Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37031

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–139–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–11–27 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–11776. Docket 2000–NM–139–AD.

Applicability: Model A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes; certificated in any

category; as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–55A1027, dated May 12, 2000.

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 (c) 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 disbonding of the

vertical stabilizer structure, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the

spar boxes of the vertical stabilizer,

accomplish the following:

Ultrasonic Inspection

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time ultrasonic

inspection to detect disbonding (damage) of

the skin attachments at the stringers and

spars of the vertical stabilizer, left-and righthand sides, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–55A1027, dated May

12, 2000.

(1) If no damage is detected or if a single

area of damage is less than or equal to an area

of 300 square millimeters (mm2), no further

action is required by this AD.

(2) If any damage is detected and the area

of damage is greater than 300 mm2, or if

multiple damage is detected on one specific

component (stringer/spar attachment), prior

to further flight, accomplish applicable

repairs in accordance with the service

bulletin.

Modification (for Certain Airplanes)

(b) For airplanes with manufacturer’s serial

numbers listed in paragraph B of the

Planning Information of Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–55A1027, dated May 12, 2000:

Prior to or concurrent with the ultrasonic

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, modify the vertical stabilizer to ensure

proper reinforcement of the structure/skin

attachments, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–55–1026, Revision 01,

dated May 20, 1999.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the

modification required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, prior to the effective date of this AD, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–55–1026 dated March 29, 1999, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the applicable requirement 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(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 actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–55A1027, dated May 12, 2000, and

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–55–1026,

Revision 01, dated May 20, 1999. 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 Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive T2000–

208–148(B) R1, dated May 17, 2000.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 28, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14432 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–ANE–38–AD; Amendment

39–11779; AD 2000–12–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives;

Airworthiness Directives; CFM

International (CFMI) CFM56–2, –2A,

–2B, –3, –3B, –3C, –5, –5B, –5C, and

–7B Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain CFM International

(CFMI) CFM56 series turbofan engines,

37032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

that requires revisions to the

Airworthiness Limitations Section of

applicable Engine Shop Manuals

(ESMs). These revisions incorporate

required enhanced inspection of

selected critical life-limited parts at

each piece-part exposure. This

amendment requires the addition of

CFM56 engine models to the

applicability section of the AD, and the

introduction of additional inspections.

This amendment is prompted by

additional focused inspection

procedures that have been developed by

the manufacturer. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent

critical life-limited rotating engine part

failure, which could result in an

uncontained engine failure and damage

to the airplane.

DATES: Effective date December 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The Rules Docket may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Ganley, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7138,

fax (781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 99–08–16,

Amendment 39–11122 (64 FR 17962,

April 13, 1999), applicable to CFM

International (CFMI) CFM56–2, –2A,

–2B, –3, –3B, and –3C series turbofan

engines, was published in the Federal

Register on October 7, 1999 (64 FR

54589). That action proposed to require

the addition of CFM56 engine models to

the applicability section of the AD and

the introduction of additional

inspections.

Comments Received

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Effective Date

Several commenters request that the

effective date of the AD be set to allow

for sufficient time for publication of the

procedures, procurement of the

equipment, and training.

The FAA agrees. The effective date for

the final rule will be set at 180 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Extend Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) Comment Period

Two commenters request that the

NPRM comment period be extended

until after the proposed inspections are

published, to allow time for the

operators to review the specific

inspections that will be required.

The FAA does not agree. The nature

and scope of the added inspections are

not significantly different from existing

inspections. Additionally, the effective

date of this AD has been set to 180 days

after publication of the AD, to allow

time for the specific procedures to be

published. Operators may submit

comments to the docket file on the

specific procedures, once they are

published; the FAA will then consider

an extension of the effective date or

additional rulemaking, as necessary.

The FAA does not believe that this final

rule should be delayed pending the

publication of the inspection

procedures.

NPRM Preamble

One commenter notes that the

preamble for the NPRM supersedure

does not exactly track the preamble for

the NPRM for the current AD.

Specifically, the commenter notes that

the supersedure preamble does not

contain the explanation as to when the

enhanced disk inspections are required;

the commenter is concerned that the

inspection program is being changed

from the current AD. The commenter

requests that the FAA change the

preamble for the NPRM supersedure to

reflect the content of the NPRM

published for the current AD.

The FAA does not agree. The

inspection program established by the

current AD remains unchanged. This

proposal does not change how air

carriers must manage the inspection

program. As stated in the NPRM for the

current AD, future ADs may be issued

to introduce additional intervention

strategies in order to further reduce

uncontained engine failures. This could

include ADs that add new parts to the

list of parts inspected. The inspection

program established by the current AD,

however, will remain in place unless

specifically altered in a future proposal.

Unsafe Condition

One commenter objects to the

language in the preamble of the NPRM

supersedure for the second phase of

enhanced inspections, which includes a

finding of an ‘‘unsafe condition.’’ The

commenter requests that the term

‘‘unsafe condition’’ be deleted and

replaced with the justification language

from the original NPRM.

The FAA does not agree. This

commenter does not disagree with the

proposed rule itself, but with the term

‘‘unsafe condition’’ contained in the

preamble to the NPRM. It is not the

intent of the FAA to completely change

the enhanced disk inspection program

established by the current AD, which

evolved as a cooperative effort between

the FAA and industry. This intervention

strategy was designed to reduce the

number of uncontained engine failures

by mandating enhanced nondestructive

inspections of critical components that

could most likely result in a hazard to

the airplane in the event of a disk

failure. Since the engine maintenance

manuals did not mandate these

enhanced inspections, the current AD

was necessary to establish the

inspection program as an airworthiness

limitation. Regardless of the fact that it

was not stated explicitly in the original

NPRM, the FAA determined that an

‘‘unsafe condition’’ existed because the

engine maintenance manuals did not

contain enhanced inspections as an

airworthiness limitation. The intent was

not to imply any defect in the actual

engine hardware, but simply to state

that the maintenance manuals, which

form part of the approved engine design,

must be revised to mandate the

enhanced inspections. The supersedure

repeats that finding with respect to the

additional parts being added to the

enhanced inspection program. Because

a finding of an ‘‘unsafe condition’’ is a

requirement for the issuance of an AD,

future NPRMs to add parts to the

program will also include that finding.

Cycles in Service

One commenter requests that the FAA

change the cycles in service in

paragraph (2)(ii) of the mandatory

inspections language contained in

paragraph (a) from 100 cycles to 300

cycles. The commenter believes that a

300 cycle interval is more representative

of its A-check interval.

The FAA does not agree. The FAA is

aware that although cracks can be

missed during part inspections, the

probability of detecting a crack

increases each time a part is processed

through an inspection line. Commonly

used on-condition maintenance plans

make it likely that a given part could be

returned to service for thousands of

cycles without the need for additional

focused inspection. The FAA

established the 100 cycle threshold in

recognition of the two opposing aspects

of part removal and inspection, i.e., a

need for a brief exemption period

following the performance of mandatory

inspections and the benefits of

increased frequency of inspection. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37033

time between A-check intervals or crack

growth time was not a factor in the

determination of the threshold for

exempting parts from focused

inspection. The threshold is based

strictly on keeping the frequency of

mandatory inspection as high as

practical, to increase the probability of

crack detection while providing a brief

window of exemption from mandatory

inspection if certain conditions are met.

The FAA will not revise paragraph

(2)(ii) of the mandatory inspections

language in paragraph (a) of the final

rule.

Estimated Annual Cost

One commenter suggests that the total

estimated annual cost of $870 per

engine for the proposed inspections is

not accurate. The commenter suggests

that a total annual cost of $2,271 per

engine is more accurate, based on its

estimation of piece-part exposure rate.

The FAA does not agree. The total

estimated annual cost per engine noted

in the economic analysis of the NPRM

is representative of the piece-part

exposure rate of all affected U.S.

operators, not one specific operator. The

FAA will not revise the economic

analysis of the final rule.

Addition to Applicability Section

One commenter suggests adding the

Airbus Industrie A318 and Boeing C–

135 (military) series airplanes to the

applicability section of the final rule.

The FAA partially agrees. Currently,

no A318 aircraft are powered by CFM56

engines; this series will not be added to

the final rule. The applicability section

of the final rule will be revised to add

the Boeing C–135 (military) series

airplanes; the Boeing KE–3 (military)

and RC–135 (military) series airplanes

will also be added, to be complete.

Clarification of Paragraph (e)

One commenter requests that the FAA

delete the phrase ‘‘of this chapter’’ from

the first sentence of paragraph (e) of the

compliance section, to improve the

clarity of this paragraph.

The FAA agrees. The words ‘‘of this

chapter’’ have been deleted from

paragraph (e).

‘‘Time Limits Section’’

One commenter recommends

replacing references to the ‘‘Time Limits

Section’’ with references to the more

general ‘‘Airworthiness Limitations

Section,’’ since Chapter 5 now contains

two subsets, 05–11–00 for life limits and

05–21–00 for mandatory inspections.

The commenter also recommends

replacing the references to ‘‘chapter 05–

11–00’’ with ‘‘chapter 05–00–00.’’

Another commenter recommends

replacing references to the ‘‘Time Limits

Section’’ with ‘‘Life Limits Section,’’ to

eliminate confusion. The commenter

also recommends replacing references to

‘‘chapter 05–11–00’’ with ‘‘chapter 05–

21–00,’’ because Chapter 5 now contains

a new section, 05–21–00, for the

mandatory inspections.

The FAA partially agrees. The

references to the ‘‘Time Limits Section’’

have been changed in the final rule to

the more general ‘‘Airworthiness

Limitations Section.’’ The references to

‘‘chapter 05–11–00’’ have been changed

in the final rule to ‘‘chapter 05–00–00.’’

Revisions to the Table

Three commenters suggest revising

the table in paragraph (1) of the

mandatory inspections language

contained in paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD to correct minor

typographical errors to eliminate

confusion. The suggested revisions are

as follows:

• Replace ‘‘Bold’’ with ‘‘Bolt’’ in the

Inspection column for the CFM56–2/–

2A/–2B/–3/–3B/–3C HPT Disk;

• Replace ‘‘Bold’’ with ‘‘Rim Bolt’’ in

the Inspection column for the CFM56–

2/–2A/–2B/–3/–3B/–3C HPT Disk; and

• Replace ‘‘Disk’’ with ‘‘Seal’’ in the

Inspection column for the HPT Front

Rotating Air Seal.

The FAA agrees. The FAA has

corrected the typographical errors and

has also made the following corrections:

• Replaced ‘‘–B’’ with ‘‘–2B’’ in the

Engine models column for the HPT

Disk; and

• Capitalized the word ‘‘rotating’’ in

the Part name column for the CFM56–

5/–5B/–5C/–7B.

Adoption of the Rule as Proposed

Three commenters support the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

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 with the changes

described previously. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Economic Analysis

There are approximately 6,953

engines of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

2,453 engines installed on airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD,

that it will take approximately 30 work

hours per engine for the fan disk

inspection, 13 work hours for the HPT

disk inspection, and 13 work hours for

the HPT front rotating air seal

inspection. The average labor rate is $60

per work hour. Using average shop

visitation rates, 554 fan disks, 891 HPT

disks, and 563 HPT front rotating air

seals are expected to be affected per

year. The total estimated annual cost of

the AD on U.S. operators is

approximately $2,131,320, or $870 per

engine.

Regulatory Impact

This rule does not have federalism

implications, as defined in Executive

Order 13132, because it does 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. Accordingly, the

FAA has not consulted with state

authorities prior to publication of this

rule.

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, 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 39–11122 (64 FR

17962, April 13, 1999) and by adding a

new airworthiness directive,

37034 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Amendment 39–11779, to read as

follows:

2000–12–01 CFM International:

Amendment 39–11779. Docket No. 98–

ANE–38–AD. Supersedes AD 99–08–16,

Amendment 39–11122.

Applicability: CFM International (CFMI)

CFM56–2, –2A, –2B, –3, –3B, –3C, –5, –5B,

–5C, and –7B series turbofan engines,

installed on but not limited to McDonnell

Douglas DC–8 series, Boeing 737 series,

Airbus Industrie A319, A320, A321, and

A340 series, as well as Boeing C–135, E–3,

E–6, KC–135, KE–3, and RC–135 (military)

series airplanes.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine 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 engines 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 (c)

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 critical life-limited rotating

engine part failure, which could result in an

uncontained engine failure and damage to

the airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspections

(a) Within the next 30 days after the

effective date of this AD, revise the

Airworthiness Limitations Section (chapter

05–00–00) of Engine Shop Manual (ESM)

CFMI–TP.SM.4 for CFM56–2 series engines,

ESM CFMI-TP.SM.6 for CFM56–2A/–2B

series engines, ESM CFMI–TP.SM.5 for

CFM56–3/–3B/–3C series engines, ESM

CFMI–TP.SM.7 for CFM56–5 series engines,

ESM CFMI–TP.SM.9 for CFM56–5B series

engines, ESM CFMI–TP.SM.8 for CFM56–5C

series engines, and ESM CFMI–TP.SM.10 for

CFM56–7B series engines, and for air carrier

operations, revise the approved continuous

airworthiness maintenance program, by

adding the following:

‘‘MANDATORY INSPECTIONS

(1) Perform inspections of the following

parts at each piece-part opportunity in

accordance with the Inspection/Check

section instructions provided in the

applicable manual sections listed below:

Engine models Part name Engine manual

section Inspection

All ........................................................... Fan Disk (All Part Number (P/N)) ......... 72–21–03 Disk Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection

(FPI) and Disk Bore and Dovetail

Eddy Current Inspection (ECI).

CFM56–2/–2A/–2B/–3/–3B/–3C ............. High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Disk (All

P/N).

72–52–02 Disk FPI and Disk Bore and Rim Bolt

Hole(s) ECI.

CFM56–5/–5B/–5C/–7B ......................... HPT Disk (All P/N) ................................ 72–52–02 Disk FPI and Disk Bore ECI.

CFM56–2A/–2B/–3/–3B/–3C .................. HPT Front Rotating Air Seal (All P/N) .. 72–52–03 Seal FPI and Seal Bore and Bolt

Hole(s) ECI.

CFM56–5/–5B/–5C/–7B ......................... HPT Front Rotating Air Seal (All P/N) .. 72–52–03 Seal FPI and Seal Bore ECI and Seal

Bolt Hole(s) Focused FPI.

CFM56–2 ................................................ HPT Front Rotating Air Seal (All P/N) .. 72–52–03 Seal FPI and Seal Bore ECI and Seal

Bolt Hole(s) ECI or focused FPI as

applicable.

(2) For the purposes of these mandatory

inspections, piece-part opportunity means:

(i) The part is considered completely

disassembled when accomplished in

accordance with the disassembly instructions

in the manufacturer’s engine manual; and

(ii) The part has accumulated more than

100 cycles in service since the last piece-part

opportunity inspection, provided that the

part was not damaged or related to the cause

for its removal from the engine.’’

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this AD, and notwithstanding contrary

provisions in § 43.16 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 43.16), these mandatory

inspections shall be performed only in

accordance with the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the manufacturer’s

ESM.

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 Engine Certification

Office (ECO). Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI), who

may add comments and then send it to the

ECO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the ECO.

Ferry Flights

(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.

Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance

Program

(e) FAA-certificated air carriers that have

an approved continuous airworthiness

maintenance program in accordance with the

record keeping requirement of § 121.369(c) of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

121.369(c)) must maintain records of the

mandatory inspections that result from

revising the Airworthiness Limitations

Section of the applicable ESM and the air

carrier’s continuous airworthiness program.

Alternately, certificated air carriers may

establish an approved system of record

retention that provides a method for

preservation and retrieval of the maintenance

records that include the inspections resulting

from this AD, and include the policy and

procedures for implementing this alternate

method in the air carrier’s maintenance

manual required by § 121.369(c) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

121.369(c)); however, the alternate system

must be accepted by the appropriate PMI and

require the maintenance records be

maintained either indefinitely or until the

work is repeated. Records of the piece-part

inspections are not required under

§ 121.380(a)(2)(vi) of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 121.380(a)(2)(vi)). All

other operators must maintain the records of

mandatory inspections required by the

applicable regulations governing their

operations.

Note 3: The requirements of this AD have

been met when the ESM changes are made

and air carriers have modified their

continuous airworthiness maintenance plans

to reflect the requirements in the applicable

ESM.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

December 11, 2000.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

June 5, 2000.

Diane S. Romanosky,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14788 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U