[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28626-28632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected]; 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: [email protected].
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:
[email protected].
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 [email protected]; 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