```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28626-28632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11900]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 re-accomplishment 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

[[Page 28628]]

(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 over-sizing. 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 Hi-Tigue 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

[[Page 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 non-

[[Page 28630]]

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.

[[Page 28631]]

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrective actions................  1,000 to 3,000 work-hours         $30,000  $115,000 to $285,000.
                                     x $85 per hour = $85,000
                                     to $255,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  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 cold-
worked 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.

[[Page 28632]]

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
```