62276 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent a horizontal stabilizer slat (slat)

from separating, impact with a main or tail

rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS)

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100

hours TIS, visually inspect the brackets, part

number (P/N) 206–023–119–109 or –110 or

P/N 407–023–801–127 or –128, that attach

the slats, P/N 407–023–002–117, to the

horizontal stabilizer for a crack.

(1) If any crack is found, replace the slat

assembly, P/N 407–023–002–117, with an

airworthy segmented slat assembly, P/N 407–

023–001–101, before further flight. Replace

the slat assembly in accordance with Part II

of the Accomplishment Instructions in Bell

Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No.

ASB 407–99–32, dated December 7, 1999.

(2) If no crack is found, replace each slat

assembly, P/N 407–023–002–117, with an

airworthy segmented slat assembly, P/N 407–

023–001–101, prior to flight after December

31, 2000.

(b) Installing airworthy segmented slat

assemblies, P/N 407–023–001–101,

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(c) 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, Regulations

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Regulations Group.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(d) 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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(e) The modification shall be done in

accordance with Part II of the

Accomplishment Instructions in Bell

Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No.

ASB 407–99–32, dated December 7, 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 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800

Rue de l’Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec JON1LO,

telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023,

fax (450) 433–0272. Copies may be inspected

at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

November 22, 2000.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Transport Canada (Canada) AD CF–2000–

09, dated March 21, 2000.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September

29, 2000.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26236 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–248–AD; Amendment

39–11932; AD 2000–20–20]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–400 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747–

400 series airplanes, that requires

removal of existing inertial reference

units (IRU) and installation of modified

IRU’s. This amendment is prompted by

a report of the failure of the left and

center IRU’s on a single flight. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent loss of multiple

IRU’s in flight, which could result in the

loss of navigation data during flight.

This could compromise the ability of

the flight crew to maintain the safe

flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES: Effective November 22, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of November

22, 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: Jay

G. Yi, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and

Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–1013; 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 747–400 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54229). That

action proposed to require removal of

existing inertial reference units (IRU)

and installation of modified IRU’s.

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

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

Three commenters request that the

FAA extend the proposed compliance

time for the installation of modified

IRU’s.

The first commenter states that

sending all its units back to the parts

manufacturer for modification will take

at least two weeks per unit.

Additionally, taking the unmodified

units off all of its airplanes and shipping

them will delay completion of the

installation required by the proposed

AD until receipt of the modified units.

Therefore, the proposed installation

would not be accomplished until

February 2002. The commenter adds

that the dual inertial reference system

(IRS) failure that prompted this

proposal, as stated in the preamble, was

caused by a short circuit in the brake

system control unit (BSCU). The

airplane manufacturer later determined

that the short circuit was due to

moisture ingested into the BSCU, and

released Boeing Service Bulletins 747–

25–3080, Revision 2, dated February 29,

1996 (improves the integrity of the drip

shields), and 747–53–2402, dated

December 21, 1995 (installs protective

panels over the drip shields to protect

them from damage) to address this

condition. The commenter has

completed these modifications, and

notes that these modifications

significantly reduce the likelihood of

water damage to the BSCU. The

commenter states that, considering these

airplane modifications and the realities

of the modification stated above, a twoyear compliance time would be more

realistic.

The second commenter states that 12

months is an unrealistic and

unnecessary compliance time, and

submits the following factors for

consideration:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62277

• First, the IRU part numbers

addressed by the proposal are used on

Boeing Model 737–300/400/500, 757,

and 767 series airplanes, in addition to

Model 747–400 series airplanes. Many

of the 747–400 operators also operate

some of the other airplane types and

have common spares. The operators will

either have to maintain separate spares

for the Model 747–400 series airplanes,

or modify all of the spares. If the

operators are forced into maintaining

separate spares, this will increase the

quantity of spare units required.

• Second, while there is a potential

for this condition to develop, the

probability of occurrence is lower than

implied in the proposal. The availability

of standby heading and attitude

systems, plus the ability of the IRU to

recover heading and attitude capability,

also reduce the urgency to complete all

updates within 12 months. Considering

the above factors, the commenter

recommends the compliance time be

extended from 12 months to at least 24

months, with the expectation that an

extension will likely be needed for full

compliance.

The third commenter requests that the

compliance time be changed from 12

months to 24 months, but does not give

a reason for this request.

The FAA concurs with the

commenters’ requests to extend the

compliance time for installation of

modified IRU’s; however, the FAA does

not concur with the length of time

requested by the commenters. Following

careful consideration of the comments,

the FAA considers that an extension of

the compliance time specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD from 12 months

to 18 months will not compromise

safety. Paragraph (a) of this final rule

has been revised accordingly.

Request To Revise Applicability

Three commenters request that the

applicability of the proposed rule be

revised.

The first commenter requests that the

proposed applicability be revised to

apply to all Model 747–400 series

airplanes, not just specific line numbers

as written in the applicability section.

The commenter states that some of its

recent deliveries of Model 747–400

series airplanes had the upgraded IRU’s

installed at delivery, and those line

numbers are not included in the current

applicability of the proposed rule. The

commenter also notes that it is possible

that one or more of the upgraded IRU

units were replaced with an older IRU

after the airplane went into service;

therefore, it is the commenter’s intent to

accomplish the proposed requirements

on all of its Model 747–400 series

airplanes.

The second commenter requests that

the statement ‘‘certain Boeing Model

747–400 series airplanes,’’ in the

preamble of the proposed rule be

revised to read, ‘‘all Boeing Model 747–

400 series airplanes equipped with

Honeywell inertial reference systems.’’

The commenter notes that explicitly

stating this up front in the proposed AD

provides clarification of the airplanes

affected by the proposal. The

commenter also recommends

identifying a second grouping in the

applicability section to make the spares

requirement [paragraph (b)] applicable

to all Model 747–400 series airplanes.

The third commenter states that some

Model 747–400 series airplanes not

specified in the proposal may have had

replacement IRU’s installed that should

be modified.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ request. In response to the

first and second commenters, all new

747–400 series airplanes after line

number 1187 were delivered with newly

designed IRU’s installed, and the FAA

previously disseminated instructions to

operators about replacement or

exchange of the new IRU’s with oldertype IRU’s. In response to the third

commenter, the FAA has addressed the

intent of the commenter’s request in

paragraph (b) of this AD.

Request To Revise Spares Paragraph

One commenter suggests that since

the problem referenced in the proposed

rule is unique to Model 747–400 series

airplanes, and other IRS-equipped fleets

can continue using older part numbers,

the text in the spares paragraph should

be revised from ‘‘any airplane’’ to ‘‘any

747 airplane.’’

Two commenters recommend the

wording in the spares paragraph be

revised to read, ‘‘As of the required

compliance date for this AD, no person

shall install an IRU with a Boeing part

number which precedes S242T101–113

on a Boeing 747–400 series airplane,’’ or

‘‘Subsequent to the required compliance

date of this AD, no person shall install

a Honeywell IRU having a Boeing part

number that precedes S242T101–113 on

a Boeing Model 747–400 series

airplane.’’ The commenter states that

this is to require the use of modified

IRU’s after the compliance date, thereby

permitting the use of existing inventory

during the interim period and to

preclude the use of any IRU preceding

part number S242T101–113 after the

compliance date.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to change the

words in the spares paragraph from ‘‘on

any airplane’’ to ‘‘on any Boeing Model

747–400 airplane,’’ or ‘‘with a Boeing

part number that precedes S242T202–

113 on a Boeing Model 747–400 series

airplane.’’ The applicability statement of

all AD actions lists all models affected

by that AD. All of the requirements

stated in an AD are applicable only to

the airplane models listed in the

applicability, and based on information

received from the parts manufacturer,

only the IRU’s having the part numbers

listed in the spares paragraph are

affected by the AD.

Additionally, the FAA does not

concur with changing ‘‘As of the

effective date * * * ’’ to ‘‘As of the

compliance date * * * ’’ Removing an

unsafe condition that already exists on

an airplane necessarily involves

performing maintenance on the

airplane, and the FAA always provides

some kind of ‘‘grace period’’ in order to

minimize disruption of operations. On

the other hand, prohibiting installation

of spares that have been determined to

create an unsafe condition does not

require any additional maintenance

activity; it simply requires use of one

part rather than another. In general,

once an unsafe condition has been

determined to exist, it is the FAA’s

normal policy not to allow that

condition to be introduced into the fleet.

In developing the technical information

on which every AD is based, one of the

important considerations is the

availability of parts that the AD will

require to be installed. When it is

determined that those (safe) parts are

immediately available to operators, it is

the FAA’s policy to prohibit installation

of the unsafe parts as of the effective

date of the AD.

Therefore, the FAA finds that there is

no justification for making the changes

requested by the commenters. No

change to the final rule is necessary in

this regard.

Request To Revise Statement of Unsafe

Condition

One commenter requests that the

unsafe condition as stated in the

proposed rule be revised from ‘‘ * * *

compromise the ability of the flight

crew to maintain the safe flight and

landing of the airplane’’ to ‘‘ * * *

compromise the ability of the flight

crew to subsequently cope with adverse

operating conditions.’’ The commenter

states that the loss of primary data to

both pilots, in addition to loss of other

navigational information is improbable.

The commenter adds that while loss of

primary data could impact operations

during adverse conditions, with standby

data available, loss of primary data does

not impact safe flight of the airplane.

62278 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The FAA has

determined that, should an airplane lose

all three IRU’s, which would result in

operating with only one standby

instrument, it would indeed impact safe

flight of the airplane due to reduced

controllability resulting from loss of the

IRU’s. No change to the final rule is

necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Certain Sections in

the Preamble

One commenter describes revisions to

various sections of the preamble of the

proposed rule. In the ‘‘Summary’’

section, the commenter revises the

wording to state that the proposed AD

is applicable to 747–400 series airplanes

equipped with the Honeywell IRS, and

to present a logical sequence for the

event and the consequences. The

commenter also changes the statement

of unsafe condition from ‘‘ * * *

maintain the safe flight and landing of

the airplane’’ to ‘‘ * * * subsequently

cope with adverse operating

conditions.’’ In the ‘‘Discussion’’ and

‘‘Explanation of Relevant Service

Information’’ sections, the commenter

suggests revising the wording to ascribe

the reported event specifically to a

Model 747–400 series airplane equipped

with the Honeywell IRS, to indicate the

data loss, and to discuss attributed

causes of the event. In the ‘‘Explanation

of Requirements of Proposed Rule’’

section, the commenter revises the

wording to clarify the intent of Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–34A2638,

Revision 1, dated April 8, 1999, as

applicable to multiple part numbers of

Honeywell IRU’s. In the ‘‘Differences

Between Proposed Rule and Alert

Service Bulletin’’ section, the

commenter revises the wording to

identify the time necessary to perform

the required replacement as being

consistent with the alert service bulletin

estimate, and to identify compliance

time based on initial estimates from

Honeywell and operators’

recommendations.

Another commenter states that actions

specified in the proposal are intended to

prevent loss of navigation during flight.

The commenter discusses the various

navigation systems and notes that it is

rare that navigation data from the IRU’s

are used during the approach and

landing phase of flight. The commenter

further states that the event that

prompted the NPRM included loss of

primary heading and attitude data from

the left and center IRU’s, as well as loss

of navigation data. The right IRU was

still providing valid heading and

attitude reference, and the standby

systems were available. The commenter

adds that when the voltage was

removed, the faulted IRU’s could have

been reset to the ‘‘ATTITUDE’’ mode,

which returns the primary heading and

attitude functions.

The same commenter states that the

proposal states that this condition is

likely to exist on other products of the

same type design. However, the

commenter notes that to its knowledge,

this is the only occurrence of this

condition throughout the entire service

life of the Model 747–400 series

airplane. In addition, the commenter

states that service information has been

issued to address the broken or damaged

drip shields, which allowed liquid to

enter the BSCU and cause the electrical

fault. The commenter recommends the

wording in the ‘‘Explanation of

Requirements of Proposed Rule’’ be

changed to ‘‘may develop’’ or similar

wording which better describes the low

probability of occurrence for this

condition.

The FAA concurs with the

commenter’s description of the intent of

these sections; however, because only

the ‘‘Summary’’ section is restated in

the final rule, no change to the other

sections, as stated above, is necessary.

Additionally, the ‘‘Summary’’ section of

this final rule only represents a brief

synopsis of the AD, it is accurate as

proposed, therefore, no change to the

final rule is necessary.

Request To Revise Cost Impact

Information

Three commenters request that the

cost information in the proposed rule be

revised.

The first commenter states that the

cost to U.S. operators estimated in the

proposal is approximately $3,000, and

reasons that the true costs involved are

significantly higher for the following

reasons:

• First, the cost estimate in the

proposal allowed for 1 hour per

airplane; however, the actual time to

remove, install, and functionally check

all three IRU’s will be longer.

• Second, the cost estimate did not

include any of the operators’ costs for

internal processing, shipping, and

handling.

• Third, the operators may have to

purchase additional spare units to

support rotation of IRU’s through the

modification program.

• Fourth, the estimate does not

include the cost to modify or update the

IRU’s. In addition, the commenter notes

that, although there is no cost specified

in the proposal for the required parts,

the parts manufacturer will charge for

the modification of some parts.

Therefore, the statement that the

manufacturer will provide parts at no

cost is inaccurate and should not be

included in the proposal.

The second commenter states that the

estimated work hours in the cost

information section should be revised

from 1 work hour to 2.25 work hours to

identify cost impacts consistent with the

estimated time to perform the proposed

replacement.

The third commenter makes no

specific request for a change to the

proposed rule, but states that, if the 12-

month compliance time is retained, it

could be faced with purchasing

additional shipsets of IRS units

(assuming they are available in time) in

order to expedite accomplishment of the

fleet campaign. The commenter notes

that a shipset costs about $450,000, and

two additional shipsets might be

needed.

The FAA agrees with the first

commenter, in that the service bulletin

does not specify that the required parts

will be supplied by the parts

manufacturer at no cost to the operators.

The service bulletin merely states that

the operator can supply the parts.

Information received from the parts

manufacturer states that it will supply

the parts for the actions required by this

AD; however, any other modifications

will be paid for by the operators. No

change to the final rule is necessary in

this regard.

The FAA does not concur with

revising the work hours necessary for

accomplishment of the required

replacement. The cost impact

information describes only the ‘‘direct’’

costs of the specific actions required by

this AD. The number of work hours

necessary to accomplish the required

actions, specified as 1 work hour in the

cost impact information below, was

provided to the FAA by the

manufacturer based on the best data

available to date. This number

represents the time necessary to perform

only the actions actually required by

this AD. The FAA recognizes that, in

accomplishing the requirements of any

AD, operators may incur ‘‘incidental’’

costs in addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs.

The cost analysis in AD rulemaking

actions, however, typically does not

include incidental costs, such as the

time required to gain access and close

up, planning time, or time necessitated

by other administrative actions. Because

incidental costs may vary significantly

from operator to operator, they are

almost impossible to calculate. No

change to the final rule is necessary in

this regard.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62279

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 429 Model

747–400 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 50 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

replacement, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Required

parts will be supplied by the parts

manufacturer at no cost to the operators.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $3,000, or $60 per airplane.

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. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–20–20 Boeing: Amendment 39–11932.

Docket 99–NM–248–AD.

Applicability: Model 747–400 series

airplanes, having line numbers 696 through

1187 inclusive, certificated in any category;

equipped with Honeywell inertial reference

units (IRU).

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 (c) 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 prevent loss of multiple IRU’s in flight,

which could result in the loss of navigation

data, and compromise the ability of the flight

crew to maintain the safe flight and landing

of the airplane, accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, remove the left, center, and

right IRU’s, and install modified IRU’s, in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–34A2638, Revision 1, dated

April 8, 1999.

Note 2: Removal of existing left, center,

and right IRU’s and replacement with

modified IRU’s in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–34A2638, dated

January 29, 1999, is considered acceptable for

compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install an IRU having Boeing

part number S242T101–110, S242T101–111,

or S242T101–112, on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Avionics

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

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

(d) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–34A2638, Revision 1, dated

April 8, 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.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

November 22, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

6, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26308 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P