[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31009-31013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15498]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD; Amendment 39-9671; AD 96-13-03]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9
(Military) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military)
series airplanes, that currently requires the implementation of a
program of structural inspections to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design
life goal. This amendment requires, among other things, revision of the
existing program to require additional visual inspections of additional
structure. This amendment is prompted by new data submitted by the
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program are
necessary in order to increase the confidence level of the statistical
program to ensure timely detection of cracks in various airplane
structures. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
fatigue cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of
these airplanes.
DATES: Effective July 24, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-
008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume III-95,
dated September 1995, as listed in the regulations is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of July 18, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-
008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume III-92,
dated July 1992, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of
March 14, 1994 (59 FR 6538, February 11, 1994).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sol Davis or David Hsu, Aerospace
Engineers, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5233
for Mr. Davis, or (310) 627-5323 for Mr. Hsu; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 94-03-01,
amendment 39-8807 (59 FR 6538, February 11, 1994), which is applicable
to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes, was published as a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on January 9, 1996 (61 FR
637). The action proposed to require additional visual inspections of
certain Principal Structural Elements (PSE's) on certain airplanes
listed in the Structural Inspection Document (SID) planning data; a
revision of the reporting requirements; an increase in the sample size
for one PSE; and deletion of the requirement to perform certain visual
inspections of the Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS) Principal
Structural Elements (PSE).
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Request To Extend the Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the compliance time for incorporating
the SID revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program
be extended from the proposed 6 months to 1 year. This commenter also
requests a corresponding increase in the completion end dates for each
PSE inspection. The commenter states that it would have to special
schedule its fleet of airplanes to accomplish this program within the
proposed compliance time; this would entail considerable additional
expenses and schedule disruptions. Further, this commenter points out
that the SID program is becoming a larger and larger burden to
airlines.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the
compliance time. The FAA finds that changes in the program that are
described in Volume III-92 and Volume III-95 of McDonnell Douglas
Report No. L26-008, and required by this AD, introduce relatively minor
changes to the overall scope of the DC-9 SID program. In addition, the
FAA points out that Volume III-95 deletes the FLOS visual inspections
that were previously required by AD 94-03-01 and, thereby,
[[Page 31010]]
reduces the number of inspections required to be performed under the
program. With regard to these changes, the FAA cannot agree with the
commenters assertion the SID and, thus, this AD are becoming a ``larger
burden'' for operators.
Further, the proposed compliance time of 6 months was arrived at
with the previous concurrence of affected operators, manufacturers, and
the FAA. In light of these items, and in consideration of the amount of
time that has already elapsed since issuance of the original notice,
the FAA has determined that further delay of the implementation of the
requirements of this final rule action is not appropriate. However,
paragraph (d) of the final rule does provide affected operators the
opportunity to apply for an adjustment of the compliance time if
adequate data are presented to the FAA to justify such an adjustment.
Request To Revise Inspections to 100 Percent
One commenter requests that the PSE inspections be changed from
sampling to 100 percent inspections. The commenter considers that this
would eliminate the continual changes every year; thus, the program
would be more manageable and straightforward. In addition, the
commenter states that this would simplify scheduling of the SID
inspections, which would streamline the program by reducing the
workload for all parties concerned.
The FAA does not concur that a revision to the AD is necessary. The
inspections in the McDonnell Douglas SID programs were established
using specific criteria for determining whether a PSE should be defined
as FLOS, Fleet Leader Sample (FLS), or 100 percent. The manufacturer
established these criteria only after extensive and detailed
consultations with large numbers of operators and with the FAA. The FAA
finds that the 100 percent inspections are only necessary if an
insufficient number of samples exists in the operator's sample size to
use sampling concepts. However, if an operator has a sufficient number
of samples and elects to accomplish 100 percent inspections, it is the
operator's prerogative to do so.
Request To Permit Repairs in Accordance With SRM or DER Approval
Two commenters request that proposed paragraph (c) be revised to
permit repair of any cracked structure in a PSE found during any
inspection (i.e., a non-mandated or unscheduled inspection) to be
accomplished in accordance with the FAA-approved Structural Repair
Manual (SRM) or the Designated Engineering Representatives (DER) of the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation. One of these commenters states that the
current procedure for accomplishing the repair in accordance with a
method ``approved by the FAA'' takes too long, adversely impacts work
scheduling, and delays scheduled departure of airplanes.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' request to revise
paragraph (c) of this AD. While DER's are authorized to determine
whether a design or repair method complies with a specific requirement,
they are not authorized to make the discretionary determination as to
what the applicable requirement is. Further, the SID program is based
upon cooperation between aircraft operators, the FAA, and the
manufacturer. The SID program functions most effectively in detecting
fatigue cracks if all findings of fatigue cracking are reported to
McDonnell Douglas as required by this AD. It is crucial that the FAA,
as well as McDonnell Douglas, be aware of all repairs made to PSE's.
Further, every repair of PSE structure requires a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) to be performed (of the repair) in order to establish
its effect on the fatigue life of the affected structure. The DTA
process involves the review and use of type design data that are
proprietary and may not be available to those persons (such as a DER)
who are generally authorized to approve routine repairs. For this
reason, it is appropriate that the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) be the focal point in the DTA approval
process.
In some cases, repairs are made to PSE structure as a result of
cracking that was found during an opportunity inspection (i.e., non-
mandated or unscheduled inspection), and the approval of the repair is
made without the coordination of the manufacturer or the Los Angeles
ACO. When the time arrives for that PSE to be inspected in accordance
with the AD, the PSE becomes a ``discrepant PSE.'' If a DTA were not
accomplished on the ``discrepant PSE'' at the time of the repair,
compliance with the AD could require that the repair be removed or
reworked at a later time. In either case, the Manager of the Los
Angeles ACO is tasked to ensure that all repairs to cracked PSE's
comply with the AD.
The FAA considers that any repair to cracked PSE's without the
required DTA can only be classified as ``interim'' or ``temporary,''
and will eventually require coordination with the Manager of the Los
Angeles ACO. Most methods of repair specified in the DC-9 Structural
Repair Manual, the relevant service bulletins, or DER-designed repairs
do not include a continuing inspection program to ensure that the
repair is inspected at an acceptable level of safety. A DTA can be done
most easily at the time of repair, rather than at a later date when the
details of the repair may be hard to obtain and, undoubtedly, would be
more costly. Currently, the Manager and staff of the Los Angeles ACO
are working very closely with the manufacturer to expedite interim
repair approval requests. Such requests may be made under the
provisions of paragraph (d) of the final rule.
Request for Clarification of Repair Requirements
One commenter requests clarification as to what area of the subject
structure is required to be repaired in accordance with a method
approved by the FAA. The commenter notes that McDonnell Douglas
maintains that the secondary structure in the general area of the PSE
is not part of the PSE inspection; therefore, repair of this area does
not require FAA approval if the area is found cracked during a SID
inspection. McDonnell Douglas also indicates that its DER's have been
given authority by the FAA to approve repairs for longerons 16 and 17
over the forward and aft cargo doors (PSE 53.09.001 and 53.09.035).
The FAA finds that clarification of this point is necessary. The
FAA points out that the SID program and this AD do not use the term
``secondary'' structure when referring to the PSE's. Volume 1, Section
1, of MDC Report No. L26-008 defines a PSE as structure whose failure,
if it remained undetected, could lead to the loss of the airplane. The
physical boundaries of PSE's are clearly defined in Volume 1, Sections
2 and 3, of the SID, MDC Report No. L26-008. Accordingly, the FAA
considers that the repair requirements of paragraph (c) of the AD are
not limited only to certain parts of the PSE's, as implied by the
commenter, but rather to any crack that is found within the physical
boundaries of any PSE. Therefore, the FAA finds that any cracked
structure, including the following cracks, must be repaired in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Any crack that is found in longerons 16 and 17 within the
shaded area between STA. 362.500 and STA. 434.500 of PSE 53.09.001 (for
Model DC-9-30, -40, and -50 series airplanes)
Any crack that is found in longerons 16 and 17 within the
shaded area between STA. 710.500 and STA.
[[Page 31011]]
766.000 of PSE 53.09.035 (for Model DC-9-10, and -20 series airplanes)
Request To Eliminate Duplication of Reporting of Existing Repairs
This same commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to
eliminate the duplication of reporting of existing repairs from one
inspection interval to the next. The commenter points out that the
proposed rule would require that all existing repairs in the PSE area
must be reported to McDonnell Douglas, along with details of each
repair.
The FAA does not consider that any action is necessary since the
rule does not require reporting relevant to existing repairs. However,
paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of the AD do require that all inspection
results (negative or positive) be reported to McDonnell Douglas.
Request To Refer to ``or Later FAA-Approved Revisions'' of the SID
One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to include
the phrase, ``or later FAA-approved revisions,'' when referring to the
SID document. The commenter states that this would allow operators to
revise their programs whenever a new revision to the SID is released,
and would eliminate the FAA's need to supersede the existing AD time
and again as new revisions of the SID are issued.
The FAA does not concur. To use the phrase, ``or later FAA-approved
revisions,'' in an AD when referring to the service document, violates
Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations regarding approval of
materials ``incorporated by reference'' in rules. In general terms,
these OFR regulations require that either the service document contents
be published as part of the actual AD language; or that the service
document be submitted for approval by the OFR as ``referenced''
material, in which case it may be only referred to in the text of an
AD. The AD may only refer to the service document that was submitted
and approved by the OFR for ``incorporation by reference.'' In order
for operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued
after the publication of the AD), either the AD must be revised to
reference the specific later revisions, or operators must request the
approval to use them as an alternative method of compliance with this
AD [under the provisions of paragraph (d)].
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 889 Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 568 airplanes of U.S. registry and 38 U.S. operators
will be affected by this AD.
Incorporation of the SID program into an operator's maintenance
program, as required by AD 94-03-01, takes approximately 1,062 work
hours (per operator) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S.
operators of incorporating the revised procedures into the maintenance
program is estimated to be $2,421,360, or $63,720 per operator.
The incorporation of the revised procedures in this AD action will
require approximately 20 additional work hours per operator to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised procedures into the SID program is estimated
to be $45,600, or $1,200 per operator.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD 94-03-01, take
362 work hours per airplane per year to accomplish, at an average labor
rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the recurring
inspection costs required by AD 94-01-03 are estimated to be
$12,336,960, or $21,720 per airplane.
The recurring inspection procedures added to the program by this AD
action will not add any new economic burden on affected operators,
since certain inspections are added while others are deleted.
Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of this AD is
estimated to be $12,382,560 for the first year, and $12,336,960 for
each year thereafter. These cost impact figures discussed above are
based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
requirements of this AD action. However, it can reasonably be assumed
that the majority of the affected operators have already initiated the
SID program (as required by AD 94-03-01).
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each required
inspection (and for the SID program revision), as indicated above, is
presented as if the accomplishment of those actions were to be
conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice,
these actions for the most part will be accomplished coincidentally or
in combination with normally schedule airplane inspections and other
maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary
additional work hours will be minimal in many instances. Further, any
cost associated with special airplane scheduling can be expected to be
minimal.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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 have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8807 (59 FR
6538, February 11, 1994), and by adding
[[Page 31012]]
a new airworthiness directive (AD), amendment 39-9671, to read as
follows:
96-13-03 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9671. Docket 94-NM-195-AD.
Supersedes AD 94-03-01, Amendment 39-8807.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, -50, and C-9
(military) series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the continuing structural integrity of these
airplanes, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after March 14, 1994 (the effective date of
AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807), incorporate a revision into the
FAA-approved maintenance inspection program which provides for
inspection(s) of the Principal Structural Elements (PSE) defined in
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Section 2 of Volume I of Revision 3, dated April
1991, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July
1992, of the SID.
(1) Visual inspections of all PSE's on airplanes listed in
Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the SID planning data, are
required by the fleet leader-operator sampling (FLOS) program at
least once during the interval between the start date (SDATE) and
the end date (EDATE) established for each PSE. These visual
inspections are defined in Section 3 of Volume II, dated April 1991,
of the SID, and are required only for those airplanes that have not
been inspected previously in accordance with Section 2 of Volume II,
dated April 1991, of the SID.
(2) The Non Destructive Inspection (NDI) techniques set forth in
Section 2 of Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID provide
acceptable methods for accomplishing the inspections required by
this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the
SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 1: Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Volume designation shown on
volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.............................................. 3
Volume II-20/30.............................................. 4
Volume II-40................................................. 3
Volume II-50................................................. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20................... 2 April 1990.
12
Volume II-10/20................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II/20...................... (\1\) November 1987.
Volume II-20/30................... 4 April 1991.
Volume II-20/30................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30................... 1 November 1987.
Volume II-40...................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40...................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40...................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40...................... (\1\) November 1987.
Volume II-50...................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50...................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50...................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50...................... (\1\) November 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Original.
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, with a revision that provides
for inspection(s) of the PSE's defined in McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-
9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 4, dated July
1993, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September
1995, of the SID.
Note 3: Operators should note that certain visual inspections of
FLOS PSE's that were previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified in Volume III-95 of
the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no earlier
than one-half of the threshold (Nth/2), specified for all PSE's
listed in Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of the SID, inspect
each PSE sample in accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in
Section 2 of Volume II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the
inspection for that PSE at intervals not to exceed DNDI/2 of the NDI
procedure that is specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995,
of the SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section 2 of Volume II,
dated July 1993, of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 4: Volume II, dated July 1993, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Volume designation shown on
volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.............................................. 4
Volume II-20/30.............................................. 5
Volume II-40................................................. 4
Volume II-50................................................. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 5: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-10/20................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-10/20................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II/20...................... (\1\) November 1987.
Volume II-20/30................... 5 July 1993.
Volume II-20/30................... 4 April 1991.
14
Volume II-20/30................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30................... 1 November 1987.
Volume II-40...................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-40...................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40...................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40...................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40...................... (\1\) November 1987.
Volume II-50...................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-50...................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50...................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50...................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50...................... (\1\) November 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Originals.
(c) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by either paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate.
Note 6: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for
that PSE.
(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(d)(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved in accordance
with AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807, are approved as alternative
methods of compliance with this AD.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199
[[Page 31013]]
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to
operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD
can be accomplished.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),'' Volume III-92, dated July 1992; or McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume
III-95, dated September 1995; as applicable. (NOTE: The issue/
publication date of Volume III-95 is indicated on the Record of
Revisions page.) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas
Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Volume III-95, dated September 1995, is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume
III-92, dated July 1992, was approved previously by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51 as of March 14, 1994 (59 FR 6538, February 11, 1994). Copies
may be obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical
Publications Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60).
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on July 24, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15498 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
