Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Airplanes, 22311-22316 [2011-9285]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 inservice 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 https:// www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/ TechPubs.html. SUMMARY: WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https:// 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22311 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 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1 22312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations cracking is detected ‘‘in the rainbow fitting.’’ WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 30,000flight-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 3or 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 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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- E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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- VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 inservice 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 DERapproved, which makes it FAAapproved. However, when it was determined that an AD was required, we required that Lockheed Martin include PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22313 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 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1 22314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 Martindeveloped 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 22315 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 Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane $1,700 per inspection cycle. $247,230 ....................... Inspection ...................... 20 $85 None ...................... Fitting replacement ........ 2,438 85 $40,000 ................. 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 14 14 Fleet cost $23,800 per inspection cycle. $3,461,220. 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 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: ■ PO 00000 Number of U.S.registered airplanes Parts Sfmt 4700 (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1 22316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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, VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Apr 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 https:// 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2011–0379; Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–007–AD; Amendment 39–16670; AD 2011–09–08] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. AGENCY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: SUMMARY: This AD is prompted by a report from the manufacturer of finding cracks in rudder pedal assemblies at the quadrant attachment weld on early 750 XL aircraft. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 2, 2011. On May 2, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. We must receive comments on this AD by June 6, 2011. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey E:\FR\FM\21APR1.SGM 21APR1

Agencies

[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 https://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://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 https://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: https://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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.