Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 18883

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 cracked fire

extinguishing tubes in the engine struts,

which, in the event of an engine fire, could

reduce the amount of fire extinguishing agent

that can be delivered to the engine, and result

in a fire spreading from the engine to the

wing of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective

Actions

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect cracking of the fire

extinguisher discharge tubes in the number 2

and number 3 engine struts, in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

26A2266, dated March 3, 2000.

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 cracking is detected, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 18 months.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, replace the cracked tube with

a new or serviceable part, in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–26A2266,

dated March 3, 2000. Repeat the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD within

18 months after the replacement and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18

months.

Optional Terminating Action

(b) For Model 747–400 series airplanes, L/

N 696 through 1061 inclusive, equipped with

Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines:

Modification of the fire extinguisher

discharge tubes in the number 2 and number

3 struts, in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 747–26–2233, dated May 11, 1995,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

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,

Transport Airplane Directorate. 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.

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 §§ 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 inspections and replacement shall

be done in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–26A2266, dated March

3, 2000. If accomplished, the optional

terminating action shall be accomplished in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

747–26–2233, dated May 11, 1995. 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.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

April 25, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

30, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–8393 Filed 4–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–72–AD; Amendment

39–11659; AD 2000–07–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 767

series airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

or damage of the forward and aft lugs of

the diagonal brace of the nacelle strut,

and follow-on actions, if necessary. That

AD also provides optional terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

This amendment requires

accomplishment of the previously

optional terminating action. This

amendment is prompted by a report that

a fractured diagonal brace lug was found

during a routine maintenance

inspection. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent cracking of

the diagonal brace of the nacelle strut,

which could result in failure of the

diagonal brace, and consequent fatigue

failure of a strut secondary load path

and separation of the engine and strut.

DATES: Effective May 15, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

54A0094, dated May 22, 1998, was

approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of April 12, 1999

(64 FR 14578, March 26, 1999).

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:

James G. Rehrl, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2783;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 99–07–06,

amendment 39–11091 (64 FR 14578,

March 26, 1999), which is applicable to

certain Boeing Model 767 series

airplanes, was published in the Federal

Register on June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33437).

The action proposed to supersede AD

99–07–06 to continue to require

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

or damage of the forward and aft lugs of

the diagonal brace of the nacelle strut,

and follow-on actions, if necessary. That

action also proposed to require

accomplishment of the previously

optional terminating action.

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.

18884 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for the repetitive

inspection intervals specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed AD be

extended. The commenter suggests that

the inspection intervals should coincide

with its current heavy maintenance

program, which specifies that

inspections be performed between 1,200

and 1,300 flight cycles. The commenter

further states that to carry out the

inspection at intervals not to exceed

1,000 flight cycles would be considered

punitive action as it is prior to the

normally scheduled maintenance.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time for accomplishment of

the repetitive inspection intervals to

between 1,200 and 1,300 flight cycles

after the initial inspection. In

developing an appropriate compliance

time for the repetitive inspections, the

FAA considered not only the degree of

urgency associated with addressing

cracking or damage of the forward and

aft lugs of the diagonal brace of the

nacelle strut, but other factors as well.

Those factors include the

recommendations of the manufacturer,

and the practical aspect of

accomplishing the repetitive inspections

within an interval of time coinciding

with normally scheduled maintenance

for the majority of affected operators.

Considering those factors, the FAA has

determined that the compliance time of

1,000 flight cycles after the

accomplishment of the initial inspection

represents the maximum interval in

which the affected airlines can continue

to operate without compromising safety.

In view of those factors, and the amount

of time that has already elapsed since

issuance of the notice of proposed

rulemaking, the FAA has determined

that further delay of these inspections

is, in general, not appropriate. The FAA

may, however, approve a request for an

adjustment of the compliance time

under the provisions of paragraph (f) of

this final rule if data are submitted to

substantiate that such an adjustment

would provide an equivalent level of

safety. No change to the final rule is

necessary in this regard.

Another commenter requests that the

compliance times for the replacement of

the diagonal brace specified in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of the proposed

rule be changed to reflect the flight

cycle threshold formula specified in the

structural inspection program service

bulletin, 767–54–0081, Figure 1, which

is to be released soon. The commenter

also notes that the threshold formula

could be placed in an appendix to the

proposal.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. Boeing Service

Bulletin 767–54–0081 states that the

threshold formula may be used in lieu

of the calendar threshold specified in

the identified service bulletins. The

formula in service bulletin 767–54–0081

was FAA-approved based on the fact

that certain airplanes (e.g., those that

have extended flights) would reach the

20-year calendar threshold long before

they accumulated the flight cycle

threshold of 37,500 total flight cycles

specified in that service bulletin. The

FAA notes that there is no comparable

threshold in calendar time contained in

this final rule for which the proposed

threshold formula can be used as a

substitute. The FAA considered many

factors (as stated previously) before

developing an appropriate compliance

time for this AD, and the FAA has

determined that the compliance time for

the replacement required by paragraphs

(d) and (e) of the final rule represents

the maximum interval in which the

affected airlines can continue to operate

without compromising safety.

Therefore, no change to the final rule is

necessary.

Another commenter requests the

compliance time in paragraph (b)(2) of

the proposal be revised to read, ‘‘* * *

diagonal brace has accumulated 24,000

flight cycles * * *’’ to agree with the

alert service bulletin. The FAA does not

concur. The alert service bulletin

specifies that the initial inspection for

Group 2 airplanes be performed prior to

the accumulation of 24,000 flight cycles,

or within 90 days after receipt of the

service bulletin; and the repetitive

inspections be performed at intervals

not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until

the diagonal brace has accumulated

32,000 flight cycles. Therefore, the final

rule agrees with the alert service

bulletin and no change is necessary in

this regard.

Request To Revise Paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) of the Proposed Rule

Three commenters request that the

word ‘‘damage’’ be deleted from or

clarified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of

the proposal.

The first commenter states that, if any

damage is detected, even if it is minor

and repairable, replacement of the

diagonal brace is required, as specified

in paragraph (c) of the proposal. The

commenter further states that the alert

service bulletin referenced in the

proposal specifies an inspection to

detect cracking of the diagonal brace

lugs only, and does not specify

inspecting for damage; therefore, the

word ‘‘damage’’ should be deleted.

The second commenter states that if

the words ‘‘or damage’’ are not removed,

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the

proposal should specifically clarify

what should be searched for (cracks,

fracture) during the inspection. The

same commenter requests the addition

of a requirement in paragraph (c) of the

proposal to specify that damage to the

lug bores (including wear, cracks, or

surface corrosion) be repaired in

accordance with Part 2 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the

alert service bulletin.

The third commenter states that the

word ‘‘damage’’ is undefined in the

proposed rule, and notes that the alert

service bulletin specifies that cracks

originated in the lug bore of the

diagonal brace caused by bushing

motion and subsequent fretting of the

lug bore, indicating that the damage that

caused the cracks was fretting of the lug

bore. The commenter also notes that the

detailed visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of the proposal does not

inspect the lug bore; therefore, the

fretting or ‘‘damage’’ will not be found.

The commenter indicates that, without

any damage limit guidelines, even very

minor damage (tool marks, scratched

paint) will make it necessary for

operators to perform costly additional

inspections. The commenter notes that

the inspection should be limited to the

unsafe condition that is caused by

fretting of the lug bore, which can be

found by crack indications.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests concerning

removal of the word ‘‘damage’’ as

referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)

of the final rule. The FAA has reviewed

this issue and has determined that the

inspection to detect cracks or damage as

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the

final rule, is necessary. Certain types of

damage, if detected, specifically fretting

and bushing motion, must be corrected

in accordance with the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office. These types

of damage are two links in a sequential

chain of events that can ultimately

result in a fractured lug, or other

possible failure modes. Other types of

damage (tool marks, scratched paint) are

not related to the unsafe condition

specified in this AD, and would be

defined as superficial. The FAA has,

however, added a ‘‘NOTE 2’’ to the final

rule to define the word ‘‘damage.’’

The FAA concurs with the second

commenter’s request to add another

requirement to paragraph (c) of the final

rule, which states that damage can be

repaired in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin. Paragraph

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 18885

(c) of the final rule has been revised to

give the operator the option of either

repair or replacement of the diagonal

brace if any cracking or damage is

detected, following accomplishment of

any inspection required by paragraph (a)

or (b) of the AD.

Request for Clarification of Paragraph

(c) of the Proposed Rule

One commenter requests that the

wording in paragraph (c) of the proposal

be revised to read, ‘‘* * * and if one or

more ligaments of the lugs are fractured

perform additional inspections to detect

damage of the strut secondary load

paths * * *’’ The commenter notes that

cracking, rather than fractures, will not

increase the load in the secondary load

path.

Another commenter requests

clarification of the requirements in

paragraph (c) of the proposal. The

commenter questions which two lugs

out of the four lugs (two lugs on the

forward end and two lugs on the aft

end) of the diagonal brace must be

fractured before the extensive follow-on

inspections of the secondary load path

structure (Figure 8 of the service

bulletin) are necessary. The

commenter’s interpretation is that the

inspections specified in Figure 8 of the

service bulletin are necessary only if

both lugs on one of the ends of the

diagonal brace are fractured, and if only

one lug on each end of the diagonal

brace is fractured, the inspections

specified in Figure 7 of the service

bulletin would be necessary.

The FAA agrees that clarification is

necessary in order to better define the

requirements in paragraph (c) of the AD.

Paragraph (c) of the final rule has been

revised to provide a detailed

explanation of the inspection area and

procedures.

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 208

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

105 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

The inspections that are currently

required by AD 99–07–06, and retained

in this AD, 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 the currently required inspections on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,300,

or $60 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

The replacement that is required in

this AD action takes approximately 8

work hours (4 work hours for each strut)

per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$50,000 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the required

replacement required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $5,300,400,

or $50,480 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 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

removing amendment 39–11091 (64 FR

14578, March 26, 1999), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–11659, to read as

follows:

2000–07–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–11659.

Docket 99–NM–72–AD. Supersedes AD

99–07–06, amendment 39–11091.

Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes;

as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

767–54A0094, dated May 22, 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 (f) 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 cracking of the diagonal brace

of the nacelle strut, which could result in

failure of the diagonal brace, and consequent

fatigue failure of a strut secondary load path

and separation of the engine and strut,

accomplish the following:

Initial Inspection

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracking or damage of the forward and

aft lugs of the diagonal brace of the nacelle

strut, on the left and right sides of the

airplane, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 767–54A0094, dated May

22, 1998. Perform the inspection at the time

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

AD, as applicable.

Note 2: The word ‘‘damage’’ as referenced

in this AD, is defined as fretting and/or

bushing motion.

(1) For airplanes in Groups 1, 3, and 4:

Inspect prior to the accumulation of 12,000

total flight cycles, or within 90 days after

April 12, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99–

07–06, amendment 39–11091), whichever

occurs later.

(2) For airplanes in Group 2: Inspect prior

to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight

cycles, or within 90 days after April 12, 1999,

whichever occurs later.

Follow-On Actions

(b) If no cracking or damage is detected

during the inspection required by paragraph

18886 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(a) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter

at the interval specified in paragraph (b)(1) or

(b)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–

54A0094, dated May 22, 1998. Repeat the

inspection until the actions specified by

paragraph (d) or (e) of this AD have been

accomplished.

(1) For airplanes in Groups 1, 3, and 4; and

for airplanes in Group 2 on which the

diagonal brace has accumulated more than

32,000 total flight cycles: Repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 1,000

flight cycles.

(2) For airplanes in Group 2 on which the

diagonal brace has accumulated 32,000 or

fewer total flight cycles: Repeat the

inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,000

flight cycles.

(c) If any cracking or damage is detected

during any inspection required by paragraph

(a) or (b) of this AD: Prior to further flight,

remove the diagonal brace and perform

additional inspections to detect damage of

the strut secondary load paths, in accordance

with Part 4 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

767–54A0094, dated May 22, 1998; and

accomplish the requirements of paragraph

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD; as applicable.

(1) If any cracking is detected: Prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of

this AD, as applicable.

(i) If one lug on one or both ends of the

diagonal brace is fractured (Figure 7 of the

alert service bulletin), or if two lugs on either

end of the diagonal brace are fractured

(Figure 8 of the alert service bulletin), prior

to further flight: Rework the forward and aft

lugs of the diagonal brace in accordance with

the rework limits specified in Part 2 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert

service bulletin.

(ii) Replace the one-piece diagonal brace

with a new three-piece diagonal brace, in

accordance with Part 3 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert

service bulletin. Such replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(iii) If any additional damage of the

alternate load paths is detected, repair 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 (DER) who has

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle

ACO, to make such findings.

(2) If any damage is detected: Prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO; or in accordance with data meeting the

type certification basis of the airplane

approved by a Boeing Company DER who has

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle

ACO, to make such findings.

(d) For airplanes on which no cracking is

detected during the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, in lieu of

accomplishing repetitive inspections in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD,

rework of the forward and aft lugs of the

diagonal brace may be accomplished in

accordance with Part 2 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 767–54A0094, dated May

22, 1998. If such rework is accomplished:

Within 12,000 flight cycles after the rework,

repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD; and, prior to the accumulation

of 37,500 total flight cycles on the diagonal

brace, replace the one-piece diagonal brace

with a new three-piece diagonal brace, in

accordance with Part 3 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert

service bulletin. Such replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

Terminating Action

(e) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total

flight cycles, or within 180 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Replace the one-piece diagonal brace

with a new three-piece diagonal brace, in

accordance with Part 3 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 767–54A0094, dated May

22, 1998. Such replacement constitutes

terminating action for the requirements of

this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f) 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.

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

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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

(h) Except as provided by paragraphs

(c)(1)(i) and (c)(3) of this AD, the actions

shall be done in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 767–54A0094, dated

May 22, 1998. The incorporation by reference

of this service bulletin was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of April 12, 1999 (64 FR 14578,

March 26, 1999). 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.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

31, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–8518 Filed 4–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 27065, 25148 and 26620;

Amendment No. 121–273]

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse

Prevention Programs for Personnel

Engaged in Specified Aviation

Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: This action corrects FAA

office addresses listed in the Code of

Federal Regulations regarding Drug

Testing Programs and Alcohol Misuse

Prevention Programs. The action is

necessary so that required notifications

and reports are received by the FAA in

a timely and efficient manner. The

intended effect of this action is to

ensure that the regulated public has

correct information regarding FAA

office addresses.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph Timmons, Acting Manager,

Program Analysis Branch, AAM–810,

Drug Abatement Division, Office of

Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation

Administration, Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 267–8442.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 15, 1994, the FAA

published a final rule, Alcohol Misuse

Prevention Program (59 FR 7380). On

August 19, 1994, the FAA published a

final rule, Antidrug Program for

Personnel Engaged in Specified

Aviation Activities (59 FR 42922). These

final rules specified the requirements

for drug and alcohol testing of air carrier

employees. Since the publication of the

final rules, the FAA has identified

several FAA office addresses specified

in the final rules that have changed.

This technical amendment updates

office addresses specified in 14 CFR Part

121, Appendices I and J. The changes

will facilitate notification, reporting,

and submission requirements.