Document ID: FAA-2009-1213-0004
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Co. Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 Airplanes
Posted Date: 2011-08-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52225-52229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20672]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1213; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD; 
Amendment 39-16775; AD 2011-17-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the 
products listed above. This AD requires repetitive inspections for 
cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the wings, and related 
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also 
requires repetitive inspections of certain repaired areas. This AD was 
prompted by reports of cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at the 
outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at station Xrs=164.000; the 
cracking is due to material fatigue from normal flap operating loads. 
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, 
which could result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or other 
structure, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: This AD is effective September 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 26, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; e-mail 
dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the 
FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
phone: (562) 627-5233; fax: (562) 627-5210; e-mail: 
roger.durbin@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on 
February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6162). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive 
inspections for cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the wings, and 
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM 
also proposed to require repetitive inspections of certain repaired 
areas.

[[Page 52226]]

Actions Since Issuance of NPRM

    The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
dated May 8, 2009, as the appropriate source of service information for 
accomplishing the actions. Since issuance of the NPRM, Boeing has 
issued Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 
2011. No more work is necessary for airplanes on which the original 
issue was used to accomplish the actions. Certain procedures specified 
in Revision 1 of this service bulletin have been clarified to provide 
additional instructions. Revision 1 of this service bulletin also added 
procedures for splice repair options and removed the instruction to 
contact Boeing for that repair. In addition, the term ``temporary 
repair,'' as specified in the original issue of this service bulletin, 
was changed to ``doubler repair'' in Revision 1 of this service 
bulletin. In addition, instead of contacting Boeing for repair 
instructions for Condition 3, Revision 1 of this service bulletin 
specifies three sub-conditions and provides corresponding doubler or 
splice repairs.
    We have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, as the appropriate 
source of service information for accomplishing the actions, and added 
a new paragraph (h) to this AD (and reidentified subsequent paragraphs) 
to give credit for using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
dated May 8, 2009, for accomplishing the actions. We also have replaced 
the word ``temporary'' in paragraphs (g)(2) and (j) of this AD with the 
word ``doubler.'' In addition, we have removed paragraph (i) of the 
NPRM, which specified contacting the FAA for the splice repair. 
Further, we have specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD that 
operators may still accomplish the required action in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include Inspections Required by Previous ADs

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member 
American Airlines (AAL), asked that applicable inspection requirements 
in AD 96-23-07 R1, Amendment 39-10110 (62 FR 44208, August 20, 1997); 
and AD 2004-11-07, Amendment 39-13653 (69 FR 13514, June 4, 2004); be 
included in the NPRM. ATA and AAL reiterated certain inspection/
compliance requirements in those previous ADs, and stated that some of 
those requirements conflict with the requirements in this NPRM. ATA and 
AAL recommend incorporating those ADs into this NPRM to clarify, 
consolidate, and update the compliance requirements.
    We do not agree to include the inspection requirements from 
previous ADs in this AD. Although the inspections in the previous ADs 
are similar, the root cause of the unsafe condition in this AD (i.e., 
high-cycle fatigue in this AD versus manufacturing quality in the 
previous ADs) is different, which means the inspections and terminating 
actions are different as well, and do not conflict with the 
requirements specified in the existing ADs referenced by the commenter. 
Therefore, we have determined that the actions should be addressed in 
this ``stand-alone'' AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    ATA and AAL stated that the Relevant Service Information section of 
the NPRM specifies that no action is necessary for Group 1, 
Configuration 1 airplanes. The commenters added that this statement 
conflicts with paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011 (which also is 
related to AD 96-23-07 R1). That service bulletin also specifies the 
following in a note: ``Repeat inspections in accordance with Service 
Bulletin MD80-57-184, Paragraph 1.D.(5), ``Compliance,'' are still 
required.''
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The NPRM clearly 
specifies that no action is necessary for Group 1, Configuration 1 
airplanes. That statement is correct as it applies to this new AD. 
However, the note which appears in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, serves as a reminder that 
repetitive inspections are still required in accordance with AD 96-23-
07 R1 for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes. For clarification 
purposes, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to exclude Group 1, 
Configuration 1 airplanes from the requirements of that paragraph.

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures in Differences Section

    ATA and AAL also stated that the Differences section of the NPRM 
specifies FAA- or Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)-
approved repairs for any crack found (less than or equal to 2.0 inches) 
in a temporary repair done during the repetitive inspections. The 
commenters noted that paragraph (j) of the NPRM specifies, ``[i]f any 
crack is found during any inspection of a temporary repair, before 
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.'' The commenters 
added that these requirements do not clearly detail the crack 
requirements and limitations; since the temporary repair is reinforcing 
an existing crack, a crack will always be found during subsequent 
inspections. The commenters also stated that the ``any crack'' 
statement conflicts with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of AD 
96-23-07 R1, which states, ``[i]f any crack progression is found during 
any repetitive eddy current inspection following accomplishment of the 
temporary repair, contact the ACO.'' Additionally, the commenters noted 
that the ``any crack'' statement conflicts with Boeing Drawing 3668B, 
Disposition A through D.
    We disagree with the commenters. The requirement in this AD is to 
do repetitive eddy current inspections around the perimeter of the 
repair doublers; therefore, indications of the initially stop-drilled 
and repaired cracking would not be found during accomplishment of the 
repetitive inspections. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures in Referenced Service Information

    In addition, ATA and AAL stated that the NPRM should further 
clarify the new requirements associated with Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, and identified in two sections 
of the NPRM--the differences section in the preamble and the exceptions 
in paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM.
    Where the NPRM specifies that ``crack length is longer than 2.0 
inches or is located in the rear spar cap forward horizontal leg 
radius,'' the commenters stated this could be further clarified by 
stating that this is Condition 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
57A242, dated May 8, 2009, or by adding a table to the AD.
    The commenters also stated that where paragraph (i) of the NPRM 
specifies that ``If any crack is found during any inspection required 
by this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 
2009, specifies contacting Boeing for repair * * *,'' the phrase could 
be further

[[Page 52227]]

clarified by adding a table to the AD that identifies the three 
conditions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
dated May 8, 2009, the three sub-conditions under Condition 2, the 
temporary repair condition, and the associated AD requirements.
    We find that some clarification is necessary. Condition 3 in Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, 
provides clarification with regard to the cracking, as follows: '' * * 
* lower spar cap has a crack longer than 2.0 inches in length or crack 
in the rear spar cap forward horizontal leg radius.'' No change to this 
AD is necessary in this regard because the differences section of the 
preamble of the NPRM is not restated in the final rule.
    In addition, as explained previously we removed paragraph (i) of 
the NPRM from this final rule because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, now provides splice 
repair instructions. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to include an 
exception to this service bulletin. We have not changed the AD in this 
regard.

Request To Call Out Specific Service Bulletin Sections

    Additionally, ATA and AAL noted concerns that the proposed 
requirements of the NPRM specify accomplishing what AAL interpreted to 
be all the requirements in the service information. The commenters 
stated that the proposed AD should be clarified and further highlighted 
to indicate that only specific sections of the service bulletin are 
required by the proposed AD. AAL reiterated certain open and close 
procedures and noted that accomplishing those procedures should not 
affect compliance with the proposed AD. AAL asked that we include the 
following in the AD: ``Only the SB procedures specified by the AD are 
affected by the FAA-AD. Other procedures such as preparation, open/
close, and access procedures described by the SB are not affected by 
FAA-AD compliance requirements.'' AAL also asked that we consider 
including the procedures that are or are not affected by the proposed 
AD in its content.
    We acknowledge the commenters' concerns, but disagree with the 
request to change this AD. In Section 3.A., ``General Information,'' 
paragraphs 8 through 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, additional procedures are defined 
that can be used for accomplishing certain actions. In addition, 
paragraph 13 of that section specifies, in part, that when the words 
``refer to'' are used, and the operator has an accepted alternative 
procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used. Therefore, 
we have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Crack Limitations in Referenced Service Information

    ATA and AAL noted that the criteria for crack findings specified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 9, 2009, do not 
provide clear guidance regarding crack limitations. The commenters 
added that the procedures in this service bulletin do not describe 
criteria for a crack with the stop-drill configuration. The commenters 
asked that the criteria for crack findings be further clarified.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The measurement of the 
crack length is intended to be the total curvilinear crack length, 
which is consistent with standard maintenance practice; therefore, no 
additional measurement criteria are necessary. The effect of stop 
drills on crack length is not relevant because Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, specifies 
actions based on the length of the unrepaired cracks, and not on 
repaired or stop-drilled cracks. We have not changed the AD in this 
regard.
    ATA and AAL also noted that the procedures in Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 9, 2009, are inconsistent regarding 
acceptable crack configurations for the forward horizontal leg radius 
for the lower and upper spar caps. The commenters stated that the 
procedures specify that a crack cannot be in the forward horizontal leg 
radius for the lower cap, and those procedures refer to Drawing 
J060271, Note 29. The commenter stated that this drawing does have this 
limitation for the lower cap as well as the upper cap. However, that 
service bulletin does not refer to Note 29 for the upper cap 
procedures. The commenter requested that clarification of the crack 
criteria for doubler repairs on the upper spar cap be provided.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, clarifies the 
crack criteria for the upper cap using Drawing J060271, Note 29, for 
the crack criteria when determining whether doubler repair of the upper 
spar cap is allowed. We have included Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, as an appropriate 
source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by 
this AD.

Request for Validation of the Service Bulletin

    ATA and AAL expressed concern that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, did not have a validation program 
performed to ensure that data, instructions, and processes specified in 
that service bulletin are correct, clear, appropriate, and understood 
by maintenance personnel performing the work.
    From this statement, we infer the commenters are requesting that 
the procedures specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
dated May 8, 2009, be validated by the airplane manufacturer. We agree 
that certain procedures in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
dated May 8, 2009, need clarification. However, Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, provides 
clarification for certain instructions provided in the original issue 
of that service bulletin so the procedures are clear and concise and to 
ensure they are understood by maintenance personnel performing the 
work.
    In addition, it should be noted that the inspections and repairs in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 
2011, are identical to those in AD 96-23-07 R1, although the compliance 
times and applicability are different. (AD 96-23-07 R1 referred to 
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 57-184, Revision 1, dated 
December 22, 1994, as the appropriate source of service information for 
accomplishing the actions.) In light of this information, a formal 
evaluation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242 was not deemed 
necessary. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the name of the manufacturer as 
published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the 
affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that 
these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator 
nor increase the scope of the AD.

[[Page 52228]]

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used 
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. 
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in 
the specified labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 670 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to 
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based 
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators 
to be $227,800, or $340 per product, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2011-17-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16775; Docket No. FAA-
2009-1213; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective September 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), 
DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 
2011.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport 
Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the wing rear 
spar lower cap at the outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at 
station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to material fatigue from 
normal flap operating loads. We are issuing this AD to detect and 
correct fatigue cracking, which could result in fuel leaks, damage 
to the wing skin or other structure, and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 
7, 2011, do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of 
this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The actions 
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD are not 
required for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 
7, 2011.
    (1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current testing high 
frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking of the lower rear spar 
caps of the wings, and do all applicable related investigative and 
corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; or in accordance 
with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (2) Do initial and repetitive ETHF inspections for cracking of 
any doubler repairs, and do all applicable related investigative and 
corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; except as required 
by paragraph (j) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service 
Information

    (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 
8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding 
requirements of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, 
dated January 7, 2011, specifies a compliance time after the date of 
that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the 
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (j) If any crack is found during any inspection of a doubler 
repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this 
AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance 
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or 
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to 
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair 
must meet the certification basis of the airplane.

[[Page 52229]]

Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California 90712-4137; phone: (562) 627-5233; fax: (562) 627-5210; 
e-mail: roger.durbin@faa.gov.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, 
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; to do the actions required by 
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in 
this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing 
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001; 
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; e-mail 
dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20672 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P