This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

35787

Vol. 63, No. 126

Wednesday, July 1, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

7 CFR Part 2

Revision of Delegations of Authority

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,

Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document revises the

delegations of authority from the

Secretary of Agriculture and general

officers of the Department to change the

name of the Food and Consumer Service

to the Food and Nutrition Service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mildred Kelley, Human Resources

Division, Department of Agriculture,

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 623,

Alexandria, VA 22302, telephone (703)

305–1064.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

agency name of the Food and Consumer

Service was changed to its former name

of the Food and Nutrition Service by

order of the Secretary of Agriculture on

November 25, 1997. The purpose of the

final rule is to change the name of the

Food and Consumer Service to the Food

and Nutrition Service in the delegations

of authority from the Secretary, through

the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition,

and Consumer Services to the

Administrator of the Food and

Consumer Service.

This rule relates to internal agency

management. Therefore, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed

rulemaking and opportunity for

comment are not required and this rule

may be effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Further, since this rule relates to

internal agency management, it is

exempt from the provisions of Executive

Orders Nos. 12866 and 12988. Finally,

this action is not a rule as defined by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et

seq.) and the Small Business Regulatory

Fairness Enforcement Act (5 U.S.C. 801

et. seq.) and, thus, is exempt from their

provisions.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2

Authority delegations (Government

agencies).

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 2 is amended

as follows:

PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF

AUTHORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF

AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL

OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 212(a), Pub. L. 103–354,

108 Stat. 3210, 7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1); 5 U.S.C.

301; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 3

CFR 1949–1953 Comp., P. 1024.

Subpart I—Delegations of Authority by

the Under Secretary for Food,

Nutrition, and Consumer Services

2. Section 2.57 is amended by revising

the section heading and paragraph (a)

introductory text to read as follows:

§ 2.57 Administrator, Food and Nutrition

Service.

(a) Delegations. Pursuant to

§ 2.19(a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(5), subject to

reservations in § 2.91(b), the following

delegations of authority are made by the

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition,

and Consumer Services to the

Administrator, Food and Nutrition

Service:

* * * * *

Dated: June 5, 1998.

Shirley R. Watkins,

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 98–17439 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–30–AD; Amendment 39–

10637; AD 98–14–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal

Inc. KT 76A Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Transponders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain AlliedSignal Inc.

(AlliedSignal) KT 76A ATC

transponders that are installed on

aircraft. This AD requires incorporating

a modification on the affected

transponders that consists of replacing

two resistor network modules with

glass-coated modules. This AD is the

result of reports of these ATC

transponders transmitting misleading

encoding altimeter information to

ground-based ATC radar sites and

nearby Traffic Alert and Collision

Avoidance System (TCAS)-equipped

aircraft. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent the

transmission of misleading encoding

altimeter information between affected

aircraft caused by the inability of these

ATC transponders to coordinate with

ground-based ATC radar sites and

nearby TCAS-equipped aircraft.

DATES: Effective August 16, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of August 16,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

AlliedSignal Inc., General Aviation

Avionics, 400 N. Rogers Road, Olathe,

Kansas 66062–1212. This information

may also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–CE–30–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,

Washington, DC.
35788 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roger A. Souter, Aerospace Engineer,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4134; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain AlliedSignal KT 76A

ATC transponders that are installed on

aircraft was published in the Federal

Register as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on February 4, 1998

(63 FR 5763). The NPRM proposed to

require replacing two resistor network

modules, RM401 and RM402, with new

glass-coated parts. Accomplishment of

the proposed action as specified in the

NPRM would be in accordance with

AlliedSignal Service Bulletin SB KT

76A–7, dated July 1996.

The NPRM was the result of reports

of these ATC transponders transmitting

misleading encoding altimeter

information to ground-based ATC radar

sites and nearby Traffic Alert and

Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)-

equipped aircraft.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Comment Issue: The Compliance Time

Should Be Extended

Three commenters believe that the

proposed compliance time of 6 calendar

months is unrealistic. These comments

are detailed as follows:

1. One commenter states that, in order

to accomplish the work, Allied Signal

would have to supply 38 repairmen who

would work 8 hours per day for 6

months. The commenter questions

whether this commitment will be made.

2. Another commenter agrees with the

FAA’s decision to state the compliance

in calendar time, but believes that a

more appropriate and more convenient

time would be to require the work at the

next annual inspection or transponder

system inspection. This would reduce

the down-time for the affected aircraft

by allowing the work to be

accomplished during regularly

scheduled maintenance.

3. The third commenter states that

many of the affected transponders will

be part of a complete pitot-static system

that requires biennial calibration in

accordance with § 91.413 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.413).

The commenter proposes that since the

unit will already be at the avionics shop

for this calibration, then the FAA

should write the compliance time to

coincide with the biennial pitot-static

system calibration.

The FAA partially concurs with the

above comments, as follows:

1. After re-evaluating all information

related to this subject, the FAA concurs

that 6 calendar months is an unrealistic

time period to have the work

accomplished on all of the affected

transponders. The FAA believes that a

large number of the affected aircraft

already have the proposed modification

incorporated on the transponder. Based

on all information, the FAA believes

that a 12 calendar month compliance

time is more realistic. The final rule will

reflect this change.

2. The 12 calendar month compliance

time will allow the modification to be

incorporated during the airplane’s next

annual inspection, as requested by the

commenter.

3. Because the silver migration

process is affected by environmental

factors as well as occurring over time,

the FAA cannot predict when a

particular transponder could fail. A

transponder could work well one day

and then fail the next day. With this in

mind, the FAA does not concur that the

compliance time should be written to

coincide with the next pitot-static

system biennial calibration in

accordance with § 91.413 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.413).

This could allow the condition defined

in this AD to go undetected for up to 24

months.

Comment Issue: Problem Occurs Only

on Aircraft Operating Above 10,000

Feet and the AD Should Be Limited to

Only Those Aircraft Operating in

Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) Conditions

Two commenters believe that the

condition specified in the NPRM is

associated with ‘‘at altitude’’ operations

over time. The commenters state that

one could imply that:

‘‘aircraft in the high altitude structure may be

more likely to experience this problem than

one operating below 10,000 feet and using

the Allied Signal KT 76A ATC transponder

simply because the aircraft operates within

Class B or C airspace or within a 30 nautical

miles ‘‘veil’’ for a class B airport. The

problem with an erroneous altitude report

from a high speed aircraft operating in the

IFR airspace system is significantly different

than a small airplane flying in visual flight

rules (VFR) conditions.’’

Both commenters recommend

different actions than are already

proposed based on the above

information and both believe that the

private operator (who is mostly a

Sunday pilot) would remove the

equipment from the aircraft since

aircraft in VFR operation outside of the

B and C airspace do not need to have

a transponder unit. Both believe that

removing the transponder would reduce

safety. These recommendations are as

follows:

1. One commenter suggests that those

operating in only VFR conditions

fabricate and install a placard with the

words ‘‘For VFR Use Only’’. If or when

these aircraft’s transponders no longer

comply with the 125-foot error

requirement of part 43, Appendix E, of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 43, Appendix E), then the

commenter proposes that the AD require

immediate replacement or modification

of the transponder equipment. The

commenter feels that this would allow

thousands of small aircraft to fly legally

and safely within the 30 nautical mile

veils associated with Class B airports,

without incurring an additional expense

to their flying activities.

2. The other commenter recommends

that the FAA not issue the proposed AD

as a final rule, or if issued, limit the

Applicability of the AD to only turbinepowered or ‘‘10-or-more seats’’ aircraft.

This commenter feels that replacing

equipment that meets performance

standards because of a ‘‘maybe’’

malfunction (which will simply cause

an error in altitude reporting) is wrong

when it comes to private aircraft (used

mostly for pleasure). The commenter

also suggests a possible mandatory

replacement or modification of the

equipment if a certain error is detected.

The FAA does not concur with the

proposed alternatives presented by the

commenters. The altitude at which an

aircraft equipped with one of the

affected transponders is flown and the

amount of time flown at this altitude do

not affect the probability of the unit

failing. The ‘‘silver migration’’ process

occurs regardless of the altitude or the

time ‘‘at altitude’’. This ‘‘silver

migration’’ process is slow and is

affected by environmental factors as

well. The FAA cannot assure that any

given unit would not be affected by this

condition during any given 2 year

period. A unit could pass on one day

and then fail the next day. Aircraft that

are operated in VFR conditions are

interrogated by TCAS-equipped aircraft

in the areas. The ATC system and

misleading aircraft altitude information

could represent a hazard to the aircraft

in VFR conditions. The FAA has

determined that safety would be

compromised if the AD allowed, for

aircraft operating in VFR conditions, the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 35789

system to fail before mandating

replacement or modification.

Comment Issue: Limit the AD to Only

Those Aircraft Exhibiting Problems

In addition to the comments above

proposing replacement or modification

of the Allied Signal KT 76A ATC

transponder upon condition for aircraft

operating in VFR conditions, one

commenter proposes that the AD only

apply to those transponders that exhibit

problems during the 24 calendar month

pitot-static system calibration in

accordance with § 91.413 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.413).

This would be for all transponders

regardless of the type of operation in

which the aircraft is involved. The

commenter believes that this would

accomplish the intent of the AD without

burdening operators already in good

working order.

The FAA does not concur. As

discussed earlier, the FAA cannot

predict when a particular transponder

could fail. A transponder could work

well one day and then fail the next day.

The FAA has determined that safety

would be compromised if the AD

allowed the system to fail before

mandating replacement or modification.

Comment Issue: Wait for Results of

Technical Field Study on Transponders

One commenter agrees with the FAA

that the KT 76A ATC transponders have

a demonstrated history of inaccurate or

misleading data transmission and that

corrective action is necessary to address

this issue. This commenter goes on to

state that the FAA Technical Center in

Atlantic City conducted a full-scale field

study of transponder performance in

general aviation aircraft and determined

that a variety of deficiencies exist in a

broad range of transponders, including

the KT 76A ATC transponders. This

commenter suggests that the FAA

withhold issuance of this AD until the

full scope of the transponder issues can

be addressed, including the problems

associated with ‘‘silver migration’’ in

the KT 76A ATC transponders.

The FAA concurs that the information

from the Technical Center Study is very

important. However, correspondence

received from the Technical Center

indicates that resolution of these issues

may take a considerable amount of time.

As stated earlier, the FAA cannot

predict when a particular transponder

could fail. A transponder could work

well one day and then fail the next day.

The FAA has determined that safety

would be compromised if the AD was

not issued awaiting a resolution from

the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic

City, regarding the full scope of the

transponder issues.

Comment Issue: Certain Aspects Not

Covered in the Cost Impact

Four commenters propose changes to

the section that describes the cost

impact upon the public. These include:

—It will take 2.5 workhours to

accomplish the action instead of 2

workhours as presented in the NPRM;

—In addition to providing parts at no

charge, Allied Signal is providing

warranty credit for up to 2.5

workhours to accomplish the action;

—The cost impact should include the

costs of a recalibration of the pitotstatic system; and

—The cost impact does not take into

account the costs the affected aircraft

operators will incur while their

aircraft is out-of-service.

The FAA concurs that it will take 2.5

workhours to accomplish the action and

that Allied Signal will provide warranty

credit for up to 2.5 workhours to

accomplish the action. The final rule

will incorporate this information.

The FAA does not concur that the

cost impact section should account for

recalibration costs because the inputs

affected by the silver migration are

encoding altimeter inputs and are not

directly connected to the pitot static

system. Therefore, there are no costs

associated with pitot static system when

complying with this AD.

The FAA believes that the change in

the compliance time from 6 calendar

months to 12 calendar months will take

into account the cost impact of aircraft

‘‘out-of-service.’’ This will allow the

operator to schedule the replacement

and modification to coincide with a

regularly schedule maintenance event,

thus, the AD will not necessitate any

additional downtime. Even if additional

downtime is necessary for some

airplanes, the FAA does not possess

sufficient information to evaluate the

number of airplanes that may be so

affected or the amount of additional

downtime that may be required.

Comment Issue: Include Statistical Data

Concerning the Problem in the AD

One commenter states that including

statistical data that more fully discusses

the origin of the ‘‘silver migration’’

problem would be helpful.

The FAA, in working with the

manufacturer, saw a three-fold increase

in the usage of spare parts of the Allied

Signal KT76A ATC transponders.

Between the last quarter of 1995 and the

first quarter of 1996, quarterly usage of

spare parts increased from

approximately 40 parts per quarter to

approximately 120 parts for that quarter.

This indicates a significant trend and

failure analysis of these transponders.

Information submitted to the FAA

revealed that this increase in spare parts

usage was due to the ‘‘silver migration’’

problem. Within a 3-month period, over

150 of these transponder units were in

the repair shops to have ‘‘silver

migration’’ problems remedied.

Comment Issue: Concur With the

Action

One commenter agrees with the

proposal as written and states that

accomplishing ‘‘this relatively

inexpensive and simple repair action

will eliminate the potential hazard and

enhance general flying safety in the

National Airspace System.’’

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for the

change in the compliance time and

minor editorial corrections. The FAA

has determined that this change and

minor corrections will not change the

meaning of the AD and will not add any

additional burden upon the public than

was already proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 20,000

transponder units could be affected by

this AD if all were installed in aircraft

of U.S. registry. Approximately 2.5

workhours will be needed to

accomplish this action, at an average

labor rate of $60 an hour. However,

Allied Signal will provide warranty

credit for up to 2.5 workhours to

accomplish the action, as well as

providing all necessary parts at no cost

to the owners/operators of airplanes

with the affected transponder units

installed. Based on these figures and

Allied Signal’s warranty program, this

AD will impose no cost impact on U.S.

operators of the affected aircraft.

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.
35790 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 copy of the final

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, 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

98–14–03 AlliedSignal Inc.: Amendment

39–10637; Docket No. 97–CE–30–AD.

Applicability: AlliedSignal KT 76A Air

Traffic Control (ATC) transponders; part

number (P/N) 066–1062-00/10/02; serial

numbers 93,000 through 109,999, as installed

on, but not limited to the following airplanes

(all serial numbers), certificated in any

category:

Cessna Aircraft Company: 172, 182, R182,

T182, 06, P206, U206, TP206, 210, T210,

P210, 310, 310, T310, and 421 series

airplanes.

Twin Commander Aircraft Company: 500,

520, 560, 680, 681, 685, 690, 695, and 720

series airplanes.

The New Piper Aircraft Corporation: PA–31,

PA–32, and PA–34 series airplanes.

Raytheon Aircraft Company: E33, F33, G33,

35, J35, K35, L35, K35, M35, P35, S35, V35,

36, A26, B36, D55, E55, 56, A56, 58, 58A,

95, B95, D95, and E95 series airplanes.

Mooney Aircraft Corporation: M20 series

airplanes.

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company:

Model 500N rotorcraft.

Note 1: This AD applies to each aircraft

equipped with a transponder that is

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

aircraft 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 within the next 12

calendar months after the effective date of

this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent the transmission of misleading

encoding altimeter information between

affected aircraft caused by the inability of the

affected ATC transponders to coordinate with

ground-based air traffic control (ATC) radar

sites and nearby Traffic Alert and Collision

Avoidance System (TCAS)-equipped aircraft,

accomplish the following:

(a) Replace the two resistor network

modules, M401 and RM402, with new glasscoated parts in accordance with the

MODIFICATION PROCEDURE section of

AlliedSignal Service Bulletin SB KT 76A–7,

dated July 1996. When accomplished, this

replacement is referred to as Mod 7.

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

person may install an AlliedSignal KT 76A

ATC transponder; part number (P/N) 066–

1062–00/10/02; serial numbers 93,000

through 109,999, in an aircraft without first

incorporating Mod 7 as specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(c) 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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(e) The replacement required by this AD

shall be done in accordance with

AlliedSignal Service Bulletin SB KT 76A–7,

dated July 1996. 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 AlliedSignal Inc., General

Aviation Avionics, 400 N. Rogers Road,

Olathe, Kansas 66062–1212. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

August 16, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June

23, 1998.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–17301 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–103–AD; Amendment

39–10639; AD 98–14–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Dornier Model

328–100 series airplanes, that requires

modification of the ground cooling fan.

This amendment is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent failure of the

ground cooling fan, which could result

in smoke in the flight deck and cabin

and consequent inability of the flight

crew to perform duties or possible

passenger injury due to smoke

inhalation.

DATES: Effective August 5, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of August 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from FAIRCHILD DORNIER, DORNIER

Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D–

82230 Wessling, Germany. 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:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601