[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70005-70009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98-NM-06-AD; Amendment 39-10949; AD 98-26-09]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC9-10, -20, -30, -40, 
and -50 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes, that requires a 
one-time visual inspection to determine if the doorstops and corners of 
the doorjamb of the forward passenger door have been modified, various 
follow-on repetitive inspections, and modification, if necessary. This 
amendment is prompted by reports of fatigue cracks found in the 
fuselage skin and doubler at the corners and doorstops of the doorjamb 
of the forward passenger door. The actions specified by this AD are 
intended to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective January 22, 1999.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 22, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from The Boeing Company, Douglas Products Division, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical 
Publications Business Administration, Dept. 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 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: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 
627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness 
directive (AD)

[[Page 70006]]

that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes was 
published in the Federal Register on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19423). That 
action proposed to require a one-time visual inspection to determine if 
the doorstops and corners of the doorjamb of the forward passenger door 
have been modified, various follow-on repetitive inspections, and 
modification, if necessary.
    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 Withdraw Proposed Rule

    One commenter states that, while it has found cracking in the area 
of the forward passenger door doorjamb over the past 15 years, findings 
have tapered off. The commenter has found cracking through its FAA-
approved maintenance program, and continues to monitor the area through 
that program. The commenter has not found a crack in the area adjacent 
to a modified doorjamb. The area is not hidden and is presently 
inspected at each ``C'' check. The commenter believes the forward 
passenger door doorjamb is being maintained at a safe level without the 
need of ``an AD note.''
    The FAA infers from these remarks that the commenter requests the 
proposed rule be withdrawn. The FAA does not concur. Based on fatigue 
and damage tolerance analyses of cracked forward passenger door 
doorjambs conducted by the manufacturer, the FAA finds that issuance of 
this final rule is necessary to ensure an adequate level of safety for 
the affected fleet.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    The same commenter requests that the FAA extend the proposed 
compliance time for inspections of previously modified doorjams from 
3,000 to 3,500 landings. The commenter indicates that this increase 
would help bridge the inspection requirements into its maintenance 
program. The commenter states that an added 500 landings will not cause 
the condition of the doorjamb to develop into an unsafe condition with 
the doorjamb modified previously. The commenter adds that since the 
proposed grace period for the initial (one-time visual) inspection is 
3,575 landings, the compliance time for inspections of modified 
doorjambs should not be any different.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. Following careful 
consideration of this comment, and in light of the commenter's 
statement that no cracking has been found in the area adjacent to a 
modified doorjamb during ``C'' check inspections, the FAA considers 
that an extension of the repetitive inspection interval to 3,500 
landings will not compromise safety. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) of this 
final rule have been revised accordingly.

Request To Revise Inspection Intervals

    Another commenter requests that the proposed initial inspection 
intervals be changed to correspond with those presently in the DC-9 
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) program u--3 that is, initial 
inspections should be required within a 3-year interval after the 
effective date of the AD or prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total 
landings, whichever occurs later, and repetitive intervals should 
remain at 3,575 landings.
    The FAA does not concur. The FAA has determined that cracking of 
the forward passenger door doorjamb is fatigue related. The initial and 
repetitive inspection intervals were calculated based on fatigue and 
damage tolerance analyses. The FAA considers that revising the 
compliance time as suggested by the commenter will not address the 
identified unsafe condition in a timely manner.

Request To Revise DC-9 SID Program

    One commenter requests that, prior to issuance of the final rule, 
the DC-9 SID program be revised to eliminate the inspection 
requirements of the SID in the area addressed by this proposed AD. The 
commenter states that such revision will eliminate confusion between 
the SID program and this proposed AD.
    The FAA does not concur that the SID program should be revised 
prior to issuance of this final rule. The actions required by this AD 
area necessary to detect and correct the identified unsafe condition. 
Following issuance of the final rule, the manufacturer may revise the 
DC-9 SID program. However, to eliminate any confusion between this AD 
and the SID program, the FAA has added a new paragraph (f) to this 
final rule to specify that accomplishment of the actions required by 
this AD constitutes terminating action for the requirements of AD 96-
13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19, 1996), for the affected 
PSE. Since this new paragraph is being added, the FAA has removed 
``NOTE 4'' of the proposed AD since it is no longer necessary.

Request To Revise Paragraph (e) of the Proposed Rule

    One commenter requests that paragraph (e) of the proposed rule be 
revised to require that, if the visual inspection required by paragraph 
(a) of the AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously in accordance 
with FAA-approved repairs other than those specified in the DC-9 
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or Service Rework Drawing, prior to 
further flight, an initial low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection 
of the fuselage skin adjacent to the repair should be accomplished. If 
no cracks are detected, repair should be required within 6 months; if 
any crack is detected, repair should be required prior to further 
flight. [As proposed, paragraph (e) requires that operators repair, 
prior to further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the 
FAA if the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of the AD 
reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb have been modified previously, but not in accordance with the 
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 SRM or the Service Rework Drawing.]
    The commenter states that, as proposed, the requirement will cause 
an unnecessary operational impact since FAA-approved, non-standard SRM 
repairs are known to exist in this area of the doorstops and corners. 
The commenter indicates that obtaining approval for such repairs prior 
to further flight will be time consuming and will result in an 
unwarranted, extended groundtime for affected airplanes. The commenter 
believes that its recommendation will ensure that an equivalent level 
of safety is maintained while minimizing the operational impact to 
operators. The commenter adds that this will allow ample time to 
document and submit the repair to the manufacturer for a damage 
tolerance review and subsequent approval by the FAA.
    The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA, in 
conjunction with the manufacturer, has conducted further analysis 
concerning this issue. The FAA has determined that previous repairs of 
the forward passenger door doorjamb that were not accomplished in 
accordance with the DC-9 SRM or Service Rework Drawing, or that were 
not approved by the FAA, are not considered to be FAA-approved repairs; 
accomplishment of the initial LFEC inspection of the fuselage skin 
adjacent to those existing repairs would not detect any crack under the 
repairs.

[[Page 70007]]

Because cracking under the repairs could grow rapidly once it emerges 
from under the repairs, the FAA does not consider that an acceptable 
level of safety can be assured simply by determining that cracking has 
not yet emerged from under the repairs. Therefore, any doorjambs that 
were modified previously in accordance with non-FAA-approved repairs 
must be repaired prior to further flight in accordance with a method 
approved by the FAA.

Request To Revise Cost Impact Information

    One commenter states that the FAA has underestimated the cost 
impact of the proposed AD. The commenter indicates that the proposed 
low frequency eddy current or high frequency eddy current inspection 
will require a minimum of 4 work hours per airplane for setup, 
accomplishment, and teardown. Additionally, the commenter believes that 
the full modification will require approximately 500 to 600 work hours 
per airplane.
    The FAA concurs partially. The manufacturer has advised the FAA 
that the modification will require approximately 30 work hours, as 
estimated in the proposed AD. No change to the final rule has been made 
in this regard. However, the manufacturer indicates that the eddy 
current inspection will require approximately 1.5 work hours per 
airplane. In light of this information, the FAA has revised the cost 
impact information, below, to specify that approximately 2 work hours 
per airplane will be required to accomplish the inspection, as 
necessary.

Change to Service Bulletin Citation

    Since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed and 
approved McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, 
dated July 30, 1998. This revision of the service bulletin is 
essentially identical to the original issue, which was cited in the 
proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for 
accomplishment of the actions specified in the AD. Revision 01 simply 
deletes from the effectivity of the service bulletin Model MD-80 series 
airplanes that are not affected. This revision also changes the lead 
time for availability of kits to 150 days. This final rule has been 
revised to include Revision 01 of the service bulletin as an additional 
source of service information.

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 with the changes previously 
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither 
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of 
the AD.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,001 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 656 airplanes of U.S. 
registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 
work hour per airplane to accomplish the required visual inspection, 
and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, the cost impact of the visual inspection of this AD on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $39,360, or $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the LFEC or x-ray 
inspection, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of any necessary LFEC or x-ray 
inspection specified in this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the HFEC inspection, 
it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at 
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of any necessary HFEC inspection specified in this AD on 
U.S. operators is estimated to be $120 per airplane, per inspection 
cycle.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the modification, it 
will take approximately 30 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost 
approximately between $490 and $1,775 per airplane, depending on the 
service kit purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact of any 
necessary modification specified in this AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be between $2,290 and $3,575 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this 
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this AD were not adopted.

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 adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

98-26-09  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-10949. Docket 98-NM-06-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes, as listed in McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 
1998; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of

[[Page 70008]]

the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe 
condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not 
been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed 
actions to address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To detect and correct fatigue cracking in the doorstops and 
corners of the doorjamb of the forward passenger door, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

    Note 2: Where there are differences between the service bulletin 
and the AD, the AD prevails.
    Note 3: The words ``repair'' and ``modify/modification'' in this 
AD and the referenced service bulletin are used interchangeably.

    (a) Prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total landings, or 
within 3,575 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later, perform a one-time visual inspection to determine if 
the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door doorjamb 
have been modified. Perform the inspection in accordance with 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 
1997, or Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998,
    (b) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998: If 
the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals 
that the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb have not been modified, prior to further flight, perform a 
low frequency eddy current (LFEC) or x-ray inspection to detect 
cracks at all corners and doorstops of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-
53-280, dated December 1, 1997, or Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998.
    (1) Group 1, Condition 1. If no crack is detected during any 
LFEC or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, 
accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or 
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) Option 1. Repeat the LFEC inspection required by this 
paragraph thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,575 landings, or 
the x-ray inspection required by this paragraph thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 3,075 landings; or
    (ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the doorstops and 
corners of the forward passenger door doorjamb, in accordance with 
the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings 
after accomplishment of the modification, perform a high frequency 
eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent 
to the modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (A) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (B) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate.
    (2) Group 1, Condition 2. If any crack is found during any LFEC 
or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and the 
crack is 0.50 inch or less in length: Prior to further flight, 
modify the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior to the 
accumulation of 28,000 landings after accomplishment of the 
modification, perform a HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the skin 
adjacent to the modification, in accordance with the service 
bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (b)(2) 
of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (b)(2) 
of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (3) Group 1, Condition 3. If any crack is found during any LFEC 
or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and the 
crack is greater than 0.5 inch in length: Prior to further flight, 
repair it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los 
Angeles ACO.
    (c) Group 2, Condition 1. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated 
July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously in accordance 
with the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), 
using a steel doubler, accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) 
of this AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997, or Revision 01, dated July 30, 
1998.
    (1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after 
accomplishment of the modification, or within 3,500 landings after 
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a 
HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the 
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(1) 
of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(1) 
of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the doorstops and 
corners of the forward passenger door doorjamb in accordance with 
the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings 
after the accomplishment of the modification, perform a HFEC 
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the 
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(2) 
of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(2) 
of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated 
July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously in accordance 
with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 SRM or Service Rework Drawing, using an 
aluminum doubler, prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after 
the accomplishment of the modification, or within 3,500 landings 
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform 
a HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the 
modification, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997, or Revision 01, dated July 30, 
1998.
    (1) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (d) of 
this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to 
exceed 20,000 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (d) of 
this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated 
July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously, but not in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC9 SRM or the Service Rework 
Drawing, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (f) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD 
constitutes terminating action for inspections of Principal 
Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.031 (reference McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document) required by AD 96-13-
03, amendment 39-9671.
    (g) 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 ACO. 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.

    Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of

[[Page 70009]]

compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los 
Angeles ACO.

    (h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 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.
    (i) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(2)(ii), 
(b)(3), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), (d)(2), and (e) of this AD, the 
actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997; or McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998. 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 The Boeing Company, Douglas Products 
Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, 
Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-
L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (j) This amendment becomes effective on January 22, 1999.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 1998.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-33389 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U