[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.
    <bullet> 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)
    <bullet> 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 (N<INF>th), but no earlier 
than one-half of the threshold (N<INF>th/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