Document ID: FAA-2010-0233-0006
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Lockheed Martin Corp./Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Airplanes
Posted Date: 2011-04-21T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22311-22316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9285]

[[Page 22311]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD; 
Amendment 39-16665; AD 2011-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 
Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This AD requires 
repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the center wing 
upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if necessary; 
and repetitive replacements of rainbow fittings, which would extend the 
repetitive interval for the next inspection. This AD results from a 
report of fatigue cracking of the wing upper and lower rainbow fittings 
during durability testing and on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-
service cracking has shown that these rainbow fittings are susceptible 
to multiple site fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and 
correct such fatigue cracks, which could grow large and lead to the 
failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

DATES: This AD is effective May 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb 
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-
5445; e-mail ams.portal@lmco.com; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 
474-5554; fax: (404) 474-5606; e-mail: Carl.W.Gray@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
all Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. That NPRM was 
published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13695). That 
NPRM proposed to require repetitive eddy current inspections to detect 
cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and 
corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacements of rainbow 
fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next 
inspection.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received from the three commenters.

Support for the NPRM

    Lynden Air Cargo (LAC) stated that it concurs with the intent of 
the NPRM.

Request To Extend Comment Period

    LAC requested that we allow at least 60 days for the comment 
period. LAC stated that Executive Order 12866 provides for comment 
periods of ``not less than 60 days.'' LAC pointed out that the comment 
period for the NPRM closes 45 days after it was published. LAC stated 
that it does not see a justification for a reduced comment period 
because Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82 was originally published on 
December 7, 2004, and because it was not an alert bulletin, and was 
approved by the FAA.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the comment 
period. While Executive Order 12866 does not specifically require a 60-
day comment period for AD actions, the FAA has established a standard 
45-day comment period for AD actions issued as NPRMs. In addition, the 
Administrative Procedure Act does not prescribe a specific amount of 
time for comment periods. No change to the final rule is necessary in 
regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Reporting Requirements

    LAC requested that we clarify the reporting requirements. LAC 
stated that the NPRM would require sending the inspection results to 
Lockheed, but LAC stated that it could not find the requirement in the 
regulatory requirements of the NPRM.
    We find that clarification is necessary. While this AD does not 
require reporting inspection results, operators are encouraged to 
report their findings to the manufacturer. We have not changed the 
final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify the Meaning of Interim Action

    LAC requested that we clarify the meaning of interim action. LAC 
asked why the FAA considers the NPRM to be interim action and if any 
other requirements are under consideration that may override or change 
the proposed requirements.
    We agree to provide clarification. We consider this final rule to 
be an interim action because no terminating action for the inspections 
exists at this time. If the rainbow fitting is replaced, that action 
zeros out the time for the requirements, but the initial and repetitive 
inspections are required on the new fitting. At this time, no 
terminating action exists. However, the manufacturer might redesign the 
rainbow fitting, which could extend the life of the fitting and change 
the inspection requirements, or provide a terminating action for the 
inspections. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this 
issue.

Request To Clarify Cracking in Paragraph (k) of the NPRM

    LAC requested that we change ``any crack'' in paragraph (k) of the 
NPRM to ``any crack is detected in the rainbow fitting.'' The commenter 
did not provide a reason for this request.
    We agree with the commenter's request. During inspections required 
by this AD, cracks may be found in the surrounding structure (i.e., not 
in the rainbow fitting itself). Many of these cracks can be repaired 
and do not require replacing the rainbow fitting. However, as stated in 
paragraph (k) of the NPRM, only those cracks found in the rainbow 
fitting require replacing the rainbow fitting. We have changed 
paragraph (k) of the final rule to clarify that replacement is required 
only if

[[Page 22312]]

cracking is detected ``in the rainbow fitting.''

Request To Clarify Requirements for Repairing Cracking in Paragraphs 
(g) and (h) of the NPRM

    LAC requested that we clarify the requirements for repairing 
cracking. LAC stated that if cracks are found on the rainbow fitting 
during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM, then it 
believed that the rainbow fitting should be replaced as required by 
paragraph (k) of the NPRM, instead of paragraph (l) as stated in the 
NPRM. LAC also questioned the wording in paragraph (h) of the NPRM that 
states ``Any cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph 
(h) of this AD must be repaired before further flight in accordance 
with the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD.'' LAC stated 
that it believes that if cracks are found on the rainbow fitting then 
it should be replaced according to the requirements of paragraph (k) of 
the NPRM.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The commenter states 
correctly that if cracks are found in the rainbow fitting, the fitting 
must be replaced in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD. Cracking 
in other areas must be repaired (i.e., ``corrective actions'' must be 
done), as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
    We corrected typographical errors in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the 
NPRM to refer to paragraph (k) of this AD, rather than paragraph (l) of 
this AD. We also changed the phrases referring to repairs in paragraphs 
(g) and (h) of this AD to instead refer to doing the actions required 
by paragraph (k) of the AD. In addition, we changed the header for 
paragraph (k) of this AD to clarify that the paragraph identifies the 
replacement, related investigative actions, and corrective actions.
    Further, paragraph (l) of this final rule specifies an exception to 
paragraphs (i) and (k) of this AD. Paragraph (l) requires repairing 
certain conditions using a method approved by the Manager of the 
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). We added a reference to 
this exception in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    LAC and Safair Operations (Safair) requested that we extend the 
grace period of 600 flight hours for the initial inspection for 
airplanes that have accumulated more flight cycles than the 5,000-
flight-cycle threshold. Any replacement, if necessary, must be done 
before further flight. LAC stated that 600 flight hours is not adequate 
to replace the rainbow fittings. LAC recommended that we revise the 
compliance time for the replacement to ``before the accumulation of 
30,000 flight hours on the fitting or within 3,000 flight hours after 
the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.'' LAC stated that 
this proposed compliance time would allow the rainbow fitting to be 
replaced at the next scheduled C-check, and would reduce unscheduled 
down time, and maximize maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) 
efficiencies. LAC stated that its entire fleet of six Model 382G 
airplanes is already over the 30,000-flight-hour limit and will require 
rainbow fitting replacements.
    Safair also stated that the 365-day or 600-flight-hour compliance 
time for the initial inspection is not sufficient to allow a phased-in 
scheduling of this inspection and potential replacement. Safair 
requested that the inspection and replacement be scheduled at the next 
3- or 6-year structural check to allow for the most efficient use of 
planned downtime and least interruption to operational schedules. 
Safair stated that this revised compliance time would allow for the 
successful provisioning of the required materials and tools as the 
parts and specific fasteners have significant lead times. LAC also 
stated that it believes that only a limited number of MROs are capable 
of replacing the rainbow fittings with a limited number of slots 
available.
    We do not agree with the request to extend the compliance time. We 
are aware that some operators use the Model 382 airplanes for aid and 
relief missions. We do not intend to interfere with these missions, and 
that is why we have provided a grace period of 600 flight hours to 
replace the rainbow fittings. We consider this safety issue resulting 
from the fatigue cracking in the area to be serious enough to require 
that replacement of the rainbow fittings be accomplished at the 
required time. We find that exceeding the limits required by this AD 
would not provide an adequate level of safety. We have not changed the 
final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Justify the Requirement for the Manager of the Atlanta ACO 
to Approve Repairs

    Lockheed Martin Aircraft and Logistic Centers (Lockheed Martin) 
requested that we provide justification for requiring repairs to be 
approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by paragraph (l) of 
the NPRM. Lockheed Martin stated that this requirement creates an 
excessive regulatory burden for operators and the FAA, and it could 
result in excessive down time. Lockheed Martin stated that it 
accomplishes maintenance and repairs around the clock, using designated 
engineering representatives. Lockheed Martin also stated that this 
requirement would require operators to essentially work the same 
schedule as the ACO, which would result in loss of airplane 
availability and subsequent loss of revenue, and that would be an 
excessive regulatory burden.
    We agree to explain the rationale for this requirement. Lockheed 
Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and 
C, dated May 20, 2009, specifies to contact the manufacturer for 
disposition of certain damage that exceeds certain repair limits. 
However, in such cases, requiring in an AD that operators contact the 
manufacturer for disposition of damage would be delegating our 
rulemaking authority to that manufacturer. Instead, we require that the 
action be done in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, as 
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    If operators notify the FAA immediately when a crack is found 
during an inspection, the FAA should have adequate time to respond. 
Operators also should contact Lockheed Martin with any finding, and 
work with it to develop a repair to support the request for approval of 
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). The sooner the operator can 
provide us with the recommended repair, the sooner we can review it and 
approve it. If we find an issue with the proposed repair, we will 
notify the operator as soon as possible to resolve the issue and to 
limit potential airplane downtime. We have not changed the final rule 
in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Testing

    Safair requested that we clarify the details of the durability 
testing that resulted in reports of fatigue cracking. Safair pointed 
out that the Summary paragraph of the NPRM states ``the proposed AD 
results from a report of fatigue cracking of the upper and lower 
rainbow fittings during durability testing and on in-service 
airplanes.'' Safair stated that it is not aware of any durability 
testing carried out on civilian airplanes. Furthermore, Safair asked if 
the details of the testing and the results can be shared with industry. 
Safair noted some operational civilian airplanes have airframes that 
have accumulated more than 90,000 flight hours, so they have actually 
served as a real-time durability test.
    We agree to provide clarification. Safair is correct that no 
durability testing was carried out on civilian airplanes. However, 
there was a full-

[[Page 22313]]

scale fatigue test performed on military airplanes based on military 
usage. The initial and recurring inspection intervals were based on a 
typical military transport usage and were referred to as ``baseline 
usage.'' Recent analysis performed by Lockheed Martin on the commercial 
Model 382 airplane indicated that commercial operational usage has a 
severity relative to the baseline usage of approximately 1.0. We cannot 
share the details of the testing with industry because they are 
proprietary data of Lockheed Martin. We are aware that there are 
airplanes with over 90,000 flight hours still in service, but we also 
believe that these airplanes have already had the rainbow fittings 
replaced at least once. We have not changed the final rule in regard to 
this issue.

Request To Provide Rationale for Addressing Only Inboard Fittings

    Safair requested that we provide rationale for addressing only the 
inboard fittings. Safair stated that it has experienced in-service 
cracking on upper and lower fittings, both inboard and outboard. Safair 
stated that it does not understand why the NPRM addresses only the 
inboard upper and lower fittings. Safair stated if the AD will address 
an unsafe condition, then all rainbow fittings need to be addressed.
    We agree to provide clarification. The unsafe condition, which 
results from a design flaw, applies only to the inboard fitting. The 
same problem has not been observed on the outboard fittings, which is a 
different design. However, the outboard fitting should still be 
inspected in accordance with the maintenance program. If cracks exist 
in the inboard fitting that exceed the rework limits, the fitting must 
be replaced in accordance with this final rule. The outboard side does 
not exhibit the same cracking because the outboard fitting has been 
redesigned and refit. At this time, we have not received significant 
findings to warrant AD action on outboard fittings. We have not changed 
the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Explain Data Collection

    Safair requested that we explain the data collection that justifies 
taking AD action. Safair stated that the cracks it observed in the past 
were not reported to Lockheed Martin and were not signs of multi-site 
fatigue damage, but rather isolated single instances of cracking, 
apparently brought on by poor installation or milling of nodes at 
previous assembly. Safair stated that, as Lockheed Martin did not have 
an FAA-approved method of rainbow fitting replacement, it has 
historically used Designated Engineering Representative (DER) approved 
repair schemes based on military procedures.
    Safair stated that Lockheed Martin is not fully aware of all the 
historical events relating to rainbow fitting changes on the civilian 
fleet because no reporting requirement existed to provide this 
information back to Lockheed Martin. Safair stated that, as a result, 
the actual data related to civilian-operated Model 382 airplanes would 
appear to be contaminated by military data, and the military Model C-
130 airplanes operate under a different flight regime and severity of 
operations.
    Safair stated that the FAA's assertion that it has evaluated all 
relevant information is inaccurate because the full data of historical 
findings have not been available or collated by anyone in the industry. 
Safair stated the NPRM would require sending inspection results back to 
Lockheed Martin, and, as such, it is apparent that no historical 
requirement existed to send these data back to Lockheed Martin.
    We find that clarification is necessary. Safair's assertion that 
this AD requires sending inspection results to Lockheed Martin is 
incorrect. As explained previously, this AD does not require reporting 
inspection results.
    Most Model 382 operators contact Lockheed Martin for assistance 
when cracks are found in the rainbow fittings to request instructions 
for repair or replacement. Lockheed Martin maintains a database of this 
information. In addition, operators are required by section 121.703 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 121.703) to report the 
occurrence or detection of certain failures, malfunctions, or defects. 
Additionally, although data exist from military airplanes, significant 
data are collected on the civilian fleet.
    Results of fatigue testing on the wings have identified this area 
as the location of multi-site fatigue damage. Such damage has not been 
identified on in-service airplanes because the single lead crack has 
been identified and addressed before widespread fatigue damage is 
detected. Once widespread fatigue damage occurs, the wing can no longer 
carry the limit load and can fail.
    Lockheed Martin has a repair drawing, which is approved by the FAA, 
to replace the rainbow fitting. Safair is correct that the repair 
drawing that has been used in the past is DER-approved, which makes it 
FAA-approved. However, when it was determined that an AD was required, 
we required that Lockheed Martin include procedures for replacing the 
rainbow fitting in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, which we 
approved.
    No change to this AD is necessary in regard to this issue.

Request To Explain Benefit of Replacement Part

    Safair requested that we explain the benefit of the replacement 
part. Safair also noted that it is also prudent to note that Lockheed 
Martin has developed an ``improved'' rainbow fitting, which is 
currently in process of military approval/release. Safair asked how use 
of this improved part will affect the proposed AD, as the proposed AD 
makes no reference to part numbers of rainbow fittings, and the 
referenced service bulletin covers only the unimproved rainbow 
fittings. Safair stated as the release of this part is imminent, and if 
the rainbow fitting issue is of sufficient concern to FAA, it would 
seem to make sense to work with Lockheed Martin to release the improved 
fitting and mandate its use under AD to ensure the best material be 
built into the civilian fleet. Safair asked if the FAA considered this 
as a way forward.
    We agree to provide clarification. Lockheed Martin has informed us 
that there are released drawings for a hybrid rainbow fitting that 
incorporates as much of the Extended Service Life (ESL) rainbow fitting 
as possible into a configuration that would fit on a standard center 
wing. This fitting has not been completely analyzed or tested and the 
life of the hybrid part on commercial aircraft has not been evaluated. 
There are no parts available or in production. If Lockheed Martin 
chooses to make the parts available for sale then they will be 
evaluated and, if acceptable, we might consider additional rulemaking. 
The operator can also seek approval of an AMOC to install the new 
approved parts. We consider this a safety issue that must be addressed 
as soon as possible and cannot wait for Lockheed Martin to complete 
their evaluation and production of the new part. Lockheed Martin has 
informed us that it would be at least three years before the parts were 
available for sale if they started production today, and there is no 
plan to start production. We have not changed the final rule in regard 
to this issue.

Request To Clarify Requirements for Airplanes that Have Accumulated 
More Than 75,000 Flight Hours

    Safair requested that we clarify the requirements for airplanes 
that have accumulated more than 75,000 flight

[[Page 22314]]

hours on the center wings. Safair asked if it is assumed that all 
airplanes that exceed the initial threshold for airframe flight hours 
are automatically assumed to have rainbow fittings exceeding the 
initial threshold. Safair stated that some airplanes which are in daily 
service have accumulated more than 75,000 flight hours on the center 
wings.
    Safair stated that several of these airplanes have a long title and 
previous ownership line, and it is not known when and if the rainbow 
fittings were previously changed because they are not serialized; and 
no requirement has existed to track their lives to date. Safair pointed 
out that this raises the question as to how the proposed AD will be 
implemented on those airplanes that have accumulated a high number of 
flight hours. Safair asked if an ``assumption'' is being made that all 
airplanes exceeding the initial threshold for airframe flight hours 
automatically are assumed to have rainbow fittings exceeding the 
initial threshold.
    We agree to provide clarification. If there is no record of the 
rainbow fitting being previously replaced and if the airplane has 
accumulated more than 30,000 total flight hours, then the rainbow 
fitting must be replaced within 600 flight hours after the effective 
date of the AD. If there is a record of the rainbow fitting being 
replaced but the time on the new rainbow fitting exceeds 30,000 flight 
hours, then it must be replaced within 600 flight hours, as required by 
paragraph (i) of this AD. If the rainbow fitting has accumulated less 
than 30,000 total flight hours, it must be inspected until 30,000 total 
flight hours are accumulated on the rainbow fitting, and then the 
rainbow fitting must be replaced, as required by paragraph (i) of this 
AD. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Update Service Information

    Safair noted that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, 
dated May 20, 2009, has been released and asked that the NPRM be 
revised to refer to the most current service information.
    We agree. We have revised this final rule to refer to Lockheed 
Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and 
C, dated May 20, 2009. That service bulletin contains a change to the 
parts supply address, and does not require any additional work for any 
airplanes. We have added a new paragraph (m) to this final rule to 
provide credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, dated 
April 25, 2008.

Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Requirements

    Safair requested that we clarify the repetitive inspection 
requirements. Safair stated that the repetitive inspection requirements 
in the NPRM are more lenient than Lockheed Martin's prescribed repeat 
inspection periods. Safair asked if the repeat criteria automatically 
apply.
    We agree to provide clarification. The difference in the specified 
repetitive intervals is that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, 
Revision 4, dated May 20, 2009, recommends a repetitive inspection at 
2,000 flight hours after 30,000 flight hours has been accumulated on 
the fittings. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires that repetitive 
inspections be accomplished at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight 
hours on the center wing until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 
30,000 total flight hours. Paragraph (i) of this AD requires that the 
rainbow fitting be replaced before the accumulation of 30,000 flight 
hours or within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever is later. Where there are differences in the repetitive 
interval specified in the service bulletin and this AD, the interval 
specified in this AD prevails. However, operators may accomplish the 
actions specified in the AD earlier than required. We have not changed 
the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82

    Safair stated that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, 
including Appendixes A and B, dated April 25, 2008, advises that 
Lockheed Martin inspection cards--SP-176 (upper fitting) and SP-257 
(lower fitting)--cover the intent of the inspection of the service 
bulletin. Safair stated that on its Lockheed Martin-developed 
maintenance plan, which is current with Lockheed Martin recommended 
practices, these inspection cards have re-inspection periods at 2,500 
and 2,700 flight hours respectively. Safair stated that the NPRM 
requires re-inspections at 3,600 hours. Safair asked if this means the 
less stringent conditions of the NPRM, if adopted as proposed, should 
now apply. If this is the case, Safair asked if Lockheed Martin will be 
required to amend the Standard Maintenance Program 515 callout periods.
    We agree to provide clarification. The inspections in the AD are 
required, but they do not affect the inspections in the maintenance 
program. If the inspections are identical, they can be performed 
simultaneously as part of the maintenance program. However, the 
compliance times for the specified inspections cannot be extended 
beyond those specified in this AD. Where there is a conflict between 
the compliance time in this AD and any other service information, the 
compliance time in this AD prevails. This could allow doing the 
inspections during a heavy check rather than during a special visit on 
a line airplane. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this 
issue.

Request To Clarify Repairs of Rainbow Fittings

    Safair requested that we clarify the repair requirements of the 
rainbow fittings. Safair pointed out that the second paragraph in the 
section titled ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service 
Bulletin'' of the NPRM seems to allow repairs of rainbow fittings if 
cracks are found during visual inspections. Safair noted that the third 
paragraph in this section seems to require replacement for cracks found 
during nondestructive (NDT) inspections. Safair stated that this seems 
to be inconsistent.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. As explained in the 
preamble of the NPRM, the general visual inspection is done on the wing 
faying structure. No corrective actions for findings during the general 
visual inspection are provided in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, 
Revision 4, dated May 20, 2009; therefore, operators must repair any 
damage or cracking in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, as 
required by paragraph (l) of this AD.
    However, eddy current inspections are done on the rainbow fitting 
and, if any cracking is found in the fitting, it must be replaced (as 
required by paragraph (k) of this AD). During any required replacement, 
an eddy current inspection must be done on all opened fitting 
attachment fastener holes in the upper and lower surface skin panel, 
stringers, splice, straps, and splice angles that are common to the 
rainbow fittings. As specified in the preamble of the NPRM, the 
corrective action for any findings in these other areas consists of 
repairing damage within certain limits, but damage outside those 
specified limits must be repaired in accordance with a method approved 
by the FAA. No change has been made to the final rule in this regard.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Safair stated that if the inspections currently mandated by 
Lockheed Martin's maintenance plan continue as required, and if there 
are positive

[[Page 22315]]

findings as a result of these inspections then the damaged rainbow 
fitting must be replaced prior to further flight. However, on airplanes 
where there are no crack findings as a result of the inspections, in 
the maintenance plan, Safair requests that the airplane may continue in 
service until the next 3- or 6-year structural check before the rainbow 
fittings are replaced even if the time on the fittings has exceeded the 
threshold.
    We disagree. We have provided a grace period of 600 flight hours to 
replace the rainbow fittings. We consider this safety issue to result 
from the fatigue cracking in the area that is serious enough to require 
that the replacement of the rainbow fittings be accomplished at the 
required time. We have determined that exceeding the limits required by 
this final rule would not provide an adequate level of safety.
    Further, we are aware of the limited resources available for 
replacing the rainbow fittings. Lockheed Martin has informed us that 
there are adequate supplies of rainbow fittings to support this AD. We 
are also aware that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82 applies to many 
Model C-130 airplanes operated by the military, but the rainbow 
fittings on most of these airplanes have already been replaced. We have 
not changed the final rule in regard to this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later 
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 
comply with this AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Number of
                                                      Average                                                          U.S.-
                Action                  Work hours   labor rate            Parts              Cost per airplane      registered         Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                                                       airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...........................           20          $85  None....................  $1,700 per inspection             14  $23,800 per inspection
                                                                                            cycle.                                cycle.
Fitting replacement..................        2,438           85  $40,000.................  $247,230...............           14  $3,461,220.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation 
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's 
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 AD:

2011-09-03 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 
Company: Amendment 39-16665. Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate 
Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed 
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking of the 
wing upper and lower rainbow fittings during durability testing and 
on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-service cracking has shown 
that these rainbow fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue 
damage. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to 
detect and correct such fatigue cracks, which could grow large and 
lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the 
center wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within

[[Page 22316]]

the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been 
done.

Initial Inspections

    (g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(g)(2) of this AD: Do eddy current inspections to detect cracking of 
the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings on the left and 
right side of the airplane. Do the actions in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, 
Revision 4, including Appendixes A and B, dated May 20, 2009. If any 
crack is found during the inspections required by paragraph (g) of 
this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph 
(k) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the 
rainbow fitting.
    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours on the rainbow fitting 
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Repetitive Inspection Schedule

    (h) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD 
at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours on the center wing, 
until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 30,000 total flight hours. 
If any crack is found during the inspections required by paragraph 
(h) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by 
paragraph (k) of this AD.

Rainbow Fitting Replacements

    (i) Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight hours on the 
rainbow fitting, or within 600 flight hours after the effective date 
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the rainbow fitting, do 
all related investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective 
actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, 
including Appendix C, dated May 20, 2009, except as required by 
paragraph (l) of this AD. Replace the rainbow fitting thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours.

Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections

    (j) For upper and lower rainbow fittings replaced in accordance 
with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD: Do the eddy current 
inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 15,000 
flight hours after doing the replacement and repeat the eddy current 
inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours until the rainbow 
fittings are replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of 
this AD.

Replacement, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    (k) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) 
of this AD, any crack is detected in the rainbow fitting, before 
further flight, replace the rainbow fitting, do all related 
investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective actions, in 
accordance with Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of 
Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendix 
C, dated May 20, 2009, except as provided by paragraph (l) of this 
AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin

    (l) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, 
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, specifies to 
contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair 
conditions or does not specify corrective actions if certain 
conditions are found, this AD requires repairing those conditions 
using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved 
by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the 
Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service 
Information

    (m) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, 
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated April 25, 2008, are 
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of 
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to 
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found 
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Carl Gray, Aerospace 
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft 
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 
30337; telephone (404) 474-5554; fax (404 474-5606.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards 
district office/certificate holding district office.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 
4, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, to do the 
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb 
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-
5445; e-mail ams.portal@lmco.com; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9285 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P