a life limit be 

developed for the center wing, which 

would dictate the number of times that 

the inspections proposed in the NPRM 

could be used to maintain safety of 

flight. Airplanes exceeding the life limit 

would not be considered airworthy until 

an approved WFD repair is installed. 

LAC agreed with the LM Aero 

comment. LAC did not agree that all 

holes should be inspected at the 10,000- 

flight-hour interval and added that 

repeated removals create the potential 

for insufficient remaining edge distance 

for the fasteners, as the hole clean-up 

might require fastener oversize. LAC 

stated that it has found that some 

fasteners are already approaching 

minimal edge distance even after the 

first fastener removal and replacement, 

especially if the Taper-Lok fasteners 

have been replaced with Hi-Tigue 

fasteners. LAC asserted that repeated 

and unnecessary fastener removals will 

make complicated repairs necessary and 

possibly lead to early replacement of 

structural components, up to and 

including replacement of the center 

wing itself. Safair also notes that with a 

reduced interval for cold-worked holes, 

the edge distance will be exhausted and 

the center wing will be scrapped. 

We partially agree with the requests to 

differentiate the repetitive inspection 

intervals. We agree that those operators 

that invested in the Hi-Tigue fastening 

system in cold-worked holes should be 

given credit for their efforts by allowing 

a longer repetitive inspection interval. 

We disagree with revising this AD to 

include additional compliance times 

because the compliance times will vary 

for each airplane depending on how 

many holes in the center wing have 

been cold worked and have had HiTigue fasteners installed. We do not 

consider it appropriate to include 

various provisions in an AD applicable 

only to individual airplanes. However, 

operators should note that under the 

provisions of paragraph (n) of the final 

rule, we will consider requests for 

adjustments to the compliance time if 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

such an adjustment would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We will 

consider requests for approval of 

alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOCs) on a case-by-case basis to 

address cold-worked holes and 

installation of Hi-Tigue fasteners in 

affected areas of the airplane. 

We also acknowledge that the WFD 

rule specifies that airplanes exceeding 

the WFD life limit would not be 

considered airworthy until an approved 

WFD repair is installed. We point out, 

however, that since this AD contains 

inspection requirements for detection of 

generalized fatigue cracking and 

possible onset of WFD, extending the 

repetitive interval any longer could 

jeopardize the safety of the airplane. 

While we agree that repeated fastener 

removal could lead to complicated 

repairs and early replacement of 

structural components, this replacement 

would likely occur anyway as a result 

of the WFD that is known to exist in the 

inspection area. We have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Extend Inspection 

Threshold in Paragraph (g)(2) of the 

NPRM 

Safair and LAC requested that we 

extend the compliance time of ‘‘within 

365 days’’ specified in paragraph (g)(2) 

of the NPRM. LAC stated that 365 days 

is not adequate to plan for and execute 

the proposed requirements of the AD 

and suggested the compliance time be 

changed to ‘‘within 48 months.’’ Safair 

stated that 365 days is too restrictive 

and is not in line with maintenance 

recommendations of the original 

equipment manufacturer for structural 

work. Safair added that unscheduled 

maintenance visits would drive up cost 

and requested that the compliance time 

be revised to ‘‘at the next 3 year or 6 year 

structural inspection.’’ 

We disagree with the request to 

extend the compliance time specified in 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for this AD, we considered not 

only the safety implications, but the 

manufacturer’s recommendations, the 

availability of required parts, and the 

practical aspect of accomplishing the 

modification within an interval of time 

that corresponds to typical scheduled 

maintenance for affected operators. The 

365-day compliance time reduces the 

impact on airplanes that have exceeded 

the thresholds specified in paragraph (g) 

of this AD and maintains an adequate 

level of safety of the airplane. Because 

of the possible onset of widespread 

fatigue damage of the center wing lower 

surface structure, any further extension 

of the compliance time could jeopardize 

safety. Under the provisions of 

paragraph (n) of this AD, however, we 

may consider requests for adjustments 

to the compliance time if data are 

submitted to substantiate that such an 

adjustment would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not revised this 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Exceptions to the 

Service Bulletin 

LAC stated that paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM and the requirements of an 

AMOC are redundant, and that if 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM is an 

exception, then the NPRM should allow 

the exception without an AMOC 

process. 

We infer that LAC is requesting 

clarification of the exception to 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

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

E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated 

March 8, 2007, as specified in paragraph 

(i) of this AD. Paragraph (i) of this AD 

clarifies that the AD requirements are 

different from those specified in 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

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

E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated 

March 8, 2007. Specifically, paragraph 

1.B.(5) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 2, dated 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 28629 

August 23, 2007, specifies that an 

extension of the compliance period can 

be addressed by completion of an 

evaluation form in another service 

bulletin. Paragraph 1.B.(5) of Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), 

Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, 

indicates that repetitive intervals may 

be revised in a later revision of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007. However, operators must comply 

with the compliance times and 

inspection methods specified in this 

AD. Paragraph (i) of this AD explains 

that if operators want to use different 

intervals or inspection methods, they 

must request an AMOC. 

Request To Clarify and Justify FAA 

Approval of Repairs 

Safair requested clarification of the 

requirement in paragraph (h) of the 

NPRM to do repairs in accordance with 

a method approved by the FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). 

Safair asked if the Atlanta ACO would 

provide rapid approval of proposed 

repairs. Safair asked if FAA Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER)- 

developed repairs may be submitted via 

the Atlanta ACO. Safair also stated it 

assumed that structural repair manual 

(SRM) repairs in the affected areas 

would still be approved repairs. 

LAC requested justification of the 

requirement in paragraph (h) of the 

NPRM to do repairs in accordance with 

a method approved by the Atlanta ACO. 

LAC stated that requiring ACO approval 

for repairs is an excessive regulatory 

burden and will likely result in 

excessive downtime for an airplane. 

LAC noted that it accomplishes repairs 

24 hours a day and 7 days a week and 

utilizes FAA DERs. LAC further stated 

that the repairs in the SRM are already 

FAA-approved, and there is no benefit 

to requiring additional ACO approval. 

We acknowledge the commenters’ 

concerns with requiring repairs to be 

approved by the Atlanta ACO. 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 or 

the DERs to develop a repair to support 

the request for approval of an AMOC. 

The sooner the operator can provide us 

with the recommended repair, whether 

developed with Lockheed Martin or 

DERs, 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. 

Regarding SRMs, the structural repair 

manual is accepted by the FAA, but is 

not FAA-approved, and may be changed 

in future revisions. In many instances, 

the Lockheed 382 SRM repairs did not 

take into consideration WFD. This SRM 

also does not include repairs for all 

areas of the center wings inspected as 

required by this AD. Also, since any 

new repairs might prevent the repair 

areas from being inspected as required 

by this AD, new inspections will have 

to be developed for the affected areas 

with new inspection intervals that have 

to be approved by the Atlanta ACO. We 

have not changed this AD in this regard. 

Request for Reports 

LAC requested that we include the 

reports referred to in the ‘‘Differences 

Between the Proposed AD and Relevant 

Service Information’’ section of the 

NPRM in the public docket. LAC asked 

what reports we referred to when we 

specified that ‘‘reports indicate that 

fatigue cracks are of sufficient size and 

density, requiring a shorter compliance 

time.’’ 

We do not agree to add reports to this 

AD or the public docket. There have 

been several accidents related to Model 

C–130A airplanes in which the wings 

separated from the airplane in flight as 

a result of fatigue cracks in the center 

wing. This information is available in 

National Transportation Safety Board 

reports. In addition, the military 

services have also had similar accidents 

on their Model C–130 airplanes. Also, 

there are service difficulty reports on 

the Model L–382 commercial fleet that 

are available on the FAA Web site. 

We have determined that existing 

inspections did not adequately address 

areas related to widespread fatigue 

damage that were often buried under 

existing structures. The reports we 

referred to are publicly available and are 

not reproduced in this AD. We have not 

revised this AD in this regard. 

Request To Require Reporting 

Lockheed requested that we revise 

paragraph (k) of the NPRM to require 

reporting instead of specifying that no 

reporting is required. Lockheed stated 

that it requires service data to properly 

maintain the flight safety of the Model 

382 airplanes. 

We do not agree to add a reporting 

requirement to this AD. Adding an 

additional requirement would further 

delay the publication of this AD because 

we would need to issue a supplemental 

NPRM. To delay this action would be 

inappropriate, since we have 

determined that an unsafe condition 

exists and that inspections must be 

conducted to ensure continued safety. 

We acknowledge the importance of 

operators reporting findings to the 

manufacturer and encourage operators 

to report findings, as specified in 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007. We have not changed this AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Allow Credit for Actions 

Done per Structural Maintenance Plan 

(SMP) Cards 

LAC requested that we give credit for 

accomplishment of Lockheed SMP515– 

C cards SP–216 (for Appendix A, if 

applicable) and/or SP–217 (for 

Appendix B, if applicable). LAC states 

that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57– 

83 (82–783), Revision 1, dated August 

22, 2006, contains a provision for this. 

We do not agree. As stated previously, 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–83 

(82–783), Revision 1, dated August 22, 

2006, including Appendix B, dated 

March 18, 2005, is not acceptable for 

credit for actions required by this AD. 

The corresponding SMP cards 

referenced in Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–83 (82–783), Revision 1, dated 

August 22, 2006, including Appendix B, 

dated March 18, 2005, also do not 

correspond to the actions required by 

this AD. We have not changed this AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Revise Public Comment 

Period 

LAC requested that we allow a 60-day 

comment period for NPRMs. LAC stated 

that this NPRM had only a 45-day 

comment period and that Executive 

Order 12866 specifies that in most cases 

the public comment period on any 

proposed regulation should be ‘‘of not 

less than 60 days.’’ LAC stated it did not 

see a justification for this NPRM to have 

a reduced comment period. 

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. We have not revised this AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Consider Significant 

Economic Impact of the NPRM 

Safair and LAC requested that we 

consider the significant economic 

impact of the NPRM. Safair stated that 

the NPRM would have a significant 

impact on the ability of nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:51 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
28630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

governmental organizations to deliver 

aid and relief. LAC stated that the 

NPRM could be considered to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

number of small entities. LAC stated the 

inspections would cost $350,000 per 

inspection and, therefore, would cost 

$2,100,000 over the life of an airplane, 

based on 10,000 work-hours per 

inspection. LAC noted the total cost for 

U.S. operators would be $31,500,000. 

We note that the numbers provided by 

LAC are higher than those specified in 

this AD (this AD specifies costs of 

$160,000 per airplane and $2,400,000 

for the U.S. fleet). The work-hour 

estimate in this AD is 2,000 work-hours, 

based on the estimate from the 

manufacturer. LAC’s work-hour 

estimate is considerably higher than the 

manufacturer’s estimate. In addition, 

LAC’s estimate for the life of an airplane 

is unlikely since most airplanes will not 

operate close to 100,000 flight hours. 

We have not revised this AD in this 

regard. 

Additionally, we are aware that some 

of the civilian operators use their Model 

382 airplanes for aid and relief 

missions, and we do not intend to 

interfere with those missions. However, 

this AD addresses an identified unsafe 

condition by requiring repetitive 

inspections to detect damage, including 

fatigue cracking, of the lower surface of 

the center wing box. This type of 

damage is a significant safety issue, and 

we have determined that the inspection 

threshold and repetitive intervals are 

warranted. The inspection threshold 

does include a grace period for the 

initial inspections in paragraph (g)(2) of 

this AD to allow operators additional 

time to coordinate the initial 

inspections. We have not changed this 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Consider Military Data 

Safair asked whether the FAA was 

aware of the Model 382 civilian fleet 

hours and cycles, as opposed to the 

military Model C–130 fleet status. Safair 

also noted that the data collected by the 

military is ‘‘readily transferable to the 

more sedately operated civilian version 

of the airplane.’’ 

We are aware of the data for both 

military and civilian versions of the 

airplane. We developed the compliance 

times in this AD to address the 

identified unsafe condition on the 

civilian Model 382 airplanes. We have 

not revised this AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise Service Bulletin To 

Address Flight Hours 

Safair requested that Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), 

Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, be 

revised to specify flight hours for 

civilian airplanes. Safair stated that 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007, refers to equivalent baseline hours 

(EBH) and not flight hours, while the 

NPRM refers to flight hours. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007, needs to be revised. The 

compliance times in this AD require 

compliance within the specified flight 

hours. Operators should not refer to 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

2007, for compliance times. Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), 

Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, 

refers to EBH to distinguish between 

military usage and commercial usage. 

EBH is the baseline used in the analysis 

of the data. The results of an 

investigation showed that civilian usage 

and military usage were very similar 

and, therefore, correspond one-to-one. 

Operators should note that under the 

provisions of paragraph (n) of the final 

rule, we will consider requests for 

adjustments to the compliance time if 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

such an adjustment would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. Operators are 

advised that an extension of the 

compliance times of this AD may be 

initiated by completing a Lockheed 

Martin operation usage evaluation and 

submitting it to the Atlanta ACO. We 

have not revised this AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify How Existing 

Repairs Are Addressed 

LAC asked how existing repairs 

would be addressed if the NPRM is 

adopted as proposed. 

We agree to provide clarification. 

Operators do not need to get approval 

from the Atlanta ACO for repairs done 

before the effective date of this AD. 

However, if an operator is unable to do 

an inspection required by this AD 

because of an existing repair, the 

operator must request approval of an 

AMOC to do the inspection. It should 

also be noted that all existing repairs 

will be evaluated during audits required 

by the Aging Aircraft Safety Rule, FAA– 

1999–5401, effective March 4, 2005 (70 

FR 5518, February 2, 2005). [A 

correction of that rule was published in 

the Federal Register on May 6, 2005 (70 

FR 23935).]. Any repair determined to 

be inadequate will have to be replaced 

with an FAA-approved repair that will 

require post-repair inspections. We have 

not changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise Flight Hour 

Reference 

LAC requested that we revise the 

reference to 22,000 flight hours in the 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Relevant Service Information’’ 

section of the NPRM. LAC noted that 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

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

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

E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated 

March 8, 2007, specifies 20,000 flight 

hours for that compliance time. 

We agree that 20,000 flight hours is 

the correct compliance time reference. 

However, the ‘‘Differences Between the 

Proposed AD and Relevant Service 

Information’’ section is not restated in 

the final rule. We have not changed this 

AD in this regard. 

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— 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 15 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 2,000 

work-hours per product to comply with 

inspection requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this AD for U.S. operators to be 

$2,550,000, or $170,000 per airplane. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary corrective action that 

would be required based on the results 

of the inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need corrective action. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 28631 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Corrective actions ....................... 1,000 to 3,000 work-hours × $85 per hour = $85,000 to $255,000 $30,000 $115,000 to $285,000. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, 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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2011–09–04 Lockheed Martin Corporation/ 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: 

Amendment 39–16666; Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1228; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–015–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD is effective June 22, 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 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 time 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, all Revision 1, all 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, all Revision 1, all 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, all Revision 1, all dated March 8, 

2007, specifies that alternative repetitive 

inspection 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, all Revision 1, all dated March 8, 

2007, describes procedures for submitting a 

report of any damages, this AD does not 

require such action. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(l) Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 1, 

dated March 8, 2007, are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(m) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), dated 

August 4, 2005, are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
28632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 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 the 

Related Information section 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. 

Related Information 

(o) For more information about this AD, 

contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 

(404) 474–5554; fax: (404) 474–5606; e-mail: 

Carl.W.Gray@faa.gov. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(p) You must use Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 2, 

dated August 23, 2007, including 

Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, all 

Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007, 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 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82– 

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

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

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

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 an NARA facility, 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. 2011–11900 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0348; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–069–AD; Amendment 

39–16701; AD 2011–08–51] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–300, –400, and 

–500 Series 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 emergency 

AD was sent previously to all known 

U.S. owners and operators of these 

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive 

external eddy current inspections of the 

lap joints at stringers S–4R and S–4L, 

along the entire length from body 

station (BS) 360 to BS 908. If a crack 

indication is found, the AD requires 

either confirming the crack by doing 

internal eddy current inspections, or 

repairing the crack. As an alternative to 

the external eddy current inspections, 

the AD provides for internal eddy 

current and detailed inspections for 

cracks in the lower skin at the lower 

row of fasteners at stringers S–4L and S– 

4R. This AD was prompted by a report 

indicating that a Model 737–300 series 

airplane experienced a rapid 

decompression when the lap joint at 

stringer S–4L between BS 664 and BS 

727 cracked and opened up due to 

cracking in the lower skin at the lower 

row of fasteners. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct such cracking, 

which could result in an uncontrolled 

decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 2, 2011 

to all persons except those persons to 

whom it was made immediately 

effective by Emergency AD 2011–08–51, 

issued on April 5, 2011, which 

contained the requirements of this 

amendment. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications identified in the 

AD as of June 2, 2011. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by July 5, 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: 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 AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations 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: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail: 

wayne.lockett@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On April 5, 2011, we issued 

Emergency AD 2011–08–51, which 

requires repetitive external eddy current 

inspections of the lap joints at stringers 

S–4R and S–4L, along the entire length 

from body station (BS) 360 to BS 908. 

If a crack indication is found, the AD 

requires either confirming the crack by 

doing internal eddy current inspections, 

or repairing the crack. As an alternative 

to the external eddy current inspections, 

the AD provides for internal eddy 

current and detailed inspections for 

cracks in the lower skin at the lower 

row of fasteners at stringers S–4L and 

S–4R. This action was prompted by a 

report indicating that a Model 737–300 

series airplane experienced a rapid 

decompression when the lap joint at 

stringer S–4L between BS 664 and BS 

727 cracked and opened up due to 

cracking in the lower skin at the lower 

row of fasteners. The airplane had 

accumulated 39,781 total flight cycles 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1