[Federal Register: December 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 232)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67618-67622]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03de03-15]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003-NM-60-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15, DC-9-
31, and DC-9-32 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9-15, DC-9-31, and DC-9-32 airplanes. This proposal would require
repetitive visual and x-ray inspections to detect cracks of the upper
and lower corners and upper center of the door cutout of the aft
pressure bulkhead; corrective actions, if necessary; and follow-on
actions. For certain airplanes, the proposal also would require
modification of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead. This action is
necessary to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the corners and upper
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to
address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 20, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-60-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232.
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must
contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-60-AD'' in the subject line and need not
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or
ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may
be examined 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.
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:
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
[[Page 67619]]
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
[sbull] Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
[sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed
AD is being requested.
[sbull] Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each
request.
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 action must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 2003-NM-60-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. 2003-NM-60-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received reports indicating that the repetitive x-ray
inspections required by AD 85-01-02 R1, amendment 39-5241 (51 FR 6101,
February 20, 1986), do not adequately detect fatigue cracks in all
layers of a repaired or modified aft pressure bulkhead on certain Model
DC-9 airplanes. Fatigue cracks in the corners and upper center of the
door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, if not detected and
corrected, could
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
Related Rulemaking
The FAA normally would issue an AD to supersede AD 85-01-02 R1 to
continue to require the existing requirements, until the new proposed
actions that address the identified unsafe condition are done. This
involves restating the existing requirements of AD 85-01-02 R1 in the
new AD. Because of the complexity of the requirements of AD 85-01-02
R1, we previously issued AD 2002-07-06 as a ``stand--alone'' AD that
did not supersede AD 85-01-02 R1. We included a paragraph in AD 2002-
07-06 that terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 85-
01-02 R1.
AD 2002-07-06, amendment 39-12700 (67 FR 16987, April 9, 2002), is
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40,
and -50 series airplanes, and C-9 airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive visual and x-ray inspections to detect cracks of the upper
and lower corners and upper center of the door cutout of the aft
pressure bulkhead; corrective actions, if necessary; and follow-on
actions. The actions specified by that AD are intended to detect and
correct fatigue cracks in the corners and upper center of the door
cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead which could result in rapid
decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
Other Related Rulemaking
The FAA also has previously issued AD 96-10-11, amendment 39-9618
(61 FR 24675, May 16, 1996), applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9
and DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9 (military)
series airplanes. That AD requires certain inspections and structural
modifications. Accomplishment of the modification (reference Boeing
(McDonnell Douglas) Service Bulletin DC9-53-166) required by paragraph
(d) or (e) of AD 96-10-11 (which references ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft
Service Action Requirements Document'' (SARD), McDonnell Douglas Report
No. MDC K1572, Revision A, dated June 1, 1990, or Revision B, dated
January 15, 1993, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the modification) terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this proposed AD.
Explanation of Applicability
Since issuance of AD 2002-07-06, the FAA was advised that 13 Model
DC-9-15, DC-9-31, and DC-9-32 airplanes (manufacturer's fuselage
numbers 0030, 0094, 0220, 0221, 0863, 0900, 0901, 0913, 0914, 0918,
0923, 0926, and 0930) were excluded inadvertently from the effectivity
of paragraph 1.A. of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137,
Revision 07, dated February 6, 2001, which was referenced in the
applicability of that AD as the appropriate source of service
information for determining the affected airplanes. Therefore, we have
determined that the additional airplanes are also subject to the same
unsafe condition addressed in AD 2002-07-06. This proposed AD follows
from that determination.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003, which
describes procedures that are essentially the same as those procedures
included in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07,
dated February 6, 2001, as cited in AD 2002-07-06. This revision also
adds 13 additional airplane fuselage numbers to the effectivity. The
airplanes were inadvertently omitted from Revision 07 of the service
bulletin. No more work is necessary on airplanes changed as shown in
Revision 07 of the service bulletin.
The FAA also has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, which describes
procedures for modification of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead
structure (including cutting and removing flange of the upper; cutting
and removing the lower flange of formers and replacing it with a clip;
installing pads at the outboard end clips of formers; and replacing
clearance fit bolts at the upper corner doubler angles with
interference fit Hi-Lok pins and monel rivets).
In addition, the FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-157, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1985, which
describes, for certain airplanes, procedures for modification of the
ventral aft pressure bulkhead (including encapsulating the head and nut
of the attachments and applying a fillet seal of sealant around parts
located on the forward and aft sides of the aft pressure bulkhead; and
applying a soft film corrosion inhibiting compound to the forward and
aft sides of the aft pressure bulkhead). For certain airplanes, these
procedures must be done in conjunction with those in McDonnell Douglas
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is
intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in AD 2002-07-06 is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this proposed AD.
[[Page 67620]]
FAA's Determination
The FAA finds that if, after the effective date of this AD, the
airplane is operated without cabin pressurization and a placard that
prohibits operation with cabin pressurization is installed in the
cockpit in full view of the pilot, the inspections and modification
specified in the service bulletins described previously are not
necessary.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in
the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
Since this AD expands the applicability of AD 2002-07-06, the FAA
has considered a number of factors in determining whether to issue a
new AD or to supersede the ``old'' AD. The FAA has considered the
entire fleet size that would be affected by superseding AD 2002-07-06
and the consequent workload associated with revising maintenance record
entries. In light of this, the FAA has determined that a less
burdensome approach is to issue a separate AD applicable only to the
additional airplanes. This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2002-07-
06 or AD 85-01-02 R1; airplanes listed in the applicability of AD 2002-
07-06 and AD 85-01-02 R1 are required to continue to comply with the
requirements of those ADs. This proposed AD is a separate AD action,
and is applicable only to the McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15, DC-9-31,
and DC-9-32 airplanes, manufacturer's fuselage numbers 0030, 0094,
0220, 0221, 0863, 0900, 0901, 0913, 0914, 0918, 0923, 0926, and 0930.
Once the final rule has been issued and it becomes effective, we plan
to rescind AD 85-01-02 R1.
Differences Between the Proposed AD and a Certain Referenced Service
Bulletin
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated
May 3, 1989; and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137,
Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003; recommend compliance times with
only a ``threshold'' (i.e., before the airplane accumulates 15,000
total landings, within 15,000 landings after the bulkhead modification,
and at the earliest practical maintenance period feasible on airplanes
that have accumulated more than 15,000 landings, respectively). These
service bulletins do not provide a ``grace period'' for airplanes that
have already reached (or will soon reach) the 15,000-landing threshold,
which would result in some airplanes being in immediate non-compliance
with the rule upon reaching the stated number of landings. Therefore,
the compliance times specified in paragraphs (a), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of
this proposed AD include a grace period of ``within 4,000 landings
after the effective date of this AD.'' The FAA finds such a grace
period for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it
represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected
airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision
09, dated January 30, 2003, describe procedures for reporting results
of inspections, this proposed AD would not require those actions. The
FAA does not need this information from operators.
Cost Impact
There are 13 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. The FAA estimates that seven airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the proposed inspections, at an average labor rate of $65 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,275 or $325 per airplane.
For certain airplanes, it would take approximately between 21 and
26 work hours per airplane depending on the airplane configuration to
accomplish the proposed modification specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-
9 Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately between $3,470 and $11,831 per airplane, depending on the
airplane configuration. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this
proposed modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be between
$4,835, or $13,521 per airplane.
For certain airplanes, it would take approximately 9 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the proposed modification specified in McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-157, Revision 1, dated January 7,
1985, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of this proposed modification on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $585 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are 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 proposed 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 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
[[Page 67621]]
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2003-NM-60-AD
Applicability: Model DC-9-15, DC-9-31, and DC-9-32 airplanes,
manufacturer's fuselage numbers 0030, 0094, 0220, 0221, 0863, 0900,
0901, 0913, 0914, 0918, 0923, 0926, and 0930; certificated in any
category; equipped with a floor level hinged (ventral) door of the
aft pressure bulkhead; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003; except for
those airplanes on which the modification required by paragraph (d)
or (e) of AD 96-10-11, amendment 39-9618, or paragraph K of AD 85-
01-02 R1, amendment 39-5241, has been done.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To detect and correct fatigue cracks in the corners and upper
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
Visual and X-Ray Inspection
(a) For airplanes on which the modification has not been
accomplished per paragraph (i) of this AD: Except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total
landings, or within 4,000 landings after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, do a visual inspection and an x-ray
inspection to detect cracks of the upper and lower corners and upper
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, per the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-53-137, Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003.
No Crack Detected: Repetitive Inspections
(b) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, do the action specified in either
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD per the Accomplishment
Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137,
Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003, as applicable.
(1) If interim prevention repairs have been performed per the
service bulletin; AD 85-01-02 R1, or AD 96-10-11: Do a visual
inspection and an eddy current inspection at the times specified in
the service bulletin. Repeat the applicable repetitive inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed the times specified in the
service bulletin, until accomplishment of the action required by
paragraph (d) or (i) of this AD.
(2) If interim preventive repairs have not been performed per
the service bulletin, do either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of
this AD:
(i) Before further flight, install an interim preventive repair
identified in Conditions I through XLIII inclusive, excluding
Conditions XXI, XXXVII, and XXXVIII (not used at this time), per the
service bulletin. At the times specified in the service bulletin, do
a visual inspection and an eddy current inspection. At intervals not
to exceed the times specified in the service bulletin, repeat the
visual and eddy current inspections until accomplishment of the
action specified in paragraph (d) or (i) of this AD; or
(ii) At intervals not to exceed the times specified in the
service bulletin, repeat the visual inspection and x-ray inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, until accomplishment of the
action specified in paragraph (d) or (i) of this AD.
Any Crack Detected: Corrective Actions and Repetitive Inspections
(c) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD per the Accomplishment
Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137,
Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003.
(1) Before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions
(i.e., modification of the bulkhead; trim forward facing flange;
stop drill ends of cracks; install repair kit; replacement of
cracked part with new parts; and install additional doublers)
identified in Conditions I through XLIII inclusive, excluding
Conditions XXI, XXXVII, and XXXVIII (not used at this time), of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin; and
(2) At the times specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin, do the applicable repetitive inspections,
until accomplishment of the action specified in paragraph (d) or (i)
of this AD.
Concurrent Requirements
(d) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, modify the
ventral aft pressure bulkhead structure by accomplishing all actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, per the
service bulletin; at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which the bulkhead modification specified
in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-139, dated September
26, 1980; or Revision 1, dated April 30, 1981, has been done, except
as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this AD: Modify within 15,000
landings after accomplishment of the bulkhead modification, or
within 4,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which the production equivalent of the
modification specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD has been done
before delivery, except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this AD:
Modify before the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within
4,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (b)
and (c)(2) of this AD.
(3) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, that are specified
in paragraph (f) of this AD: Modify in conjunction with the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, or within 18 months after
accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(e) Modification before the effective date of this AD per
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, dated January 31,
1983; Revision 1, dated February 20, 1984; or Revision 2, dated
August 29, 1986; is considered acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this AD.
Modification: Ventral Aft Pressure Bulkhead
(f) For Model DC-9-30 and -50 series airplanes, and C-9
airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-
157, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1985: Except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD, within 18 months after the effective date
of this AD, modify the ventral aft pressure bulkhead per the service
bulletin.
(g) Modification before the effective date of this AD per
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-157, dated August 11,
1981, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (f) of this AD.
Compliance With AD 85-01-02 R1
(h) Accomplishment of the visual and x-ray inspections required
by paragraph (a) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of AD 85-01-02 R1.
Terminating Modification
(i) Accomplishment of the modification (reference McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-166) required by paragraph (d) or
(e) of AD 96-10-11 (which references ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft
Service Action Requirements Document'' (SARD), McDonnell Douglas
Report No. MDC K1572, Revision A, dated June 1, 1990; or Revision B,
dated January 15, 1993; as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the modification) terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
AD.
Exception to Inspections and Modifications
(j) As of the effective date of this AD, the inspections and
modifications required by this AD do not need to be done during any
period that the airplane is operated without cabin pressurization
and a placard is installed in the cockpit in full view of the pilot
that states the following:
``OPERATION WITH CABIN PRESSURIZATION IS PROHIBITED.''
Actions Accomplished Per Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(k) Inspections, corrective actions, and follow-on actions
accomplished before the effective date of this AD per McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07, dated February 6,
2001; or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 08,
dated November 22, 2002; are considered acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding action specified in this AD.
Credit for AD 2002-07-06, Amendment 39-12700
(l) Accomplishment of the actions specified in AD 2002-07-06 is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
[[Page 67622]]
Submission of Information to Manufacturer Not Required
(m) Although McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137,
Revision 09, dated January 30, 2003, specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a
requirement.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(n)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve
alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(2) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 85-01-02 R1,
amendment 39-4978; or AD 96-10-11, amendment 39-9618; are approved
as AMOCs for paragraph (a) or (c) of this AD, as appropriate.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by a
Boeing Company Engineering Representative (DER) who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such findings.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 26, 2003.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-30114 Filed 12-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P