37248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Part Number Identification 

Within 100 flight hours or 180 days, 

whichever occurs first after the effective date 

of this AD, inspect to determine the part 

number (P/N) of the fire extinguishing 

(FIREEX) check tee fitting, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this 

AD. 

(1) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A700–1A11–26–003, dated April 18, 2013 

(for Model BD–700–1A11 (BD–700) airplanes 

having S/Ns 9127 through 9383 inclusive; 

9389 through 9400 inclusive, 9404 through 

9431 inclusive, and 9998). 

(2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A700–26–010, dated April 18, 2013 (for 

Model BD–700–1A10 (BD–700) airplanes 

having S/Ns 9002 through 9312 inclusive, 

9314 through 9380 inclusive, and 9384 

through 9429 inclusive). 

(3) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A700–26–5002, dated April 18, 2013 (for 

Model BD–700–1A11 (BD–700) airplanes 

having S/Ns 9386, 9401, and 9445 through 

9498 inclusive). 

(4) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A700–26–6002, dated April 18, 2013 (for 

Model BD–700–1A10 (BD–700) airplanes 

having S/Ns 9313, 9381, and 9432 through 

9500 inclusive). 

(h) Measurement and Replacement 

If any inspection specified in paragraph (g) 

of this AD reveals any check tee fitting 

having P/N 446651 and S/N 062 through 070 

inclusive, 117 through 133 inclusive, 3728 

through 3731 inclusive, 3733 through 3760 

inclusive, or 3762 through 3776 inclusive: 

Within 100 flight hours or 180 days, 

whichever occurs first after the effective date 

of this AD, measure the depth of the inlet 

fitting of the check tee, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this 

AD. If the check tee depth is less than 1.70 

inches (4.32 cm), before further flight, replace 

the check tee in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin identified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this 

AD. 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. 

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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, use these actions if they are 

FAA-approved. Corrective actions are 

considered FAA-approved if they were 

approved by the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State 

of Design Authority’s design organization 

approval, as applicable). You are required to 

ensure the product is airworthy before it is 

returned to service. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2013–41, dated 

December 30, 2013, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating it in Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0424. 

(2) For Bombardier service information 

identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514– 

855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email thd.crj@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://

www.bombardier.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 

2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15378 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0427; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–218–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–09– 

04, which applies to all Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 

382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. AD 

2011–09–04 currently requires 

repetitive inspections for any damage of 

the lower surface of the center wing box, 

and corrective actions if necessary. 

Since we issued AD 2011–09–04, an 

evaluation by the design approval 

holder (DAH) indicated that the center 

wing box is subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed 

AD would also require replacement of 

the center wing box, which would 

terminate the repetitive inspections. 

This proposed AD would also add a 

concurrent related investigative action. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking of the lower 

surface of the center wing box, which 

could result in structural failure of the 

wings. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness 

Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column 

P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 

30063; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 

770–494–5445; email ams.portal@

lmco.com; Internet http://

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/

TechPubs.html. You may view this 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37249 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 

30337; telephone 404–474–5554; fax 

404–474–5605; email: carl.w.gray@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0427; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–218–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Structural fatigue damage is 

progressive. It begins as minute cracks, 

and those cracks grow under the action 

of repeated stresses. This can happen 

because of normal operational 

conditions and design attributes, or 

because of isolated situations or 

incidents such as material defects, poor 

fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, 

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can 

occur locally, in small areas or 

structural design details, or globally. 

Global fatigue damage is general 

degradation of large areas of structure 

with similar structural details and stress 

levels. Multiple-site damage is global 

damage that occurs in a large structural 

element such as a single rivet line of a 

lap splice joining two large skin panels. 

Global damage can also occur in 

multiple elements such as adjacent 

frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage 

cracks are typically too small initially to 

be reliably detected with normal 

inspection methods. Without 

intervention, these cracks will grow, 

and eventually compromise the 

structural integrity of the airplane, in a 

condition known as widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, 

WFD will likely occur, and will 

certainly occur if the airplane is 

operated long enough without any 

intervention. 

The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR 

69746, November 15, 2010) became 

effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD 

rule requires certain actions to prevent 

structural failure due to WFD 

throughout the operational life of 

certain existing transport category 

airplanes and all of these airplanes that 

will be certificated in the future. For 

existing and future airplanes subject to 

the WFD rule, the rule requires that 

DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) 

of the engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program. 

Operators affected by the WFD rule may 

not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, 

unless an extended LOV is approved. 

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) does not require 

identifying and developing maintenance 

actions if the DAHs can show that such 

actions are not necessary to prevent 

WFD before the airplane reaches the 

LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend 

on accomplishment of future 

maintenance actions. As stated in the 

WFD rule, any maintenance actions 

necessary to reach the LOV will be 

mandated by airworthiness directives 

through separate rulemaking actions. 

In the context of WFD, this action is 

necessary to enable DAHs to propose 

LOVs that allow operators the longest 

operational lives for their airplanes, and 

still ensure that WFD will not occur. 

This approach allows for an 

implementation strategy that provides 

flexibility to DAHs in determining the 

timing of service information 

development (with FAA approval), 

while providing operators with certainty 

regarding the LOV applicable to their 

airplanes. 

On April 12, 2011, we issued AD 

2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 

FR 28626, May 18, 2011), for all 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company Model 

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

airplanes. AD 2011–09–04 requires 

repetitive inspections for any damage of 

the lower surface of the center wing box, 

and corrective actions if necessary. AD 

2011–09–04 resulted from reports of 

fatigue cracks of the lower surface of the 

center wing box. We issued AD 2011– 

09–04 to detect and correct such cracks, 

which could result in the structural 

failure of the wings. 

Actions Since AD 2011–09–04 Was 

Issued 

Since we issued AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, 

May 18, 2011), the DAH completed an 

evaluation that indicated removal of a 

recurring inspection, establishment of a 

terminating action, and reference to 

certain center wing box replacement 

service information is necessary to 

safeguard the airplane against WFD up 

to the LOV of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Lockheed Service 

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

3, dated July 8, 2013, including 

Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, and 

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

Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007. 

This service information is essentially 

the same as 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, which is 

referred to as the appropriate source of 

service information in AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, 

May 18, 2011). Revision 3 adds a 

concurrent related investigative action, 

which involves a bolt hole eddy current 

inspection for cracking at additional 

fastener locations. 

We also reviewed Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–94, dated December 3, 

2013, which describes procedures for 

replacement of the center wing box. 

Accomplishing the replacement 

eliminates the need for repetitive 

inspections. 

Other Relevant Rulemaking 

Accomplishing the replacement of the 

center wing box specified in paragraph 

(k) of this proposed AD affects the 

requirements of the following ADs: 

• AD 2011–09–03, Amendment 39– 

16665 (77 FR 22311, April 21, 2011), 

which 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. We issued this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracks, which could 

grow large and lead to the failure of the 

fitting and a catastrophic failure of the 

center wing. 

• AD 2011–15–02, Amendment 39– 

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

which superseded AD 2008–20–01, 

Amendment 39–15680 (73 FR 56464, 

September 29, 2008). AD 2011–15–02 

continues to require revising the 

maintenance program by incorporating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

new airworthiness limitations for fuel 

tank systems to satisfy the requirements 

of Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’ Amendment 

21–78, and subsequent Amendments 

21–82 and 21–83), which is part of a 

regulation titled ‘‘Transport Airplane 

Fuel Tank System Design Review, 

Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). AD 2011–15–02 also continues to 

require accomplishing certain fuel 

system modifications, initial inspections 

of certain repetitive fuel system 

limitations to phase in those 

inspections, and repair if necessary. AD 

2011–15–02 corrects certain part 

number references, adds an additional 

inspection area and, for certain 

airplanes, requires certain actions to be 

re-accomplished according to revised 

service information. AD 2011–15–02 

was issued to prevent the potential for 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused 

by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or 

maintenance actions, which, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

• AD 2012–06–09, Amendment 39– 

16990 (77 FR 21404, April 10, 2012), 

which requires revising the 

maintenance/inspection program to 

include inspections that will give no 

less than the required damage tolerance 

analysis for each principal structural 

element (PSE), doing repetitive 

inspections to detect cracks of all PSEs, 

and repairing cracked structure. We 

issued this AD to maintain the 

continued structural integrity of the 

fleet. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain all of 

the requirements of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, 

May 18, 2011). This proposed AD would 

also require replacement of the center 

wing box, which would terminate the 

repetitive inspections. This proposed 

AD would add a concurrent related 

investigative action, which involves a 

bolt hole eddy current inspection for 

cracking at additional fastener locations. 

We revised the phrase 

‘‘accomplishment of the service 

bulletin’’ in paragraph (g)(3) of AD 

2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 

FR 28626, May 18, 2011), to specify 

‘‘accomplishment of the inspection 

specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.’’ 

We also have removed Note 1 of AD 

2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 

FR 28626, May 18, 2011). The text in 

Note 1 is informational and is not a 

requirement of this proposed AD. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Although the service information 

specifies that operators may contact the 

manufacturer for using adjusted 

thresholds and intervals, using 

alternative repetitive inspection 

intervals, and using alternative 

inspection methods, this proposed AD 

would require operators to obtain 

approval of any alternative thresholds, 

intervals, or inspection methods from 

the FAA. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

replacement specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

replaced before WFD develops in the 

affected airplanes. Standard inspection 

techniques cannot be relied on to detect 

WFD before it becomes a hazard to 

flight. We will not grant any extensions 

of the compliance time to complete any 

AD-mandated service information 

related to WFD without extensive new 

data that would substantiate and clearly 

warrant such an extension. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection [retained action from AD 

2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 

(76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011)].

2,000 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$170,000.

N/A ......................... $170,000 $2,550,000 per inspection cycle. 

Replacement [new proposed action] ...... 4,800 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$408,000.

$5,000,000 ............. 5,408,000 $81,120,000. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary repair that would be 

required. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need this repair: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Repair [retained from AD 2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011)].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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37251 

safety in air commerce. This proposed 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority because it addresses an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2011–09–04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 

FR 28626, May 18, 2011), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket 

No. FAA–2014–0427; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–218–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by August 15, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

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

382G airplanes; certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) that 

indicated the center wing box is subject to 

widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the lower surface of the center 

wing box, which could result in structural 

failure of the wings. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Inspection With Revised Service 

Information 

This paragraph restates the actions 

required by paragraph (g) of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011), with revised service information. 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; or 

Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013, including 

Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, and 

Appendixes 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. As of the effective 

date of this AD, use only Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 3, 

dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix A, 

dated July 8, 2013, and Appendixes B, C, D, 

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

8, 2007, for the actions required by this 

paragraph. 

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 

total flight hours on the center wing. 

(2) Within 365 days after June 22, 2011 (the 

effective date of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011). 

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

wing box after the accomplishment of the 

inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, if done before June 22, 2011 (the 

effective date of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011). 

(h) Retained Corrective Action With No 

Changes 

This paragraph restates the actions 

required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011), with no changes. If any damage is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of 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. 

(i) Retained Exceptions 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, With 

No Changes 

(1) This paragraph restates the exception in 

paragraph (i) of AD 2011–09–04, Amendment 

39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with 

no changes. 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. 

(2) This paragraph restates the exception in 

paragraph (j) of AD 2011–09–04, Amendment 

39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with 

no changes. 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 cold-worked holes, this AD 

does not allow the longer interval. This AD 

requires that all cold-worked and non-coldworked holes be re-inspected at 10,000-flighthour intervals. 

(3) This paragraph restates the exception in 

paragraph (k) of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011), with no changes. 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. 

(j) New Inspection and Corrective Action 

As of the effective date of this AD, 

concurrently with accomplishing the 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD: Do all applicable related investigative 

actions, in accordance with Appendix A of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 (82– 

790), Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013. If any 

cracking or damage is found during any 

related investigative action: Before further 

flight, repair all cracking and damage, using 

a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(k) New Replacement (Terminating Action) 

Before the accumulation of 50,000 total 

flight hours, or within 24 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later: Replace the center wing box, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 

382–57–94, dated December 3, 2013. 

Accomplishing the replacement terminates 

the inspections required by this AD. 

Note 1 to paragraph (k) of this AD: A note 

in the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–94, dated 

December 3, 2013, instructs operators to 

contact Lockheed if any assistance is needed 

in accomplishing the service bulletin. 

However, any deviation from the instructions 

provided in the service information must be 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) as specified in 

paragraph (n) of this AD. 

(l) New Exceptions to Lockheed Service 

Bulletin 382–57–85 (82–790), Revision 3, 

Dated July 8, 2013, Including Appendix A, 

Dated July 8, 2013, and Appendixes B, C, D, 

E, and G, all Revision 1, All Dated March 

8, 2007 

(1) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013, 

including Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, 

and Appendixes 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. However, this AD 

requires that any alternative thresholds, 

intervals, or inspection methods be approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. For any 

alternative thresholds, intervals, or 

inspection methods to be approved by the 

Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this 

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter 

must specifically refer to this AD. 

(2) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–85 (82–790), Revision 3, dated July 8, 

2013, including Appendix A, dated July 8, 

2013, and Appendixes 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. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph restates the credit 

provided in paragraph (l) of AD 2011–09–04, 

Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 

2011). This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (g) of AD, if 

those actions were performed before June 22, 

2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–09–04), 

using Lockheed Service Bulletin 382–57–85 

(82–790), Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007, 

which is not incorporated by reference in this 

AD. 

(2) This paragraph restates the credit 

provided in paragraph (m) of AD 2011–09– 

04, Amendment 39–16666 (76 FR 28626, May 

18, 2011). This paragraph provides credit for 

the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD, 

if those actions were performed before June 

22, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–09– 

04), using Lockheed Service Bulletin 382– 

57–85 (82–790), dated August 4, 2005, which 

is not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(3) This paragraph provides credit for the 

replacement required by paragraph (k) of AD, 

if the replacement was performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Lockheed 

Service Bulletin 382–57–90, dated November 

5, 2010, which is not incorporated by 

reference in this AD. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) 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; telephone 

404–474–5554; fax 404–474–5605; email: 

carl.w.gray@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, 

Zone 0252, Column P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, 

Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770–494– 

5444; fax 770–494–5445; email ams.portal@

lmco.com; Internet http:// 

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/ 

TechPubs.html. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 

2014. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15381 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

14 CFR Part 1204 

[Docket No: NASA–2014–0007] 

RIN 2700–AE10 

NASA Protective Services 

Enforcement 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NASA is proposing to amend 

its regulations by adding a subpart to 

establish traffic enforcement 

regulations, authorities, and procedures 

at all NASA Centers and component 

facilities. The revisions to this rule are 

part of NASA’s retrospective plan under 

EO 13563 completed in August 2011. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified with RIN 2700–AE10 and 

may be sent to NASA via the Federal ERulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Lombard, charles.e.lombard@

nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON: 

Background 

Part 1204 describes the legal basis and 

other applicable NASA regulations 

related to the NASA’s security and law 

enforcement services implementation 

requirements, of which was 

promulgated March 28, 1972 [38 FR 

8056]. Changes are being made to align 

this part with NASA objectives in the 

protection of its people and property. 

It is the policy of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

that an effective, standardized, and 

comprehensive traffic safety program be 

established and maintained at NASA 

Headquarters, NASA Centers, including 

Component and Technical Service 

Support Centers. A traffic safety 

program is essential for the protection 

and security of NASA bases, stations, 

facilities, laboratories, and of its aircraft, 

spacecraft, missiles and similar vehicles 

and of its real and personal property, 

including property in the custody of 

NASA contractors and subcontractors. 

Further, at this time, NASA does not 

have a regulation to enforce (including 

criminalizing) such requirements such 

as speeding, improper or unsafe 

parking, unsafe operation of motor 

vehicles, and similar minor and/or petty 

traffic infractions. As a result, currently, 

the Agency can only issue 

administrative traffic citations that are 

written warnings, with insufficient 

consequences, and accordingly, that 

have very limited positive impact on 

safety and security at or on its many 

facilities. Currently, as a non-Federal 

administrative infraction, minor traffic 

offenses cannot be assimilated using 

Title 18, Section 13, Assimilative 

Crimes Act. Therefore, currently NASA 

Protective Services (including 

contractor Security Officers) are unable 

to issue District Court Violation Notices 

(DCVN) for such obvious safety-related, 

traffic offenses such as speeding. Traffic 

infractions remain a constant safety 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS