Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48049 

For the reasons described above, this new 

AD requires repetitive tests and inspections 

of the air brake control system torsion tube 

and applicable corrective actions, depending 

on findings. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within the next 6 months after the 

effective date of this AD, remove, test, and 

inspect the air brake control system torsion 

tube for corrosion damage following 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work 

Instruction WI–MSB 36–105, dated April 21, 

2011, as specified in Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 

36–105/1, dated May 2, 2011. 

(2) If corrosion damage is found during the 

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

AD or during any repetitive inspection 

required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this 

AD, before further flight after the inspection 

in which corrosion damage is found, replace 

the affected torsion tube with a serviceable 

part. Before installation, apply an 

anticorrosive agent to the inside of the 

torsion tube. Do these required actions 

following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH 

Work Instruction WI–MSB 36–105, dated 

April 21, 2011. After replacement, 

repetitively thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 60 months, remove, test, and inspect 

the newly installed air brake control system 

torsion tube for corrosion damage following 

the procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

of this AD. 

(3) If no corrosion damage is found during 

the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD or during any repetitive inspection 

required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this 

AD, before reinstalling the torsion tube, 

apply an anticorrosive agent to the inside of 

the torsion tube. Do these required actions 

following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH 

Work Instruction WI–MSB 36–105, dated 

April 21, 2011. Repetitively thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 60 months, remove, 

test, and inspect the air brake control system 

torsion tube for corrosion damage following 

the procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

of this AD. 

(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install an air brake control system torsion 

tube on an affected airplane unless it has 

been inspected following the procedures 

specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, is 

found to be corrosion free, and an 

anticorrosive agent has been applied to the 

inside of the tube as specified in Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction 

WI–MSB 36–105, dated April 21, 2011. 

Note 1: Credit will be given for the initial 

test and inspection required in paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD and the corrective actions 

required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this 

AD if already done before the effective date 

of this AD following Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 

36–105, original issue. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; e-mail: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011–0110, 

dated June 16, 2011; Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 

36–105/1, dated May 2, 2011; and Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction 

WI–MSB 36–105, dated April 21, 2011, for 

related information. For service information 

related to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra+e 5, A–2700 

Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 

2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-mail: 

office@diamond-air.at; Internet: http:// 

www.diamond-air.at. You may review copies 

of the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 26, 

2011. 

Steven W. Thompson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20038 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0723; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–080–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed 

Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company Model L–1011 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to Model L–1011–385–1, L– 

1011–385–1–14, and L–1011–385–1–15 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires implementation of a 

Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID) program of structural inspections 

to detect fatigue cracking, and repair, if 

necessary, to ensure continued 

airworthiness of these airplanes as they 

approach the manufacturer’s original 

fatigue design life goal. Since we issued 

that AD, an evaluation by the 

manufacturer of usage and flight data 

provided additional information about 

certain Structurally Significant Details 

(SSDs) where fatigue damage is likely to 

occur. This proposed AD would add 

airplanes to the applicability, change 

certain inspection thresholds, add three 

new SSDs, and remove an SSD that has 

been addressed by a different AD. We 

are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue 

cracking that could compromise the 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 22, 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness 

Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column 

P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, 

Georgia 30063; phone: 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

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 (ACO), 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax 404– 

474–5606; e-mail: Carl.W.Gray@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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–2011–0723; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–080–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 

On December 5, 1995, we issued AD 

95–20–04 R1, Amendment 39–9454 (60 

FR 63414, December 11, 1995), for all 

Lockheed Model L–1011–385–1 series 

airplanes. That AD requires 

implementation of a Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID) program of 

structural inspections to detect fatigue 

cracking, and repair, if necessary, to 

ensure continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes as they approach the 

manufacturer’s original fatigue design 

life goal. That AD resulted from a 

structural re-evaluation by the 

manufacturer that identified certain 

structural details where fatigue damage 

is likely to occur. We issued that AD to 

prevent fatigue cracking that could 

compromise the structural integrity of 

these airplanes. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 95–20–04 R1, an 

evaluation by the manufacturer of usage 

and flight data provided additional 

information about certain SSDs where 

fatigue damage is likely to occur. 

Therefore, this proposed AD changes 

certain inspection thresholds and 

intervals for Model L–1011–385–1, L– 

1011–385–1–14, and L–1011–385–1–15 

airplanes, adds three new SSDs, and 

removes an SSD that has been addressed 

by AD 99–08–20, amendment 39–11128 

(64 FR 18324, April 14, 1999). AD 99– 

08–20 requires repetitive inspections to 

detect cracking of the bulkhead web and 

cap at fuselage station 1363, and repair 

if necessary. 

When we issued AD 95–20–04 R1, 

Model L–1011–385–3 airplanes were 

not included in the applicability. These 

long-range airplanes flew less frequently 

and were neither imminently 

approaching nor had exceeded the 

manufacturer’s original fatigue design 

life goal. In the NPRM for AD 95–20–04, 

Amendment 39–9382 (60 FR 51713, 

October 3, 1995) we stated that as these 

airplanes accumulated more hours timein-service, and as the critical area 

selection was developed and identified, 

we anticipated that these airplanes 

would be addressed in future 

rulemaking actions. We now have 

determined that further rulemaking is 

indeed necessary for these airplanes, 

and we have added them to the 

applicability of this proposed AD. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 

Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document,’’ revised April 2009 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Lockheed 

Document’’). The Lockheed Document 

describes procedures for supplemental 

inspections of SSDs for all Model L– 

1011 series airplanes. The Lockheed 

Document identifies SSDs in fuselage, 

stabilizer, and wing-critical areas. The 

Lockheed Document changes certain 

inspection thresholds, adds Model L– 

1011–353–3 airplanes to the effectivity, 

adds SSDs 57–3–10, 57–3–11, 57–4–1C, 

and removes SSD 53–4–3. The 

Lockheed Document also specifies that 

operators submit the results of these 

inspections to Lockheed. 

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 

requirements of AD 95–20–04 R1. This 

proposed AD would add Model L– 

1011–385–3 airplanes to the 

applicability, change certain inspection 

thresholds and intervals for Model L– 

1011–385–1, L–1011–385–1–14, and L– 

1011–385–1–15 airplanes, add three 

new SSDs for Model L–1011–385–3 

airplanes, and remove an SSD that has 

been addressed by a different AD action. 

This proposed AD would also require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously. This proposed AD would 

also require sending the inspection 

results to the manufacturer. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 95–20–04 R1. Since 

AD 95–20–04 R1 was issued, the AD 

format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in 

AD 95–20–04 

Corresponding 

requirement in this 

proposed AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (g) 

paragraph (b) paragraph (n) 

paragraph (c) paragraph (o) 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48051 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Number of 

airplanes 

affected 

Cost for U.S. operators 

Incorporate SID into maintenance program [retained actions from existing AD].550 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $46,750.

$0 $46,750 ............................. 26 $1,215,500. 

Initial inspections [retained 

actions from existing 

AD].

245 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $20,825.

0 $20,825 ............................. 26 $541,450. 

Repetitive inspections [retained actions from existing AD].52 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $4,420 per inspection cycle.

0 $4,420 per inspection 

cycle.

26 $114,920 per inspection 

cycle. 

Incorporate SID into maintenance program [new 

proposed action for 

Model L–1011–385–3 

airplanes].

1 work-hour × $85 = $85 .. 0 $85 .................................... 2 $170. 

Initial inspections [new proposed action for Model 

L–1011–385–3 airplanes].

48 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $4,080.

0 $4,080 ............................... 2 $8,160. 

Repetitive inspections 

[new proposed action for 

Model L–1011–385–3 

airplanes].

44 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $3,740 per inspection cycle.

0 $3,740 per inspection 

cycle.

2 $7,480 per inspection 

cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We 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) 

95–20–04 R1, Amendment 39–9454 (60 

FR 63414, December 11, 1995), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket 

No. FAA–2011–0723; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–080–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 22, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 95–20–04 R1, 

Amendment 39–9454. 

Applicability 

(c) All Lockheed Martin Corporation/ 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company 

Model L–1011–385–1, L–1011–385–1–14, L– 

1011–385–1–15, and L–1011–385–3 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by an evaluation 

by the manufacturer of usage and flight data 

that provided additional information about 

certain Structurally Significant Details (SSDs) 

where fatigue damage is likely to occur. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue 

cracking that could compromise the 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 95– 

20–04 R1: Revision and Inspections 

(g) For Model L–1011–385–1, L–1011–385– 

1–14, and L–1011–385–1–15 airplanes: 

Within 12 months after November 2, 1995 

(the effective date of AD 95–20–04 R1), 

incorporate a revision into the maintenance 

inspection program which provides for 

inspection(s) of the structurally significant 

details (SSD) defined in Lockheed Document 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

January 1994. Doing the revision required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the 

requirement to revise the maintenance 

inspections program specified in this 

paragraph. Doing the inspections required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the 

corresponding inspection requirements of 

this paragraph. 

(1) The initial inspection for each SSD 

must be performed at the later of the times 

specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(i) Within one repeat interval measured 

from November 2, 1996 (12 months after 

November 2, 1995). 

(ii) Prior to the threshold specified in 

Lockheed Document Number LG92ER0060, 

‘‘L–1011–385 Series Supplemental 

Inspection Document,’’ revised January 1994, 

for that SSD. 

(2) A 10 percent deviation from the 

repetitive interval specified in Lockheed 

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011– 

385 Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document,’’ revised January 1994, for that 

SSD is acceptable to allow for planning and 

scheduling time. 

(3) If Lockheed Document Number 

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

January 1994, specifies that inspection of any 

SSD be performed at every ‘‘C’’ check, those 

inspections must be performed at intervals 

not to exceed 5,000 hours time-in-service or 

2,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier. 

(4) If Lockheed Document Number 

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

January 1994, specifies either the initial 

inspection or the repetitive inspection 

intervals for any SSD in terms of flight hours 

or flight cycles, the inspection shall be 

performed prior to the earlier of the terms 

(whichever occurs first on the airplane: either 

accumulated number of flight hours, or 

accumulated number of flight cycles). 

(5) The non-destructive inspection 

techniques referenced in Appendix VI of 

Lockheed Document Number LG92ER0060, 

‘‘L–1011–385 Series Supplemental 

Inspection Document,’’ revised January 1994, 

provide acceptable methods for 

accomplishing the inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

New Requirements of this AD: New Revision 

(h) For all airplanes: Within 12 months 

after the effective date of this AD, incorporate 

a revision into the maintenance inspection 

program which provides for inspection(s) of 

the SSDs defined in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009. Doing this revision terminates 

the requirement to revise the maintenance 

inspection program as specified in paragraph 

(g) of this AD. 

Threshold and Intervals 

(i) For all airplanes: Do all applicable 

inspections specified in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009. Do the initial inspection or next 

repetitive inspection at the applicable time 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this 

AD, except as provided by paragraphs (j), (k), 

and (l) of this AD. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter in accordance with the intervals 

and actions specified in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009, except as provided by paragraphs 

(j), (k), and (l) of this AD. The nondestructive inspection techniques referenced 

in Lockheed Document Number 

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009, provide acceptable methods for 

accomplishing the inspections required by 

this AD. Doing the inspections required by 

this paragraph of this AD terminates the 

corresponding inspection requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(1) For Model L–1011–385–3 airplanes; 

and for Model L–1011–385–1, L–1011–385– 

1–14, and L–1011–385–1–15 airplanes on 

which the initial inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD has not been 

accomplished before the effective date of this 

AD: Do the initial inspection at the later of 

the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and 

(i)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within one repeat interval measured 

from a date 12 months after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(ii) Before the threshold specified for that 

SSD in Lockheed Document Number 

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009. 

(2) For Model L–1011–385–1, L–1011–385– 

1–14, and L–1011–385–1–15 airplanes on 

which the initial inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD has been 

accomplished before the effective date of this 

AD: Do the next repetitive inspection at the 

earlier of the times specified in paragraphs 

(i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within the next repetitive inspection 

interval specified in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

January 1994, for that SSD. 

(ii) Within one repeat interval measured 

from a date 12 months after the effective date 

of this AD; or within the next repetitive 

interval specified in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009, for that SSD; whichever occurs 

later. 

Exceptions to Threshold and Intervals 

(j) For all airplanes: A 10 percent deviation 

from the repetitive interval specified in 

Lockheed Document Number LG92ER0060, 

‘‘L–1011–385 Series Supplemental 

Inspection Document,’’ revised April 2009, 

for that SSD is acceptable to allow for 

planning and scheduling time. 

(k) For all airplanes: Where Lockheed 

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011– 

385 Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document,’’ revised April 2009, specifies that 

inspection of any SSD be performed at every 

‘‘C’’ check, those inspections must be 

performed at intervals not to exceed 5,000 

flight hours or 2,500 flight cycles, whichever 

occurs earlier. 

(l) For all airplanes: Where Lockheed 

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011– 

385 Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document,’’ revised April 2009, specifies 

either the initial inspection or the repetitive 

inspection intervals for any SSD in terms of 

flight hours or flight cycles, the inspection 

must be performed prior to the earlier of the 

terms (whichever occurs first on the airplane: 

either accumulated number of flight hours, or 

accumulated number of flight cycles). 

Exception to Inspection Procedure 

(m) For all airplanes: There should be no 

repair or modification work done in the 

inspection area before the initial inspections 

required by paragraph (i) of this AD; any 

changes in the inspection area could affect 

the inspection procedure. 

Repair 

(n) For all airplanes: If any cracking is 

found in any SSD during any inspection 

required by this AD, prior to further flight, 

repair in accordance with paragraph (n)(1), 

(n)(2), or (n)(3) of this AD: 

(1) In accordance with the applicable 

service bulletin referenced in Lockheed 

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011– 

385 Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document,’’ revised January 1994; or revised 

April 2009. After doing the revision required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD, repair in 

accordance with the applicable service 

bulletin referenced in Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009. 

(2) In accordance with the Structural 

Repair Manual or in accordance with 

Lockheed L–1011 Structural Repair Manual, 

Revision 80, dated December 15, 2009. As of 

the effective date of this AD, use Lockheed 

L–1011 Structural Repair Manual, Revision 

80, dated December 15, 2009. 

(3) In accordance with a method approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. 

Reporting 

(o) For all airplanes: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) 

of this AD, submit a report of the results 

(positive or negative) of the inspection(s) to 

Lockheed in accordance with Section V., 

Data Reporting System (DRS), of the 

applicable Lockheed Document specified in 

paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(1) Within 30 days after returning the 

airplane to service, subsequent to 

accomplishment of the inspection(s) 

specified in Lockheed Document Number 

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

January 1994; or Lockheed Document 

Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised 

April 2009. 

(2) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48053 

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement 

(p) A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act unless that collection of information 

displays a current valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number for this 

information collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of information is 

estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. All responses to 

this collection of information are mandatory. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of this 

burden and suggestions for reducing the 

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(q)(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 

(r) For more information about this AD, 

contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474– 

5606; e-mail: Carl.W.Gray@faa.gov. 

(s) 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; phone: 770–494– 

5444; fax: 770–494–5445; e-mail: 

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

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/ 

TechPubs.htm. 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 29, 

2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19968 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1130 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0053] 

Consumer Registration of Durable 

Infant or Toddler Products 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

104(d) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ or ‘‘we’’) 

issued a final consumer product safety 

rule requiring manufacturers of durable 

infant or toddler products to establish a 

consumer registration program. The 

Commission is proposing an 

amendment to clarify and correct some 

of the requirements of the rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0053, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail), except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information electronically. 

Such information should be submitted 

in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celestine T. Kiss, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7739; 

ckiss@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On December 29, 2009, we published 

a final rule requiring manufacturers of 

durable infant or toddler products to: (1) 

Provide with each product a postagepaid consumer registration form; (2) 

keep records of consumers who register 

such products with the manufacturer; 

and (3) permanently place the 

manufacturer’s name and contact 

information, model name and number, 

and the date of manufacture on each 

such product. 74 FR 68668. The rule 

specified formatting and text 

requirements for the registration forms. 

Subsequently, we published a 

correction notice on February 22, 2010. 

75 FR 7550. Since December 29, 2010, 

registration forms have been required 

for all durable infant or toddler products 

covered by the rule. 

Some manufacturers and testing 

laboratories have brought to our 

attention the need to clarify or correct 

certain aspects of the rule. We are 

proposing this amendment for that 

purpose. 

We note that, although manufacturers 

of durable infant or toddler products 

must comply with the registration 

requirements, they are not required to 

have a third party testing laboratory 

‘‘test’’ their product’s compliance with 

the registration requirements. 

B. Proposed Clarifications and 

Corrections 

1. Simplifying the Provisions for the 

Format and Text of Registration Forms 

(Proposed § 1130.6) 

The rule specifies requirements for 

the format of registration forms in 

§ 1130.6 and requirements for the text of 

registration forms in § 1130.7. Given the 

geometry of the registration forms, 

which have four surfaces (front, back, 

top, and bottom), we believe that it is 

confusing to explain the requirements in 

this way. Therefore, the proposed 

amendment would eliminate this 

framework, essentially collapsing the 

requirements from §§ 1130.6 and 1130.7 

into one section and clarifying them. 

Proposed § 1130.6 would describe the 

registration form more clearly, moving 

logically from the front top of the form 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS