6566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

contacted for disposition of certain

conditions, this proposal would require

the repair of those conditions to be

accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA.

Additionally, operators should note

that, the Bombardier service bulletin

does not provide procedures for repair

of damage within certain limits.

However, this proposed AD would

require the repair of damage that is

determined to be within certain limits;

the repair would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

Structure Repair Manual (SRM).

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 235 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection and installation and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $84,600, or $360 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed 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 proposed herein

would 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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland,

Inc.): Docket 99-NM–371-AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200,

and –300 series airplanes, having serial

numbers 003 through 528 inclusive and 531;

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 (b) 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 damage of the upper wing

ladder plates, which could result in

displacement of the adjacent channel seals

and consequent reduced lightning strike

protection of the fuel tanks, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time detailed

visual inspection to detect damage (i.e.,

fretting and/or corrosion) of the ladder plates

and access cover areas of the upper surface

of the wings in accordance with paragraph

III.A., III.B., or III.C., as applicable, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier

Service Bulletin S.B. 8–57–41, Revision ‘A’,

dated July 28, 1999.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc. may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(1) If no damage is detected, prior to

further flight, install new 0.103-inch

diameter O-ring seals in accordance with

paragraph III.A., III.B., or III.C., as applicable,

of the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin.

(2) If any damage is detected that is within

the limits specified in the Structure Repair

Manual (SRM), prior to further flight, repair

the damage in accordance with the SRM, and

install new 0.103-inch diameter O-ring seals

in accordance with paragraph III.A., III.B., or

III.C., as applicable, of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin.

(3) If any damage is detected that is outside

the limits specified in the SRM, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, and install

new 0.103–inch diameter O–ring seals.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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, New York

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) 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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–99–

20, dated July 20, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

4, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–3133 Filed 2–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–99–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6567

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of two existing

airworthiness directives (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320 series airplanes, that currently

require modification of the rear spar

web of the wing and cold expansion of

certain attachment holes for the forward

pintle fitting and certain holes at the

actuating cylinder anchorage of the

main landing gear (MLG). This proposed

action would add a requirement for

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking in certain areas of the rear spar

of the wing, and corrective action, if

necessary. This proposed action would

also provide for optional terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

This proposal is prompted by issuance

of mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking, which may lead to reduced

structural integrity of the wing and the

MLG.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

99–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–NM–99–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–NM–99–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On April 26, 1993, the FAA issued

AD 93–08–15, amendment 39–8563 (58

FR 27923, May 12, 1993), applicable to

certain Airbus Model A320 series

airplanes, which requires modification

of the rear spar web of the wing.

On December 21, 1993, the FAA

issued AD 93–25–13, amendment 39–

8777 (59 FR 1903, January 13, 1994),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320 series airplanes, which requires

cold expansion of certain attachment

holes for the forward pintle fitting and

certain holes at the actuating cylinder

anchorage of the main landing gear

(MLG).

Those actions were prompted by the

results of fatigue testing conducted by

the manufacturer. The requirements of

those ADs are intended to prevent

fatigue cracking, which may lead to

reduced structural integrity of the wing

and MLG.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous

Rules

Since the issuance of AD 93–08–13

and AD 93–25–13, the Direction

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness autority for

France, has advised the FAA that cracks

were found on a Model A320 series

airplane despite compliance with the

requirements of those ADs. Investigation

by the manufacturer provided further

indication that an airplane on which the

modifications required by that AD were

installed could experience cracking

prior to reaching the design life limits

of the airplane. In response to these

findings, the DGAC mandated repetitive

ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue

cracks on the rear spar to ensure the

structural integrity of the airplane.

Subsequent analysis of the results of

the ultrasonic inspections indicated that

reducing the inspection threshold for

selected holes would ensure the

structural integrity of the area and

prevent the need for extensive repairs of

the wing inner rear spar.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus issued Service Bulletin A320–

57–1088, dated September 30, 1996;

Revision 01, dated September 17, 1997;

and Revision 02, dated July 29, 1999.

This service bulletin describes

procedures for repetitive ultrasonic

inspections to detect cracking of the rear

spar of the wing in the area of holes for

the attachment of the gear rib, the

forward pintle fitting, and the MLG

actuating cylinder anchorage. Revision

02 specifies a reduced threshold for the

initial inspection of certain holes [holes

52 through 55 (actuating cylinder

anchorage) and holes 82, 83, 87, and 88

(gear support rib)]; the compliance time

for the initial inspection of the

remaining 32 holes is unchanged.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin

described previously is intended to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition. The DGAC classified Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1088 as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 1999–264–

135(B), dated June 30, 1999, in order to

ensure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France.

Airbus also issued Service Bulletin

A320–57–1089, dated December 22,

1996, Revision 01, dated April 17, 1997;

and Revision 02, dated November 6,

1998. This service bulletin describes a

modification of all affected fastener

holes in the rear spar of the wing. The

modification involves a cold reexpansion of the holes in the rear spar

of the wing for the attachment of gear

rib 5, the forward pintle fitting, and the

actuating cylinder anchorage; cold

expansion of the pintle fitting and gear

rib 5; and installation of interference fit

fasteners into the rear spar and gear rib

5 while maintaining a clearance fit in

the actuating cylinder anchorage and

pintle fitting. This service bulletin

specifies that the modification would

6568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

eliminate the need for the repetitive

ultrasonic inspections specified by

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1088.

It would also eliminate the need for the

modification specified by Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1004 and the

cold expansion specified by Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1060, if

accomplished prior to the accumulation

of 12,000 total flight cycles.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 93–08–15 and AD 93–25–

13 to continue to require modification of

the wing rear spar web and cold

expansion of certain attachment holes

for the forward pintle fitting and certain

holes at the actuating cylinder

anchorage of the MLG. The proposed

AD would add a requirement for

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect fatigue cracking in certain areas

of the wing rear spar, and repair of

cracking. This proposed AD also would

provide for optional terminating action

for the inspections proposed by this AD.

Difference Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

Service Bulletin A320–57–1088

specifies that the manufacturer may be

contacted for a repair if cracks are

found, this proposal would require the

repair of those cracks to be

accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent). In light

of the type of repair that would be

required to address the identified unsafe

condition, and in consonance with

existing bilateral airworthiness

agreements, the FAA has determined

that, for this proposed AD, a repair

approved by the FAA or the DGAC

would be acceptable for compliance

with this proposed AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 126

airplanes of U.S. registry that would be

affected by this proposed AD.

Subsequent to the issuance of AD 93–

08–15 and AD 93–25–13, the FAA

reviewed the figure it used in

calculating the labor rate relevant to the

required AD activities. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has found

it appropriate to increase the labor rate

used in these calculations from $55 per

work hour to $60 per work hour. The

economic impact information, below,

has been revised to reflect this increase

in the specified hourly labor rate.

It takes approximately 60 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the

modification of the rear spar web of the

wing, as required by AD 93–08–15 and

retained in this AD, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

modification on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,600 per airplane.

It takes approximately 600 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the cold

expansion of certain holes associated

with the MLG, as required by AD 93–

25–13 and retained in this AD, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts are provided by the

manufacturer at no cost to the operators.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the cold expansion on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $36,000 per

airplane.

The inspection that is proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 24 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $181,440, or

$1,440 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action specified in this proposed AD, it

would take approximately 750 work

hours, at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. The required parts would

cost $27,036; $30,595; or $32,727;

depending on the airplane

configuration. Based on these figures,

the cost per airplane of the optional

terminating action proposed by this AD

is estimated to be $72,036; $75,595; or

$77,727.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would 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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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

removing amendments 39–8563 (58 FR

27923, May 12, 1993) and 39–8777 (59

FR 1903, January 13, 1994) and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–99–AD.

Supersedes AD 93–08–15, Amendment

39–8563; and AD 93–25–13, Amendment

39–8777.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes,

certificated in any category, except those on

which Airbus Modification 24591 (Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1089, dated

December 22, 1996; Revision 01, dated April

17, 1997; or Revision 02, dated November 6,

1998) has been accomplished.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6569

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (f)(1) 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 and correct fatigue cracking in

certain areas of the rear spar of the wing,

which may lead to reduced structural

integrity of the wing and the main landing

gear (MLG), accomplish the following:

Restatement of Actions Required by AD 93–

08–15

(a) For airplanes having manufacturer’s

serial numbers (MSN) 003 through 008

inclusive, and 010 through 021 inclusive:

Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total

flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after

June 11, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93–

08–15, amendment 39–8563), whichever

occurs later, modify the inner rear spar web

of the wing in accordance with Airbus

Industrie Service Bulletin A320–57–1004,

Revision 01, dated September 24, 1992, or

Revision 02, dated June 14, 1993.

Restatement of Actions Required by AD 93–

25–13

(b) For airplanes having MSN’s 002

through 051 inclusive: Prior to the

accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or

within 2,000 flight cycles after February 14,

1994 (the effective date of AD 93–25–13,

amendment 39–8777), whichever occurs

later, accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD in

accordance with Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A320–57–1060, dated December 8,

1992; or Revision 02, dated December 16,

1994.

(1) Perform a cold expansion of all the

attachment holes for the forward pintle

fitting of the MLG, except for the holes that

are for taper-lok bolts.

(2) Perform a cold expansion of the holes

at the actuating cylinder anchorage of the

MLG.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the cold

expansion in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–57–1060, Revision 01, dated

April 26, 1993, is also acceptable for

compliance with the requirements of

paragraph (b) of this AD.

New Actions Required by This AD

(c) For all airplanes: Perform an ultrasonic

inspection to detect cracking of the rear spar

of the wing, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1088, Revision 02,

dated July 29, 1999; at the applicable time

specified by paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this

AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight cycles.

(1) For airplanes on which the actions

specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

57–1004, Revision 02, dated June 14, 1993,

or earlier version; and Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–57–1060, Revision 02, dated

December 16, 1994, or earlier version; have

been accomplished: Perform the inspection

of all applicable fastener holes within 12,000

flight cycles after accomplishment of the

service bulletins, or within 750 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later.

(2) For airplanes on which the actions

specified by Airbus Modification 20740 and

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1060,

Revision 02, dated December 16, 1994, or

earlier version, have been accomplished; or

on which Airbus Modifications 20740,

20741, and 20796 have been accomplished:

Perform the inspections at the locations and

applicable times specified by paragraphs

(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Perform the inspection of left and right

fastener holes 52 to 55, 82, 83, 87, and 88;

located in the rear spar of the wing; prior to

the accumulation of 17,300 total flight cycles,

or within 750 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. If

any cracking is found, prior to further flight,

accomplish the requirements of paragraph

(c)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(ii) Except as required by paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this AD: Perform the inspection of

all fastener holes located in the rear spar of

the wing that are not identified in paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this AD prior to the accumulation

of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 200

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the actions

specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

57–1088, dated September 30, 1996, or

Revision 01, dated September 17, 1997, prior

to the effective date of this AD is acceptable

for compliance with the requirements of the

initial inspection required by paragraph (c) of

this AD.

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (c) of this

AD: Prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by

either the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the DGAC (or its delegated

agent). For a repair method to be approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116, as required by this paragraph, the

Manager’s approval letter must specifically

reference this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

(e) Modification of all specified fastener

holes in the rear spar of the wing in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1089, dated December 22, 1996;

Revision 01, dated April 17, 1997; or

Revision 02, dated November 6, 1998;

constitutes terminating action for the

ultrasonic inspections required by this AD.

Such modification, if accomplished prior to

the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles,

constitutes terminating action for the actions

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

93–25–13; amendment 39–8777, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(g) 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.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–264–

135(B), dated June 30, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

4, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–3132 Filed 2–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

RIN 3038–AB51

Minimum Financial Requirements for

Futures Commission Merchants and

Introducing Brokers; Amendments to

the Restrictions on the Withdrawal of

Equity Capital from a Futures

Commission Merchant and to the

Percentage Deduction (i.e., Haircut)

Applied to the Value of Equity

Securities Collateralizing Secured

Demand Notes Included in Adjusted

Net Capital by a Futures Commission

Merchant or Introducing Broker

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or

‘‘CFTC’’) is proposing to amend several

provisions of its Regulation 1.17, which

governs the minimum financial

requirements imposed upon futures

commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) and

introducing brokers (‘‘IBs’’). The

proposal would: ease the restrictions