Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31009

Document

No.

Pages

revision Date

Textron Lycoming, SB No. LT 101–72–50–0150 ......................................................................................... 1–6 Original .... September 1,

1993.

Total Pages: 6.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from AlliedSignal Engines,

111 South 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ

85072; telephone (602) 365–2493, fax

(602) 365–2210. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective

on August 19, 1996.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

June 3, 1996.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15383 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

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,
31010 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 FAAApproved 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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–8807 (59 FR

6538, February 11, 1994), and by adding
31012 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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:

Volume designation

Revision

level

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:

Volume designation

Revision

level

Date of revision

Volume II–10/20 3 April 1991.

Volume II–10/20 2

12

April 1990.

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.

1Original.

(b) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace the revision of the FAAapproved 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:

Volume designation

Revision

level

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:

Volume designation

Revision

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

14

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 ...... 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.

1Originals.

(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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ASW–01]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Zuni, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises the Class

E airspace extending upward from 700

feet above ground level (AGL) at Zuni,

NM. The development of a Global

Positioning System (GPS) standard

instrument approach procedure (SIAP)

to Runway (RWY) 07 at Zuni Pueblo,

Black Rock Airport has made this action

necessary. This action is intended to

provide adequate Class E airspace to

contain instrument flight rule (IFR)

operations for aircraft executing the GPS

SIAP to RWY 07 at Zuni Pueblo, Black

Rock Airport, Zuni, NM.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0530, telephone: (817)

222–5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On January 31, 1996, a proposal to

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise

the Class E airspace at Zuni, NM, was

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 3352). A GPS SIAP to RWY 07

developed for Black Rock Airport, Zuni,

NM, requires the revision of Class E

airspace at this airport. The proposal

was to establish controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 fee AGL to

contain IFR operations in controlled

airspace during portions of the terminal

operation and while transitioning

between the enroute and terminal

environments.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comment on the proposal to the FAA.

No comment to the proposal were

received. Therefore, the rule is adopted

as proposed.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class E airspace designations

for airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more AGL are

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document will be

published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) revises the Class E airspace

located at Zuni, NM, to provide

controlled airspace extending upward

from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing

the GPS SIAP to RWY 07 at Black Rock

Airport, Zuni, NM.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations that need

frequent and routine amendments to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore—(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) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

pat 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120;

E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963

Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW NM E5 Zuni, NM [Revised]

Zuni Pueblo, Black Rock Airport, NM

(lat. 35°05′00′′ N., long. 108°47′30′′ W.)

Zuni VORTAC

(lat. 34°57′57′′ N., long. 109°09′16′′ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile

radius of Black Airport and within 1.8 miles

each side of the 252° bearing from the airport

extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 8.4

miles southwest of the airport and that

airspace extending upward from 8,200 feet

MSL within 6 miles north and 8.5 miles

south of Zuni VORTAC 248° and 068° radials

extending from 10.2 miles east to 17 miles

west of the VORTAC, excluding that airspace

in the state of New Mexico.

* * * * *

Issued in Forth Worth, TX, on June 11,

1996.

Albert L. Viselli,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 96–15646 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M