[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 54 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14834-14838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 98-NM-58-AD; Amendment 39-11639; AD 2000-05-29]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400,
and -500 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections to detect
cracking of various areas of the forward pressure bulkhead, and repair,
if necessary. This amendment also provides for certain optional
preventive modifications, which, if accomplished, would terminate the
repetitive inspections for the affected areas. This amendment is
prompted by reports indicating that numerous fatigue cracks were found
on critical areas of the forward pressure bulkhead. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent such fatigue cracking,
which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane fuselage.
DATES: Effective April 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 24, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. 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 Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nenita K. Odesa, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2557; fax (425) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -
200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on October 9, 1998 (63 FR 54391). That action proposed to
require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of various areas of
the forward pressure bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. That action
also proposed to require certain preventive modifications, which, when
accomplished, would terminate the repetitive inspections for most, but
not all, of the affected areas.
Comments
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
Two commenters support the proposed rule.
Request to Increase the Initial Inspection Threshold
Several commenters, including the manufacturer, request an increase
in the initial inspection threshold from 15,000 total flight cycles, as
proposed, to 20,000 total flight cycles, as recommended in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1173, Revision 2, dated January 15, 1998. The
commenters state that research by the manufacturer supports the
conclusion that the compliance threshold recommended in the alert
service bulletin is adequate. To justify its request, the manufacturer
submitted substantiating data that show that the compliance time
recommended in the service bulletin is conservative.
The FAA concurs with the commenters' requests to revise the initial
compliance threshold in the final rule to match the compliance time
recommended by the manufacturer in the alert service bulletin (i.e.,
prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later). After review of the data submitted by the manufacturer, the FAA
has determined that the compliance times recommended in the alert
service bulletin are adequate to ensure that any cracks will be
detected before the cracks reach critical length. Therefore, paragraph
(a) of this final rule has been revised accordingly, and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) have not been included in this final rule.
Request to Use Repetitive Inspection Interval Specified in Alert
Service Bulletin
Most of the commenters request that the repetitive inspection
interval be revised to more closely correspond with those recommended
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1173, Revision 2. Several of
the commenters justify their requests by stating that, because of the
difficulty in accessing the affected area, accomplishing the proposed
inspections outside of a regularly scheduled ``C''-check would place a
significant burden on operators. The commenters also provide various
other justifications for their requests, including:
The compliance times specified in the alert service
bulletin are conservative.
Operators are already performing the inspections specified
in the service bulletin, so there is a significant amount of data on
cracking in the affected area.
No in-flight incidents (including loss of pressurization)
have been reported related to the cracking addressed in the proposal.
Cracks in the affected area of the forward pressure
bulkhead propagate very slowly.
[[Page 14835]]
A number of commenters also provide substantial amounts of data to
support their requests.
The FAA concurs with the commenters' requests to require the
repetitive inspections at the interval recommended in the alert service
bulletin. Based on the FAA's review of the analyses submitted by the
manufacturer to substantiate the repetitive inspection intervals
recommended in the alert service bulletin, the FAA has determined that
a repetitive inspection interval of 6,000 flight cycles is adequate to
ensure that any cracking will be detected and corrected in a timely
manner. Paragraph (a) of this final rule has been revised accordingly.
Request to Address Existing Repairs
Two commenters request that the proposal be revised to address
repairs on the affected areas of the forward pressure bulkhead.
Paragraph (b) of the proposal states that repairs are to be
accomplished ``in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2, dated January
15, 1998; except, where the alert service bulletin specifies that the
manufacturer may be contacted for repair instructions,. . .'' repairs
should be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
One commenter also inquires whether repairs in accordance with the
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) (which is approved by the FAA) that are
not referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision
2, or other repairs that are approved by the FAA, will need further
approval.
The FAA concurs with the request to address repairs that are
accomplished in accordance with the SRM but are not referenced in the
alert service bulletin. Since the issuance of the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 3, dated May 6, 1999. Among
other things, Revision 3 of the alert service bulletin includes
references to new chapters of the SRM as acceptable sources of service
information for the accomplishment of repairs. In addition, since the
issuance of the NPRM, the FAA also has determined that SRM chapters
referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 1, dated
April 25, 1996, are acceptable sources of service information for
accomplishment of repairs. Therefore, paragraph (b) of this final rule
has been revised to add references to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
53A1173, Revision 1, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173,
Revision 3, as acceptable sources of information for accomplishment of
repairs, except where the service bulletin specifies that the
manufacturer may be contacted for repair instructions.
Another commenter requests that the proposal be revised to approve
repairs accomplished in accordance with data approved by a Designated
Engineering Representative (DER) but not in accordance with the SRM.
The FAA concurs that repairs not in accordance with the SRM but
approved by a DER are acceptable for compliance with this AD. However,
the FAA has determined that DER-approved repairs are acceptable methods
of compliance to the AD only if the responsible DER has been authorized
by the FAA to make such a finding. For all other repairs (i.e., repairs
not accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in
accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering
Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such a
finding) that affect the performance of the requirements of this AD,
the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. Therefore,
paragraph (b) of the final rule has been revised to state that repairs
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in
accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering
Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such
findings, are acceptable for compliance with this AD.
In addition, one commenter, the airplane manufacturer, inquires
whether Boeing DER's have the authority to approve Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1208, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 73757A1173,
Revision 3. The commenter also inquires whether Boeing DER's will be
authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance to the AD when
allowed by law. The commenter makes no specific request for a change to
the AD.
With regard to DER approval of the referenced service bulletins, as
stated previously, since receipt of the comment, the FAA has reviewed
and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1208, and Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57A1173, Revision 3. With regard to DER approval of
alternative methods of compliance, the FAA is considering authorizing
certain Boeing DER's to approve alternative methods of compliance that
provide an acceptable level of safety. After this AD has been issued,
designated DER's will receive a letter from the FAA defining the limits
of their approval authority. No change to the final rule is necessary
in this regard.
Request to Revise Number of Affected Airplanes
One commenter questions how the FAA arrived at its estimate that
there are 2,802 affected airplanes in the worldwide fleet, as stated in
the proposal. The commenter points out that the effectivity of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1173, Revision 2, includes Boeing Model
737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes having line
numbers before 2738. The commenter states that 157 of these affected
airplanes are out of service; therefore, the actual number of affected
airplanes should be 2,580 airplanes. The commenter makes no specific
request related to its comment.
The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the proposed
rule be revised to reduce the estimated number of affected airplanes in
the worldwide fleet, such that the estimated number of affected
airplanes is based on airplanes having line numbers 1 through 2737, as
defined in the alert service bulletin. The FAA concurs with such a
reduction, and the cost impact section of the preamble of this final
rule has been revised accordingly.
In addition, as a result of this comment, the FAA finds that some
clarification of the applicability of this AD may be necessary.
Therefore, the applicability statement of this final rule has been
revised to specifically reference the line numbers of the affected
airplanes--i.e., line numbers 1 through 2737 inclusive--rather than the
service bulletin in which the affected airplanes are listed. (This
change makes no additional airplanes subject to this AD.)
Request to Use Alternative Repetitive Inspection Interval
Two commenters suggest repetitive inspection intervals other than
those specified in the NPRM or the alert service bulletin. One
commenter recommends that the FAA require repetitive visual inspections
at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, and repetitive high
frequency eddy current inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000
cycles. Another commenter's recommendation involves scheduling the
repetitive inspections based on the number of total flight cycles
accrued.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' suggestions for an
alternative repetitive inspection threshold. The FAA finds that to
require
[[Page 14836]]
only visual inspections at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles,
and high frequency eddy current inspections at intervals not to exceed
12,000 cycles, may not ensure that cracking will be detected in a
timely manner. Regarding the request to schedule the repetitive
inspections based on the number of total flight cycles accrued, the
commenter submitted no technical data to substantiate its request. No
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request to Eliminate Requirement for Preventive Modifications
One commenter requests that the proposal be revised to eliminate
the requirement to accomplish the preventive modifications of the
center web, vertical chords, and side chord areas of the forward
pressure bulkhead. The commenter justifies its request on the basis
that Boeing is monitoring the occurrences of cracking of the forward
pressure bulkhead in the fleet of affected airplanes.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's rationale for
eliminating the preventive modification requirement. The proposal to
mandate the preventive modifications is based on the FAA's
determination that long-term continued operational safety will be
better assured by modifications or design changes to remove the source
of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections.
However, since the issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined
that the preventive modification of the center web specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2 [which paragraph (c) of
the NPRM cites as the appropriate source of service information for the
preventive modifications], is not adequate to ensure the prevention of
cracking in the center web area.
As stated previously, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1173, Revision 3. The FAA has determined
that accomplishment of the preventive modifications of the forward
pressure bulkhead in accordance with Revision 3 of the alert service
bulletin is adequate to ensure prevention of cracking and would
eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. However, because
additional work would be required over that which was proposed in the
NPRM, mandating the preventive modifications in accordance with
Revision 3 of the alert service bulletin would require the issuance of
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to reopen the public
comment period. The FAA finds that to delay this final rule in this way
would be inappropriate because the FAA has determined that an unsafe
condition exists and the required inspections and repairs, if
necessary, must be accomplished in a timely manner to ensure continued
safety.
In addition, the FAA finds that it would be more appropriate to
provide the option for all preventive modifications to be accomplished,
at the same time, in accordance with Revision 3 of the alert service
bulletin, rather than to require only the modification of the vertical
chords and side chords at WL 195 in accordance with Revision 2 of the
alert service bulletin. Therefore, paragraph (c) of this final rule has
been revised to remove the requirement to accomplish any of the
preventive modifications, and to provide for accomplishment of the
preventive modifications in accordance with Revision 3 of the alert
service bulletin as an option that would constitute terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD. The FAA also may
consider further rulemaking to require accomplishment of the preventive
modifications in accordance with Revision 3 of the alert service
bulletin.
Request for Clarification of Language
One commenter notes that, in several locations, the NPRM refers to
an ``unsafe condition.'' The commenter inquires what is meant by
``unsafe,'' and how such a determination was made by the FAA. The
commenter makes no specific request for a change.
The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting clarification of
language used in the NPRM. The FAA defines an unsafe condition as one
that could result in a hazardous condition. As stated in the preamble
of the NPRM, the FAA has received reports indicating that operators
have found numerous fatigue cracks on the body station 178 forward
pressure bulkhead on certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. Because
fatigue cracks were found in certain critical structural areas of the
bulkhead, the FAA finds that such fatigue cracking constitutes an
unsafe condition, in that it could result in rapid decompression of the
airplane fuselage. No change to the final rule is necessary in this
regard.
The same commenter inquires what is meant by the phrases ``degree
of urgency associated with the unsafe condition,'' and ``average
utilization of the affected fleet,'' which appear in the ``Differences
Between Proposed Rule and Alert Service Bulletin'' section of the NPRM.
With regard to ``degree of urgency,'' the commenter inquires how this
degree was determined and considered in the NPRM. The commenter
questions what events have occurred since 1994 (i.e., when the largest
reported bulkhead crack was found and the initial issue of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53A1173 was issued) that lend a ``degree of
urgency'' to the proposed rulemaking. With regard to ``average
utilization of the affected fleet,'' the commenter questions how
average utilization was considered in the proposed rulemaking.
The FAA infers from the context in which the phrases were used
(specifically, in explaining why the proposed compliance time was
reduced from the compliance time recommended in the service bulletin)
that the commenter is requesting clarification as to what events or
specific factors prompted the FAA to propose a compliance time of
15,000 total flight cycles and a repetitive interval of 3,000 flight
cycles for the repetitive inspections proposed in the NPRM.
The degree of urgency associated with the unsafe condition was
determined and considered based on the nature of the cracking. A 25-
inch crack in the web of the forward pressure bulkhead prompted the
issuance of the original service bulletin in 1994. In 1997, the FAA
received reports of cracking in a new area--the side chord at WL 207.
Upon review of the history of cracking in the forward pressure
bulkhead, the FAA determined that cracks had been found in the multiple
locations on the web, in the vertical beam chords, and in the side
chords at WL 195 and 207. This determination prompted the FAA to
consider further rulemaking action, which resulted in the issuance of
the subject NPRM.
The FAA evaluated the average utilization of the fleet based on a
review of the average annual cycles of affected airplanes. Such annual
utilization numbers and the ``C''-check maintenance interval
(approximately 12 to 18 months) of several operators of the affected
airplanes were considered in developing the compliance times.
However, considering the context in which the subject phrases
appeared, the FAA finds that the commenter's inquiries on both degree
of urgency and average utilization of the fleet are no longer relevant
to the final rule. As stated previously, this final rule has been
revised to specify the same compliance times recommended by the
manufacturer in Revisions 2 and 3 of the service bulletin. The FAA
finds that no further change to the final rule is necessary in this
regard.
Request to Consider Additional Rulemaking
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, states that it is
[[Page 14837]]
considering issuing a separate service bulletin to address fatigue
cracking in Boeing Model 737 series airplanes having line numbers 2738
through 3071 inclusive. The commenter inquires whether the FAA is
considering rulemaking activity for that service bulletin, but makes no
specific request related to its comment.
Since receipt of the comment, Boeing has issued Service Bulletin
737-53A1208, dated May 6, 1999, which specifies inspections and
modifications to address fatigue cracking in Boeing Model 737 series
airplanes having line number 2738 through 3071 inclusive. The FAA may
consider further rulemaking action to mandate the inspections and
modifications defined in the service bulletin. No change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
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 described
previously. 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 2,580 airplanes of the affected design in
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,130 airplanes of U.S.
registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 380 work hours per airplane to
accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60
per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$25,764,000, or $22,800 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is 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:
2000-05-29 Boeing: Amendment 39-11639. Docket 98-NM-58-AD.
Applicability: Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes; having line numbers 1 through 2737 inclusive;
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 (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of 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 fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead,
which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane fuselage,
accomplish the following:
Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, perform inspections of the center web,
vertical chords, and side chord areas of the forward pressure
bulkhead for fatigue cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision
2, dated January 15, 1998, or Revision 3, dated May 6, 1999.
Thereafter, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 6,000
flight cycles until the preventive modifications specified by
paragraph (c) of this AD have been accomplished.
Repairs
(b) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair the area
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 1, dated April 25, 1996, or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2, dated January 15,
1998, or Revision 3, dated May 6, 1999; in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with
data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved
by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings;
except, where the alert service bulletin specifies that the
manufacturer may be contacted for repair instructions, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
Optional Terminating Action
(c) Accomplishment of the preventive modifications of the center
web, vertical chords, and side chord areas, including the side chord
areas at water line 207, of the forward pressure bulkhead, in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision
3, dated May 6, 1999, constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD for
that area.
Note 2: Accomplishment of the preventive modification of the
vertical chords and side chord areas at water line 195 in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2,
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD for the vertical chords and
side chord at WL 195 only.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d) 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, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Seattle ACO.
[[Page 14838]]
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Secs. 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.
Incorporation by Reference
(f) The inspections shall be done in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2, dated January 15,
1998, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 3,
dated May 6, 1999. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD,
repairs shall be accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53-1173, Revision 1, dated April 25, 1996, or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 2, dated January 15,
1998, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 3,
dated May 6, 1999. The preventive modifications, if accomplished,
shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1173, Revision 3, dated May 6, 1999. 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 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on April 24, 2000.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2000.
Donald L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-6491 Filed 3-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P