[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4154-4157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1705]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-ANE-44; Amendment 39-10291; AD 98-02-08]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 
Series Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 series reciprocating 
engines, that requires visual inspections of the inside diameter (ID) 
of the crankshaft for corrosion pits, and if corrosion pits are found 
during this inspection, prior to further flight, performing a magnetic 
particle inspection (MPI) or fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of 
the ID for cracks. In addition, this AD requires reporting findings of 
inspections to the FAA. Finally, terminating action to the inspections 
of this AD is the application of a preventive treatment coating on non-
corroded crankshafts to prevent corrosion. This amendment is prompted 
by reports of cracks in crankshafts originating from corrosion pits in 
the ID. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent 
crankshaft failure, which can result in engine failure, propeller 
separation, forced landing, and possible damage to the aircraft.

DATES: Effective March 30, 1998.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of March 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St., Williamsport, PA 17701; 
telephone (717) 327-7080, fax (717) 327-7100. This information may be 
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England 
Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli or Raymond Reinhardt , 
Aerospace Engineers, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 
Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St., Valley Stream, NY 
11581-1200; telephone (516) 256-7531 , fax (516) 568-2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 18, 1993, the Civil Aviation 
Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority of the United 
Kingdom (UK), received a report that a Piper PA-28-161 aircraft, with a 
Textron Lycoming O-320-D3G reciprocating engine installed, executed a 
forced landing due to an engine crankshaft failure which caused the 
propeller to separate from the aircraft. The cause of the crankshaft 
failure was determined to be due to a high cycle fatigue mechanism that 
had initiated from a number of corrosion pits in the crankshaft bore. 
After the cracks had progressed through a substantial proportion of the 
crankshaft section, the rate of advance had increased until the 
remaining unseparated portion had failed as a result of overload. The 
cracking occurred in high cycle fatigue and it had progressed over an 
extended period of service. At the time of the accident the engine had 
operated for 1,950 hours time in service (TIS) since overhaul and had 
accumulated 4,429 hours total time since new over a period of 16 years. 
In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has confirmed 
that four other failures in the United States and 10 in foreign 
countries were due to cracks initiating from corrosion pits in the 
crankshaft bore on certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 reciprocating 
engines with ratings of 160 horsepower or greater. Of the 10 failures 
in foreign countries, four resulted in the propeller separating from 
the aircraft inflight. Three of these four were from 1993 to 1996. The 
FAA utilized metallurgical failure analysis reports and other 
information to conclude that these failures were due to cracks 
originating from corrosion pits. This condition, if not corrected, 
could result in crankshaft failure, which can result in engine failure, 
propeller separation, forced landing, and possible damage to the 
aircraft.
    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would

[[Page 4155]]

apply to Textron Lycoming 235 Series and 290 Series, and certain 320 
and 360 series reciprocating engines, was published in the Federal 
Register on November 28, 1995 (60 FR 58580); the comment period was 
reopened in a reprinting of the original proposal on April 8, 1996 (61 
FR 15430). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive 
inspections of the crankshaft inside diameter (ID) for corrosion and 
cracks, and replacement of cracked crankshafts with a serviceable part. 
In addition, the proposed AD would have permitted operation of engines 
with crankshafts that were found to have corrosion pits but were free 
of cracks provided repetitive inspections were performed until the next 
engine overhaul or 5 years after the initial inspection, whichever 
occurred first, at which time the proposed AD would have required those 
crankshafts with corrosion pits but no cracks to be replaced. Those 
proposed actions would be performed in accordance with Textron Lycoming 
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 505A, dated October 18, 1994.
    The FAA had determined that fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPI) 
were warranted if corrosion pits were found. The FPI inspection program 
was developed due to reports from Textron Lycoming and other approved 
repair stations that most of the crankshafts that are pitted do not 
contain cracks. The FAA determined that visual inspections alone were 
not sufficient to detect a crack. The FPI inspection was based on crack 
propagation data developed by the FAA in conjunction with Textron 
Lycoming and with consideration of the technical base in the U.S. for 
performing nondestructive inspections. The FPI process was shown to be 
reliable for detection of cracks down to 0.050 inches in depth and 
0.100 inches in length. The FPI inspection interval was based on the 
crack propagation data such that a crack could be reliably detected 
before the crankshaft failed. If an installed engine was found to have 
a pitted crankshaft, the FAA did not propose to allow the removal of 
metal to remove the corrosion pits due to possible contamination of the 
engine oil supply with metal filings and to ensure that the 
concentricity of the crankshaft would not be compromised.
    Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in 
the making of this amendment. Over 200 comments were received in 
response to the initial NPRM. In addition, the FAA met with the 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Aeronautical Repair 
Station Association (ARSA), and Textron Lycoming to discuss the data 
that formed the basis for this action. A summary of that meeting is 
contained in the docket file.
    A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), in response 
to the comments, was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 
1997 (62 FR 343). That SNPRM fully addressed the comments received in 
response to the NPRM and the issues raised at the meeting with AOPA, 
ARSA, and the manufacturer. That action proposed to revise the proposal 
by limiting the applicability of the proposed AD to only certain 
Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 series reciprocating engines, excluding 
additional engines installed in helicopters; permitting any 
certificated mechanic holding an airframe or powerplant rating to 
perform the FPI; permitting continued use of a pitted crankshaft as 
long as repetitive FPI inspections are performed; and deleting the five 
year limit on the use of crankshafts that are pitted but not cracked. 
Also, the FAA received new cost information, and revised the economic 
analysis with respect to the initial inspection time, the time to 
remove and replace crankshafts, the cost of the replacement 
crankshafts, and the cost for repetitive FPI inspections. Finally, the 
revised proposal introduced a public reporting survey to provide the 
FAA with a broader database on the condition of crankshafts when 
observed during the initial inspections.
    Twenty-one comments were received in response to the SNPRM. Due 
consideration has been given to the comments received.
    Seven commenters state that there have not been enough crankshaft 
failures to justify the AD, that the proposed actions are too costly, 
and that the FAA should acquire more data before promulgating this 
rule. The FAA does not concur. As stated in the SNPRM, the FAA received 
data and studies that substantiated the need for an AD. These studies 
and data confirm the crankshaft fracture occurred at a stress 
concentration caused by a corrosion pit on the inside of the 
crankshaft. In addition, since the NPRM was issued, six additional 
crankshaft failures on 160 horsepower Textron Lycoming engines are 
being investigated. The FAA has, however, performed additional analysis 
to limit the population of engines impacted by this proposed AD and has 
deleted the five year limit on pitted crankshafts undergoing repetitive 
FPI inspections. These measures will decrease the cost of the AD to the 
public.
    Two commenters state that the corrosion problem is caused by a 
design flaw; i.e., the crankshafts should be solid instead of hollow. 
The FAA does not concur. A coating has been incorporated on the inside 
bore of new crankshafts shipped in engines and as spares from Textron 
Lycoming since February 15, 1997. Textron Lycoming has issued Service 
Bulletin (SB) No. 530 dated December 1, 1997, which describes applying 
Urethabond 104 as a protective coating on the inside bore of the 
crankshafts. This coating should only be applied during overhaul due to 
the preparation requirement of degreasing the inside bore prior to the 
application of the coating.
    One commenter states that a dye penetrant inspection should be 
performed in lieu of the FPI, as it is more accurate in detecting 
cracks. The FAA does not concur. Dye penetrant actually includes both 
visible dye and fluorescent dye penetrant techniques. Recent use of the 
term within the inspector community has limited the meaning to visible 
dye penetrant. The reliability of inspection data available to the FAA 
indicates that FPI has a better probability of detection than visible 
dye penetrant (color contrast) inspection. The preferred dye penetrant 
inspection method is the FPI method.
    One commenter states that a magnetic particle inspection 
(Magnaflux) should be performed in lieu of the FPI, as it is more 
accurate in detecting cracks. The FAA concurs in part. The magnetic 
particle inspection (MPI) is the preferred method with the shaft 
removed from the engine at overhaul. An FPI should only be performed if 
the crankshaft is installed in the engine such as during an on-wing 
inspection. An MPI should not be performed with the crankshaft 
installed in the engine due to the difficulty in obtaining a suitable 
magnetic field. In addition, the residual field effects after the 
demagnetization process may have a harmful effect on the rotating 
components in the engine, including the bearings.
    One commenter states that the AD should take into consideration the 
operation and service history for each engine in specifying corrective 
action. The FAA partially concurs. The FAA has taken into consideration 
service history and has limited the applicability of this AD to engines 
with 160 hp or greater. The survey to be completed for the initial 
inspection of the crankshaft may aid the FAA in determining other 
causal effects which may be used for future rulemaking.
    Five commenters state that the AD should require application of a 
preventive treatment on the inside bore of the crankshaft to prevent 
future corrosion. The FAA concurs. Textron

[[Page 4156]]

Lycoming has developed a preventive treatment known as Urethabond 104 
and has issued MSB No. 530, dated December 1, 1997, which describes 
procedures for applying this coating. Crankshafts that are confirmed to 
have the letters ``PID'' stamped on the outside diameter of the 
propeller flange (PID stands for Painted Internal Diameter), do not 
require the inspection requirements of this AD. The application of the 
Urethabond 104 coating constitutes terminating action for the 
inspection requirements of this AD.
    One commenter states that the FAA should impose a life limit of 
4,000 hours time in service on all affected crankshafts. The FAA does 
not concur. To date, the FAA has no data from Textron Lycoming nor from 
any other source which would substantiate a 4,000 hour time in service 
life limit.
    Two commenters state the FAA should distinguish in the AD between 
major and minor pitting action. The FAA does not concur. The FAA has no 
data to substantiate taking action for a minor versus a major pit other 
than what is presented in Textron Lycoming MSB 505B. The survey to be 
completed for the initial inspection of the crankshaft may assist the 
FAA in determining a relationship between the number of pits and the 
number of crankshafts cracked. This information may be used for future 
rulemaking.
    One commenter states that pitted crankshafts should be replaced at 
overhaul. The FAA partially concurs. Textron Lycoming MSB 505B requires 
that the crankshaft be replaced at overhaul if it is pitted. However, 
from the data the FAA has received to date, many crankshafts are pitted 
but not cracked. In addition, the FAA has received no substantiation 
from Textron Lycoming or other sources to justify replacing a pitted 
crankshaft at overhaul as long as it has received an MPI and has been 
determined to have no cracks; and, when the engine is reinstalled in an 
aircraft, an FPI is performed every 100 hours TIS to ensure that the 
crankshaft is not cracked. The inspection survey will be utilized by 
the FAA to determine the number of engines under repetitive FPI 
inspections, the number of crankshafts that are found to be cracked, 
whether another failure mechanism is contributing to the crankshaft 
failures, and possible adjustment of the repetitive inspection 
interval. The information obtained by this survey may lead to future 
rulemaking.
    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 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.
    The total number of engines impacted worldwide is 16,357 (11,000, 
160 hp, 320 series; and 5,357, 360 Series). The FAA estimates that 60% 
of that number, 9,814 engines are installed on aircraft of U.S. 
registry, and are affected by this AD. The FAA estimates that it will 
take approximately 8 work hours per engine to accomplish the initial 
visual inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work 
hour; therefore the estimated cost impact for the initial visual 
inspections would be $4,710,720. The FAA also estimates, based on 
information received from the UK CAA regarding the number of engines 
undergoing repetitive inspections in the UK due to the UK CAA AD on the 
same subject, that 12%, or 1,178, of the affected engines may contain 
crankshafts that require FPI. The FAA estimates that each FPI will take 
approximately 8 hours, and that operators with corroded crankshafts may 
perform one FPI per year. The estimated cost for the repetitive FPI, 
therefore, is $565,286 annually. Lastly, the FAA estimates that 5 
crankshafts will require replacement per year due to cracks, and that 
it will take 38 work hours per engine to replace cracked crankshafts. 
Assuming that a replacement crankshaft will cost approximately $6,000 
per engine, the estimated cost for replacement of 5 crankshafts will be 
$41,400 annually. Therefore, the total estimated cost impact of this AD 
is $5,317,406 for the first year, and $606,686 each year thereafter.
    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.
    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 adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

98-02-08 Textron Lycoming: Amendment 39-10291. Docket 94-ANE-44.

    Applicability: Textron Lycoming 320 series limited to 160 
horsepower, and 360 series, four cylinder reciprocating engines with 
fixed pitch propellers; except for the following installed in 
helicopters or with solid crankshafts: HO-360 series, HIO-360 
series, LHIO-360 series, VO-360 series, and IVO-360 series, and 
Models O-320-B2C, O-360-J2A, AEIO-360-B4A, O-360-A4A, -A4G, -A4J, -
A4K, -A4M, and -C4F. In addition, engines with crankshafts 
containing ``PID'' stamped on the outside diameter of the propeller 
flange are exempt from the inspection requirements of this AD. The 
affected engines are installed on but not limited to reciprocating 
engine powered aircraft manufactured by Cessna, Piper, Beech, 
American Aircraft Corporation, Grumman American Aviation, Mooney, 
Augustair Inc., Maule Aerospace Technology Corporation, Great Lakes 
Aircraft Co., and Commander Aircraft Co.

    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 (g) 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.


[[Page 4157]]


    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent crankshaft failure, which can result in engine 
failure, propeller separation, forced landing, and possible damage 
to the aircraft, accomplish the following:
    (a) For engines shipped new from Textron Lycoming prior to and 
including December 31, 1984, and that have never been overhauled, or 
any engine remanufactured or overhauled and that has accumulated 
1,000 hours or more time in service (TIS) since remanufacture or 
overhaul, visually inspect the inside diameter (ID) of the 
crankshaft for corrosion pits within the next 100 hours TIS after 
the effective date of this AD, or 6 months after the effective date 
of this AD, whichever occurs first, in accordance with Textron 
Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 505B, dated December 
1, 1997.
    (1) If corrosion pits are found during this inspection, prior to 
further flight, accomplish the following:
    (i) If the crankshaft is installed in the engine such as during 
an on-wing inspection, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection 
(FPI) in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated 
December 1, 1997.
    (ii) If the crankshaft is removed from the engine at overhaul, 
perform a magnetic particle inspection (MPI) in accordance with 
Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997.
    (2) Within 48 hours after these inspections, report the finding 
of the inspection in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.
    (b) For engines shipped new from Textron Lycoming after December 
31, 1984, and that have never been overhauled, or any engine 
remanufactured or overhauled and that has accumulated less than 
1,000 hours TIS since remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect 
the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits, at the earliest 
occurrence of any event specified in subparagraph (3) of this 
paragraph, and in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, 
dated December 1, 1997.
    (1) If corrosion pits are found during this inspection, prior to 
further flight perform an FPI or MPI in accordance with Textron 
Lycoming MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997.
    (2) Within 48 hours after these inspections, report the finding 
of the inspection in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.
    (3) Visually inspect the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits 
at the earliest of the following:
    (i) The next engine overhaul or disassembly.
    (ii) Within 10 years of the original shipping date or 6 months 
from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (iii) Within 1,000 hours TIS since remanufacture or overhaul, or 
6 months from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (c) Thereafter, if no corrosion pits or cracks are found on the 
ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual inspection, perform a 
visual inspection at intervals not to exceed 5 years since last 
inspection, or at the next engine overhaul or disassembly, whichever 
occurs first, in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, 
dated December 1, 1997. If corrosion pits but no cracks are found on 
the ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual inspection and 
the ID does not exceed the maximum ID specified in Textron Lycoming 
MSB No. 505B, dated December 1, 1997, repeat the FPI at intervals 
not to exceed 100 hours TIS since last FPI or until a serviceable 
crankshaft is installed in the engine.
    (d) Prior to further flight, remove from service and replace 
with a serviceable part any crankshaft found cracked during FPI or 
MPI performed in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505B, 
dated December 1, 1997.
    (e) After accomplishing the initial visual inspection and, if 
necessary, the FPI or MPI, required by this AD, complete Appendix 1 
of this AD and submit to the Manager, New York Aircraft 
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 
Fifth St., Valley Stream, NY 11581; fax (516) 568-2716. Reporting 
requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.

Appendix 1

TEXTRON LYCOMING CRANKSHAFT INSPECTION SURVEY
AD Docket No. 94-ANE-44
Date of Inspection ____________________
Inspector's Information
Name-------------------------------------------------------------------
Address----------------------------------------------------------------
State ____________  Zip Code ____________
Telephone No.----------------------------------------------------------
Facsimile No.----------------------------------------------------------
Engine Model Number----------------------------------------------------
Engine Serial Number (S/N)---------------------------------------------
Date of Manufacture __________ (M/D/YR).
Total Time (TT) ________ hrs
Time Since Major Overhaul (SMOH) ________ hrs
Crankshaft Part Number (located on prop flange) ____________ S/N 
____________
Aircraft Make and Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Flights ____________ per month (average).
Duration ____________ hrs per Flight
How was aircraft being utilized? ________ Training, ________ 
Personal, ________ Banner Towing, ________ Glider Towing, ________ 
Agricultural, Other (please explain) ____________________
Propeller Make and Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the aircraft ever experienced a propeller strike during service? 
________ Yes ________ No
Was propeller ever removed for servicing or overhaul? ________ Yes 
________ No
If yes, describe reason for removal in detail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the condition of the crankshaft internal bore?
Corroded ____ Yes ____ No. If corroded, how many pits? ____ 1 to 5, 
____ 6 to 10, ____ More than 10 ____________________
Was a crack found? ____ Yes ____ No. If crack was found, complete 
the following:
________ Distance from crankshaft end (Inches) ________ Crack Length 
(Inches)
Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    (f) The application of Urethabond 104 to the inner bore of the 
crankshaft and confirmed by stamping of the letters ``PID'' on the 
outside diameter of the propeller flange in accordance with Textron 
Lycoming MSB No. 530, dated December 1, 1997, constitutes 
terminating action to the inspection requirements of this AD.
    (g) 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, New York Aircraft Certification 
Office. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate 
FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then 
send it to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office.

    Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, 
if any, may be obtained from the New York Aircraft Certification 
Office.

    (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 aircraft to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
    (i) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance 
with the following Textron Lycoming MSB:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document No.              Pages              Date           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
505B...............................      1-5  Dec. 1, 1997.             
  Total pages......................        5                            
530................................      1-2  Dec. 1, 1997.             
  Total pages......................        7                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St., 
Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone (717) 327-7080, fax (717) 327-
7100. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office 
of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (j) This amendment becomes effective on March 30, 1998.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 9, 1998.
James C. Jones,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 98-1705 Filed 1-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U