AD 2000-23-22

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70650-70653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 00-29497]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-333-AD; Amendment 39-11995; AD 2000-23-22]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, 
-40, and -50 series airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes, that 
currently requires a one-time visual inspection to determine if the 
doorstops and corners of the doorjamb of the forward passenger door 
have been modified, various follow-on repetitive inspections, and 
modification, if necessary. This amendment requires a reduction in the 
inspection threshold and repetitive intervals for a certain doubler 
configuration and an increase in the grace period for a certain other 
doubler configuration. This amendment is prompted by a determination 
that certain inspection compliance times were incorrect. The actions 
specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue 
cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and 
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2001.
    The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999, as listed in the 
regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 2, 2001.
    The incorporation by reference of certain other publications, as 
listed in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of January 22, 1999 (63 FR 70005, December 18, 
1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: 
Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). 
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 FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-26-09, 
amendment 39-10949 (63 FR 70005, December 18, 1998), which is 
applicable

[[Page 70651]]

to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes, was published in the 
Federal Register on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17818). The action proposed to 
require a reduction in the inspection threshold and repetitive 
intervals for a certain doubler configuration and an increase in the 
repetitive inspection interval for a certain other doubler 
configuration.

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.

Compliance Times

    One commenter requests that the compliance time specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) of the proposed AD be revised to include ``or 
prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total landings.'' The commenter 
states that some of its airplanes have accumulated less than 44,425 
total landings. The initial compliance thresholds in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (d) of the proposed AD do not take into consideration those 
airplanes on which: (1) The initial inspection required by paragraph 
(a) of the proposed AD is going to be accomplished at 48,000 total 
landings, which is the later of the two thresholds in paragraph (a) of 
this proposed AD; and (2) the landings since accomplishment of the 
previously modified doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb is unknown. In this situation, those airplanes would exceed 
the compliance times specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) of the 
proposed AD.
    A second commenter requests that the FAA clarify the compliance 
times specified in paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD for the 
doorjambs with steel repairs installed. The commenter states that, 
since paragraph (c)(1) appears to ``allow up to [5],999 flight cycles 
for existing repairs to be inspected initially,'' a repetitive 
inspection interval of 3,000 flight cycles specified in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of the proposed AD should be increased to 3,575 flight 
cycles. The commenter states that such an interval would maintain at 
least an equivalent level of safety.
    The FAA partially concurs. For the reasons provided by the first 
commenter, the FAA concurs that paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) of the final 
rule should include a compliance time of ``prior to the accumulation of 
48,000 total landings'' and has revised the final rule accordingly.
    The FAA does not concur with the second commenter that the 
repetitive inspection interval of 3,000 landings specified in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of the AD should be increased. The FAA determined that the 
cracking of the forward passenger door doorjamb is fatigue related (as 
discussed in the preamble of the NPRM). The 3,000-landing compliance 
time was calculated based on fatigue and damage tolerance analyses. 
Therefore, the FAA finds that the 3,000-landing repetitive inspection 
interval of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the AD is warranted, based on the 
effectiveness of the inspection procedure to detect cracks, and the 
rate of crack growth in the forward passenger door doorjamb. However, 
the FAA inadvertently included an initial repetitive inspection 
interval of ``within 2,000 landings after the effective date of this AD 
or within 3,000 landings from the last inspection in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs later'' in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of the proposed AD. The FAA's intent was that, if no crack is 
detected on the skin adjacent to the modification during any eddy 
current inspection required by paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, the eddy 
current inspection be accomplished thereafter at intervals not to 
exceed 3,000 landings, as indicated in the referenced service bulletin. 
Therefore, the FAA has revised paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the final rule 
accordingly.

Designated Engineer Representative (DER) Authority

    One commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to allow 
approval of certain repairs (i.e., cracking conditions beyond the 
allowable repair limits specified in the proposed AD, and for existing 
repairs that are not done per the DC-9 Structural Repair Manual or 
Service Rework Drawing) based on static strength analysis by a Boeing 
DER or airline DER, instead of the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO). Then, the repair should be submitted to 
Boeing for a damage tolerance analysis, and subsequently, submitted to 
the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO. The commenter states that this 
provision would result in a more efficient and expeditious repair 
approval process.
    The FAA does not concur. While DER's are authorized to determine 
whether a design or repair method complies with a specific requirement, 
they are not currently authorized to make the discretionary 
determination as to what the applicable requirement is. However, the 
FAA has issued a notice (N 8110.72, dated March 30, 1998), which 
provides guidance for delegating authority to certain type certificate 
holder structural DER's to approve alternative methods of compliance 
for AD-required repairs and modifications of individual airplanes. The 
FAA is currently working with Boeing, Douglas Products Division (DPD), 
to develop the implementation process for delegation of approval of 
alternative methods of compliance in accordance with that notice. Once 
this process is implemented, approval authority for alternative methods 
of compliance can be delegated without revising the AD.

Explanation of Changes to Final Rule

    The FAA finds that, as the proposed AD is currently worded, 
operators may misinterpret what type of eddy current inspection (i.e., 
low frequency or high frequency) must be accomplished. The FAA's intent 
was to follow the particular type of eddy current inspection indicated 
in the referenced service bulletin. However, because the service 
bulletin interchanges the use of low frequency eddy current inspection 
and high frequency eddy current inspection, the FAA has revised the 
final rule to only reference ``eddy current inspection,'' rather than a 
particular type of eddy current inspection.

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 809 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 572 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD.
    The visual inspection that is currently required by AD 98-26-09, 
and retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane 
to accomplish the required visual inspection, at an average labor rate 
of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the 
currently required visual inspection required by this AD on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $34,320 or $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the eddy current or x-
ray inspection, it will 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

[[Page 70652]]

impact of any necessary eddy current or x-ray inspection required by 
this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $120 per airplane, per 
inspection cycle.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the HFEC inspection, 
it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at 
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of any necessary HFEC inspection required by this AD on 
U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection 
cycle.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the modification, it 
will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost 
between $898 and $1,037 per airplane, depending on the service kit 
purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification 
required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $1,378 
and $1,517 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. 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.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-10949 (63 FR 
70005, December 18, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), amendment 39-11995, to read as follows:

2000-23-22 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-11995. Docket 99-NM-333-
AD. Supersedes AD 98-26-09, Amendment 39-10949.
    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes, as listed in McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 02, dated July 26, 
1999; 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 (g)(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 the doorstops and 
corners of the doorjamb of the forward passenger door, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

    Note 2: Where there are differences between the service bulletin 
and the AD, the AD prevails.


    Note 3: The words ``repair'' and ``modify/modification'' in this 
AD and the referenced service bulletin are used interchangeably.

Visual Inspection

    (a) Prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total landings, or 
within 3,575 landings after January 22, 1999 (the effective date of 
AD 98-26-09, amendment 39-10949), whichever occurs later, perform a 
one-time visual inspection to determine if the doorstops and corners 
of the forward passenger door doorjamb have been modified. Perform 
the inspection in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30, 
1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.

Group 1, Eddy Current or X-Ray Inspection

    (b) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998: If 
the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals 
that the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger door 
doorjamb have not been modified, prior to further flight, perform an 
eddy current or x-ray inspection to detect cracks at all corners and 
doorstops of the forward passenger door doorjamb, in accordance with 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 
1997, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998, or Revision 02, dated July 
26, 1999.
    (1) Group 1, Condition 1. If no crack is detected during any 
eddy current or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this 
AD, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or 
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) Option 1. Repeat the eddy current inspection required by 
this paragraph thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,575 landings, 
or the x-ray inspection required by this paragraph thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 3,075 landings; or
    (ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the doorstops and 
corners of the forward passenger door doorjamb, in accordance with 
the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings 
after accomplishment of the modification, perform an eddy current 
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the 
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (A) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (B) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it 
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    (2) Group 1, Condition 2. If any crack is found during any eddy 
current or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, 
and the crack is 0.50 inch or less in length: Prior to further 
flight, modify the doorstops and corners of the forward passenger 
door doorjamb in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior to the 
accumulation of 28,000 landings after accomplishment of the 
modification, perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracks on 
the skin adjacent to the modification, in accordance with the 
service bulletin.

[[Page 70653]]

    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (3) Group 1, Condition 3. If any crack is found during any eddy 
current or x-ray inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, 
and the crack is greater than 0.5 inch in length: Prior to further 
flight, repair it in accordance with a method approved by the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops and Corners With Steel 
Doublers

    (c) Group 2, Condition 1. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated 
July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously in accordance 
with the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), 
using a steel doubler, accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) 
of this AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30, 
1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.
    (1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of 6,000 landings after 
accomplishment of the modification, prior to the accumulation of 
48,000 total landings, within 3,575 landings after January 22, 1999, 
or within 2,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever occurs latest: Perform an eddy current inspection to 
detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification, in 
accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the doorstops and 
corners of the forward passenger door doorjamb in accordance with 
the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings 
after the accomplishment of the modification, perform a eddy current 
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the 
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops and Corners With Aluminum 
Doublers

    (d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated 
July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously in accordance 
with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 SRM or Service Rework Drawing, using an 
aluminum doubler, prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after 
the accomplishment of the modification, prior to the accumulation of 
48,000 total landings, or within 3,575 landings after January 22, 
1999, whichever occurs latest, perform an eddy current inspection to 
detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification, in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, dated 
December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998, or Revision 02, 
dated July 26, 1999.
    (1) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (d) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any eddy current inspection required by 
paragraph (d) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops and Corners Not Per SRM or 
Service Rework Drawing

    (e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes identified as Group 2 in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 02, dated 
July 26, 1999: If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of 
this AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of the forward 
passenger door doorjamb have been modified previously, but not in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC9 SRM or the Service Rework 
Drawing, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Terminating Action for Supplemental Inspection Document, AD 96-13-03

    (f) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD 
constitutes terminating action for inspections of Principal 
Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.031 (reference McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document) required by AD 96-13-
03, amendment 39-9671.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g)(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, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall 
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously in 
accordance with AD 98-26-09, amendment 39-10949, or AD 96-13-03, 
amendment 39-9671, 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 Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

    (h) 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

    (i) Except as provided by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(2)(ii), 
(b)(3), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), (d)(2), and (e) of this AD, the 
actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-280, dated December 1, 1997; McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998; or 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 02, dated 
July 26, 1999.
    (1) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-280, Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999, is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The incorporation by reference of the remaining publications 
was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 22, 1999 (63 FR 70005, December 18, 1998).
    (3) Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft 
Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 
California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business 
Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 
700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

    (j) This amendment becomes effective on January 2, 2001.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2000.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-29497 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U