[Federal Register: December 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 235)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72725-72766]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06de02-16]
[[Page 72725]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 119 et al.
Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule and Notices
[[Page 72726]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5401; Amdt. Nos. 119-6, 121-284, 129-34, 135-81,
and 183-11]
RIN 2120-AE42
Aging Airplane Safety
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule requires airplanes operated under title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, U.S.-registered
multiengine airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129, and multiengine
airplanes used in scheduled operations under 14 CFR part 135 to undergo
inspections and records reviews by the Administrator or a designated
representative after their 14th year in service and at specified
intervals thereafter. These inspections and records reviews will ensure
that the maintenance of these airplanes' age-sensitive parts and
components has been adequate and timely.
The final rule also prohibits operation of these airplanes after
specified deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures are included in their maintenance or inspection programs.
Operators of airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer
passenger seats, however, may incorporate service-history-based
inspections instead of damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures in those airplanes' maintenance or inspection programs. This
final rule does not apply to airplanes operated between any point
within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of
Alaska.
This rule represents a critical step toward compliance with the
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 and helps to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in scheduled service.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective December 8, 2003. Comments
must be received on or before February 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
1999-5401 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA
received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov.
You may review the public docket containing comments to
this interim final rule in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets
Office is on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the Department
of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public
dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Comments that you may consider to be of a sensitive security nature
should not be sent to the docket management system. Send those comments
to the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Sobeck, Airplane Maintenance
Division, AFS-304, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-7355; facsimile (202) 267-5115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
This interim final rule is based on comments received on notice no.
99-02 entitled ``Aging Airplane Safety. `` The final rule is
significantly different from the proposed action due largely in
response to the comments received. In some instances, the FAA agreed in
total or in part with many comments. In other instances, we did not
agree with the commenters' suggestions citing the need and providing
further justification and rationale for certain requirements, as
proposed.
The FAA believes it has developed a rule that fulfills its
regulatory responsibility to meet the requirements of the Aging
Aircraft Safety Act, and considers the impact on those affected and the
recommendations and alternatives received in response to comments
received. However, the FAA continually seeks to find ways to implement
its rules at lower cost without compromising safety. To this end, we
solicit comments from interested parties on how implementation costs
for this rule could be further reduced. Substantive comments should be
accompanied by cost estimates to the extent possible. Any
recommendations for alternatives to the final rule adopted here should
demonstrate that the alternative would provide a level of safety
equivalent to this rule.
In particular, the FAA invites commenters to focus on alternatives
posed by the Air Transport Association. For example, the ATA suggested
that the proposal be framed as an Airworthiness Directive. As explained
herein, the FAA does not agree that ADs should be used to implement the
new requirements. Airworthiness Directives are used to address unsafe
conditions that have already been identified. This rule is to ensure
the continuing structural airworthiness of aircraft as they continue in
service.
Further, the ATA believes the requirements of this rule exceed the
requirements of the Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA) by requiring an
unsegmented simultaneous review of each affected airplane and its
records. The FAA has revised the inspection requirements to enable
operators who have segmented maintenance programs, for example, to work
with their principal maintenance inspector to agree on which inspection
examines the largest portion of the airplane. The operator can make the
airplane available to the FAA during that inspection to ensure the
inspection and records review is complied with in a comprehensive,
efficient, and cost effective manner.
However, an operator who uses segmented maintenance programs may
still be required under the rule adopted here to open and make
available for inspection additional areas of the airplane to fulfill
the requirements of the AASA. As explained in this preamble, we believe
that opening additional areas may be necessary to ensure adequate
inspections. However, we are sensitive to the additional cost that
operators may incur when opening the aircraft more than originally
planned. Therefore, commenters are invited to revisit this issue. If an
inspection regime can be developed that would provide an equivalent
level of safety by limiting the amount of the aircraft opened at any
one time, the FAA will consider revising the rule.
The FAA appreciates the significant contributions industry and the
public has played in developing this significant and controversial
rulemaking action. The comments have helped considerably to ensure the
continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes.
The FAA has summarized in the preamble the comments received on the
notice of proposed rulemaking along with the FAA's decision on each
comment. Individual comments can be viewed in the docket (FAA-1999-
5401)
[[Page 72727]]
established for this rulemaking action. We invite you to provide
additional comment on the interim final rule. We will consider all
comments received on or before the closing date for comments. This
final rule may be amended in light of comments received.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation
(DOT)'s electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search
).
(2) On the search page, type in the last four digits of the docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the docket summary information
for the docket you selected, click on the document number for the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm or the
Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official,
or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can
find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm.
For more information on SBREFA, e-mail
us at 9-AWA-SBREFA@faa.gov.
Background
Statutory Requirements
In October 1991, Congress enacted title IV of Public Law 102-143,
the ``Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991'' (AASA), (subsequently
codified as section 44717 of title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.))
to address aging aircraft concerns that arose from an accident
involving a Boeing 737 in April 1988. That airplane experienced
explosive decompression as a result of structural failure, after being
subjected to a high number of pressurization cycles. Section 402 of the
AASA instructed the Administrator to ``initiate a rulemaking proceeding
for the purpose of issuing a rule to assure the continuing
airworthiness of aging aircraft.'' Section 402 also required ``the
Administrator to make such inspections and conduct such reviews of
maintenance and other records of each aircraft used by an air carrier
to provide air transportation as may be necessary to determine that
such is in a safe condition and is properly maintained for operation in
air transportation.''
The AASA specified that these inspections and records reviews
should be carried out ``as part of each heavy maintenance check (HMC)
of the aircraft conducted on or after the 14th year in which the
aircraft has been in service.'' The statute also specified that an air
carrier must be able to demonstrate as part of the inspection ``that
maintenance of the aircraft's structure, skin, and other age-sensitive
parts and components have been adequate and timely enough to ensure the
highest degree of safety.''
The AASA further instructed the Administrator to issue a rule
requiring that an air carrier make its aircraft available for
inspection as may be necessary to comply with the rule.
History
The FAA's efforts to address the safety of older airplanes is known
collectively as the ``Aging Airplane Program.'' That program addresses
transport category airplanes, commuter category airplanes, engines,
maintenance, and research. Through the program, the FAA determined that
the Airbus A300; Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, and 747; British Aerospace
(BAe) BAC 1-11; Fokker F-28; Lockheed L-1011; and McDonnell Douglas DC-
8, DC-9/MD-80, and DC-10 airplanes were approaching design-life goals
established by each airplane's type certificate holder. To permit the
continued safe operation of these airplanes the FAA adopted a policy of
mandated structural modifications and inspections through a series of
airworthiness directives (ADs) that address specific design
deficiencies that could lead to airplane structural damage.
Type certificate holders also established recommended Corrosion
Prevention and Control Programs (CPCPs) for a number of aging transport
category airplanes. Corrosion can progressively degrade an airplane's
strength until its structure can no longer sustain its designed load.
These CPCPs serve as a supplement to existing maintenance requirements.
Additionally, the FAA (1) evaluated methodologies to assess
airplane structural repairs, (2) revised Supplemental Structural
Inspection Documents (SSIDs), and (3) evaluated the revised Structural
Maintenance Program General Guidelines Document, for older airplanes.
On April 2, 1999, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Aging Airplane Safety'' (64 FR 16298, notice No. 99-
02). The comment period for notice No. 99-02 closed on August 2, 1999;
however, the FAA reopened the comment period (64 FR 45090) and that
comment period closed on October 18, 1999. The FAA issued this NPRM
primarily to expand the use of damage-tolerance-based supplemental
structural inspection programs (SSIPs) to a larger proportion of the
airplanes used in air transportation and mandate the inspections and
records reviews required by the AASA.
Related Activity
Based on the comments received to that NPRM and the related
proposed advisory circulars simultaneously made available for comment,
the FAA decided not to publish Advisory Circular (AC) 91-MA,
``Continued Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and Commuter
Airplanes; Establishment of Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and
Procedures. However, draft AC 120-XX ``Aging Airplanes Records Reviews
and Inspections,'' now retitled ``Aging Airplane Inspections and
Records Reviews'' and revised to reflect the final rule, is being made
available for additional comment. This revised draft AC will provide
guidance pertaining to aging airplane inspections and records reviews
to be accomplished to satisfy the requirements of the final rule
``Aging Airplane Safety''. The FAA has issued concurrently with this
final rule a notice of availability for draft AC 120-XX seeking
substantive comments.
Additionally, the FAA considers that draft AC 91-56B, ``Continuing
Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes,'' and draft AC 91-60A,
``The Continued Airworthiness of Older Airplanes,'' are appropriate to
the requirements of this final rule. The FAA therefore also has issued
concurrently with this final rule notices of availability for proposed
AC 91-56B and AC 91-60A. The public will be
[[Page 72728]]
afforded the opportunity to comment on the revisions contained in these
proposed ACs.
The FAA revised AC 91-56A, ``Continuing Structural Integrity
Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,'' to AC 91-56B,
``Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes.'' This revised
AC will provide guidance for operators of the airplanes affected by
this final rule on how to incorporate an FAA-approved Aging Aircraft
Program into their FAA-approved maintenance or inspection program.
Traditionally, AC 91-56 and AC 91-56A have provided guidance to
operators of large transport category airplanes on how to develop a
damage-tolerance-based SSIP, which was contained in appendix 1 to the
AC. The FAA determined that the guidance provided in appendix 1 to AC
91-56A is applicable to small transport category airplanes as well as
to large transport category airplanes.
AC 91-56B
Advisory Circular 91-56 and AC 91-56A only considered the effects
of repairs and modifications approved by the type certificate holder,
and the effects of repairs and modifications performed by operators on
individual airplanes. Appendix 1 to AC 91-56B has been expanded to take
into consideration the effect of all major repairs, major alterations,
and modifications approved by the type certificate holder.
In addition, proposed appendix 1 to AC 91-56B includes an expanded
discussion on repairs, alterations, and modifications to take into
consideration all major repairs and operator-approved alterations and
modifications on individual airplanes.
AC 91-56B also gives a brief description of the current Mandatory
Modifications Program, CPCP, and Repair Assessment Program. The AC also
states that the ``Evaluation for Widespread Fatigue Damage'' will be
the subject of a future rulemaking activity.
AC 91-60A
Like AC 91-56A, AC 91-60 provides guidance for operators of the
airplanes affected by this final rule on how to develop a service-
history-based maintenance or inspection program. AC 91-60 has been
updated in AC 91-60A to reflect current maintenance and inspection
practices and to be consistent with the acceptable methods of
compliance for this final rule.
Other Guidance
The FAA also will develop additional guidance and training material
for FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs), and representatives of the
Administrator authorized to conduct the inspections and records reviews
specified in this rule prior to the conduct of those inspections and
reviews.
Significant Changes
Based on the comments received the FAA made several significant
changes to the proposed rule language in notice No. 99-02. The revised
rule language is part of this final rule.
The FAA extended the repeat inspection and records review interval
from 5 years to 7 years to allow operators to align inspection and
records review intervals more closely with scheduled HMC intervals.
Also, while notice No. 99-02 specified that inspections should be
established for affected airplanes using damage tolerance techniques,
this final rule adds an exception for multiengine airplanes initially
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats and operated under part
129 and part 135 scheduled operations. The requirement to keep flight
cycles has been removed. Those airplanes can have a service-history-
based SSIP instead of a damage-tolerance-based SSIP.
In addition, the FAA extended the 3-year requirement for initial
inspections on airplanes over 24 years old to 4 years. This will
provide the FAA with additional time to develop guidance and training
material for designees and FAA inspectors.
Finally, the FAA has decided not to apply this final rule to
airplanes operated by a certificate holder between any point within the
State of Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska.
Discussion of Comments
A total of 63 commenters submitted 247 comments to Docket No. FAA-
1999-5401. Commenters generally opposed the proposal; they submitted
131 comments against the proposed rule and 16 comments in support of
the changes. In addition, 100 comments either included supplementary
information or did not clearly argue for or against the proposed rule.
A discussion of comments submitted, organized by issue, follows.
Statutory Requirements
Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. requires the following actions:
[sbull] The Administrator must ``prescribe regulations that ensure
the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.''
[sbull] The Administrator must ``make inspections, and review the
maintenance and other records, of each aircraft an air carrier uses to
provide air transportation.'' These inspections and reviews ``shall be
carried out as part of each HMC of the aircraft conducted after the
14th year in which the aircraft has been in service.''
[sbull] Each air carrier must ``demonstrate to the Administrator,
as part of the inspection, that maintenance of the aircraft's age-
sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely enough to
ensure the highest degree of safety.''
[sbull] Each air carrier must make its aircraft, as well as any
records about the aircraft that the Administrator may require to carry
out the review, available for inspection as necessary to comply with
the rule issued by the Administrator.
[sbull] The regulations must establish procedures to be followed
for carrying out such an inspection.
Applicable Airplane Types
Comments: Some commenters indicate the NPRM addresses more airplane
types than the AASA intended to address. Because the AASA specifies
inspections and reviews must be carried out as part of each HMC of an
airplane and light airplanes do not undergo HMCs, the National Air
Transportation Association (NATA) asserts the AASA was not intended to
address light airplanes. The NATA further contends the proposal
disregards the unique inspection programs of light airplanes, and
claims the FAA has not found deficiencies in those programs. Also
according to the NATA, the FAA has not proven through inspections,
maintenance reviews, or research that light airplanes are unsafe.
Accordingly, the NATA states that the FAA is not justified in requiring
small businesses that operate light airplanes to invest large sums of
money in developing and implementing an inspection program intended for
larger airplanes. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) agrees with the NATA's position.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA does not specifically
address types of aircraft. It applies to ``each aircraft an air carrier
uses to provide air transportation.'' This includes all air carriers,
including smaller operators who conduct commuter operations, regardless
of the size of the airplane. However, in response to commenters'
concerns, the FAA is revising the provisions of the rule pertaining to
the imposition of requirements for supplemental inspection programs.
The
[[Page 72729]]
final rule permits relief from the requirement for all affected
airplanes to have damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in
their aircraft maintenance and inspection programs. All multiengine
airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats may
have service-history-based SSIPs instead of damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures. These regulations will be implemented in
2010. Service-history-based SSIPs are estimated to cost significantly
less than damage-tolerance-based SSIPs to develop and implement. In
addition, airplanes operating between any point within the State of
Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska are exempt from
the requirements of this final rule.
U.S. Military Airplanes
Comments: Many commenters question which types of airplanes or
operations would be affected by the proposal. One commenter asks
whether the proposal would apply to U.S. Air Force commercial
derivative airplanes (that is, Boeing 737 airplanes operated by the
U.S. Air Force). The commenter notes the Air Force requires Boeing to
comply with FAA directives and rules on those derivative airplanes.
Another commenter asks whether the proposal would apply to Boeing 757
executive airplanes (military C-32 program).
FAA Response: This final rule only applies to specified airplanes
operating under parts 121, 129, and 135. Aircraft that are not U.S.-
registered and operated by the U.S. military are not required to comply
with the provisions of this rule. However, any U.S.-registered aircraft
operating under part 121, 129, or 135 is subject to the requirements of
the rule, regardless of the status of its operator.
Imported Older Airplanes
Comments: One commenter questions how the proposal would affect
requirements for imported airplanes older than 14 years. The commenter
notes 44 countries have safety standards for imported airplanes and the
United States is not among those countries. According to the commenter,
the 100-hour inspection (appendix D to 14 CFR part 43) is the closest
the United States comes to having such a requirement, but most DARs and
many FAA regions ignore this requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The proposal was intended to bring
airplanes under the Aging Airplane Program after the effective date of
the rule. Therefore, with respect to the requirements of this rule, an
imported airplane brought into operation under part 121, 129, or 135
will not differ from an airplane used domestically under 14 CFR part 91
and brought into operation under parts 121, 129, or 135; each airplane
will have to be brought under the appropriate maintenance or inspection
program and undergo the applicable aging airplane inspections and
records reviews prior to being operated under those parts.
Additionally, any airplane, domestic or imported, that does not have a
supplemental inspection program that meets the requirements of this
rule will not be eligible for air carrier operations after the dates
specified in this rule.
Applicable Operations
Comments: The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) opposes the
proposal and states it should be withdrawn. According to the AACA, the
NPRM could lead to the end of scheduled turbopropeller commuter airline
growth in Alaska and force a return to the use of out-of-production,
piston-powered, single-engine airplane operations in rural Alaska. The
AACA contends this proposal would force air carriers that have reached
the financial and operational thresholds of using larger, turbine-
powered equipment to pay a ``compliance penalty'' to operate that
equipment. Additionally, the AACA contends many of Alaska's rural
communities would experience decreased air service and increased costs
of living, and be forced to accept travel in smaller airplanes known to
have six times more accidents than twin-engine airplanes used
currently.
The AACA notes the FAA has implemented numerous significant
regulatory changes during the past 15 years (for example, the
``Commuter Rule''), but the aviation safety record in Alaska has not
changed significantly, despite the high costs.
According to the AACA, some additional safety measures are
necessary. However, the AACA states measures in Alaska should include
(1) restoring the previous high levels of service from Flight Service
Stations; (2) improving aviation weather reporting, forecasting,
information distribution, and air-to-ground communications facilities;
and (3) developing additional navigational aids and approach procedures
to allow instrument flight rules flight and airport runway, ramp, and
apron improvements.
As an alternative to the proposal, the AACA states it would develop
an FAA-approved program to accommodate the additional safety intent of
the rule, addressing safety as well as the operational limitations
unique to Alaska. The program would provide guidance, through
development of a customized and comprehensive training program for
regularly scheduled maintenance and inspection procedures. To ensure
compliance with this initiative, the program would include an
independent audit element and be made available to all members of the
AACA, as a function of the AACA Safety and Resource Center.
The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (ADOT&PF) noted that ``this NPRM, over the next ten years
has the potential to effectively economically shut down multiple
aircraft operators in Alaska.'' The ADOT&PF further stated that the
number of aircraft impacted is nearly 100 percent of the twin-engine
aircraft fleet servicing Alaska aviation needs. These comments were
echoed by a number of Alaska operators that stated that implementation
of the NPRM would result in the ``termination'' of their operations and
that ``the nature of the rural transportation infrastructure in Alaska
requires relief from these requirements.''
According to the NATA, the proposal would substantially affect
interstate commerce in many areas, including Nevada, Arizona, New
England, and the southeastern United States. Also, the NATA asserts
this proposal may cripple the majority of the State of Alaska's
transportation network.
FAA Response: The FAA has received numerous comments noting the
possible effect of the proposal on intrastate aviation in Alaska. The
FAA notes however that the proposal would not apply to aircraft
operated by a certificate holder in on-demand or cargo-only operations
conducted under part 135. This exclusion remains in the final rule.
The FAA also recognizes that the AASA does not specifically mandate
the supplemental inspections proposed in notice 99-02 and set forth in
this rule. However, the FAA clearly is within its authority to require
such inspection programs under its broad mandate to promote safety as
set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44701.
The FAA also notes that Congress, both in the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264) and in the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public
Law 106-181), required the Administrator ``in amending title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in
Alaska * * * to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by
transportation modes other than aviation and * * * establish such
regulatory distinctions the Administrator considers appropriate.''
[[Page 72730]]
Section 40113 of 49 U.S.C. was amended to effectuate this provision.
In view of the clear Congressional mandate for the FAA to consider
the unique role of aviation in providing transportation within the
State of Alaska and the possible loss of critical air services to rural
communities within the State, the FAA has revised the proposal. The
final rule will not apply to aircraft operated by certificate holders
between any point within the State of Alaska and any other point within
the State of Alaska.
Regulatory Activity Since 1991 and Recordkeeping
Comments: One commenter states that the proposal seems to disregard
all regulatory activity since 1991 that addresses aging airplanes, as
well as existing recordkeeping requirements to show compliance with
such aging airplane activity.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA has taken into account
relevant regulatory activity since 1991 in the development of this
rule, such as CPCPs, structural modification programs, the repair
assessment rule, and SSIPs. In spite of these regulatory activities, we
continue to believe the additional inspections and records reviews are
warranted to ensure age-sensitive parts and components are maintained.
Inspections and Records Reviews
Comments: Some commenters state the proposal does not meet the
intent of the AASA. According to the Air Transport Association of
America (ATA), FAA requirements exceed AASA requirements in the
proposal by requiring an unsegmented simultaneous review of each
affected airplane and its records. The ATA also notes the AASA does not
require the FAA to establish how often airplane inspections and records
reviews must be conducted. The Regional Airline Association (RAA)
agrees with the ATA and further asserts that the AASA is not intended
to disrupt an air carrier's maintenance program, but the FAA proposal
certainly would force air carriers to change their programs at
considerable cost.
FAA Response: To minimize cost, operators who have segmented
maintenance programs, progressive inspection programs, or approved
aircraft inspection programs (AAIPs) should work with their principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or DAR to agree on which inspection
examines the largest portion of the airplane. The operator can make the
airplane available to the FAA during that inspection to ensure the
inspection and records review required by this rule is complied with in
a comprehensive, efficient, and cost effective manner. However, the
operator using a segmented maintenance program, progressive inspection
program, or AAIP must recognize that the PMI or DAR conducting the
inspection may require additional areas of the airplane to be open and
available for inspection at the discretion of the FAA.
As mentioned previously, the FAA has changed the inspection and
records review interval from 5 years to 7 years to allow operators to
align their aircraft inspection and records review intervals more
closely with scheduled HMC intervals.
Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspection Techniques
Comments: The General Aviation Manufacturer's Association (GAMA)
contends that the AASA does not direct the FAA to specify damage
tolerance analysis and inspection techniques as the only acceptable
method for ensuring the continued airworthiness of aging airplane
structural designs certificated before such techniques were available.
The GAMA states there are other methods that have been developed in
conjunction with the FAA and industry that are based on structural
fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and field experience correlation,
where applicable.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the AASA does not specifically
require the FAA to mandate the use of damage-tolerance-based inspection
techniques. However, 49 U.S.C. 44717 states that the Administrator
``shall prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness
of aging aircraft'' and that the Administrator shall make the necessary
inspections ``that the Administrator decides may be necessary to enable
the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe
condition.''
The FAA recognizes that there was a collaborative effort based on
the use of structural fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and field
experience correlation to develop appropriate inspections and
procedures to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.
The FAA, however, has determined that except for those multiengine
airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats
operated under part 129 or used in scheduled operations under part 135,
these inspections and procedures should be established using damage-
tolerance-based techniques. Those multiengine airplanes initially
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats can use inspection
programs that include service-history-based inspections and procedures
instead of damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
Requirements Beyond the Scope of the AASA
Comments: The ATA states the proposal goes beyond inspections and
records reviews by supplementing airplane type design and requiring
that airplanes meet certification requirements developed quite
recently. According to the ATA, if necessary, the proposal should be
framed as an AD, and ``manufacturers'' should be required to adapt
their maintenance programs. According to the ATA, ``manufacturers'' are
in a better position than operators to have the design data and service
history required to modify their programs.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the rule, in certain aspects,
exceeds the AASA's mandate to conduct inspections and records reviews.
The AASA requires an initial inspection as part of each HMC of the
aircraft conducted after the beginning of an airplane's 14th year in
service, and thereafter at each HMC. It does not establish specific
inspection intervals based on calendar time nor does it mandate the
requirement for an operator to include specific supplemental inspection
procedures in an aircraft's maintenance program.
Yet, as stated in the preamble to the NPRM and in keeping with the
AASA's mandate to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging
aircraft, the FAA considered options for setting repeat inspection
intervals. The FAA reviewed the variables used in establishing the
parameters used by operators to carry out scheduled maintenance
requirements such as flight hours, calendar time, or a combination of
both. The FAA also considered the phasing and segmenting of HMCs and
found that the intervals varied from 1 to 27 years. Therefore, the FAA
chose to establish a fixed repeat inspection interval.
The FAA realizes that the repeat inspections established in this
final rule may not be consistent with current operator maintenance
schedules. However, the FAA notes that the ATA itself, in memorandum
96-AE-014, dated March 11, 1996, recommended that ``a `C' check
compliance period (18 months) or `D' check period (5 years) be adopted
for all rules unless it can be shown that a shorter time interval is
required for safety reasons.'' The FAA, in keeping with the AASA's
mandate, established a repeat inspection interval as part of this final
rule.
The FAA does not agree that ADs should be used to implement the new
requirements. The FAA is not issuing
[[Page 72731]]
this rule to address an unsafe condition. This rule is to ensure the
continuing structural airworthiness of air carrier aircraft as they
continue in service. Also, this rule will allow operators the
flexibility to adjust their maintenance or inspection program based on
service history and design review.
Furthermore, applying the AASA requirements to all airplanes,
regardless of operation, would go significantly beyond the mandate of
the act, which requires the Administrator to issue a rule requiring an
inspection and records review of each aircraft used in air
transportation for compliance with aging aircraft requirements.
Using operational rules (parts 121, 129, and 135) to mandate
inspections, supplemental inspections, and records reviews is
compatible with what the FAA has done with other maintenance and
inspection programs, such as those specified in the final rule
entitled, ``Repair Assessments for Pressurized Fuselages,'' which was
published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24108). It
also corresponds more closely to the intent Congress specified in the
applicability of the AASA.
Inspections
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The purpose of the proposal was to
verify that each operator can demonstrate it has accomplished all
required maintenance tasks, including the damage-tolerance-based SSIPs
proposed in the NPRM. The AASA specifies that the inspections and
records reviews be carried out as part of each airplane's HMC after the
14th year in service. The NPRM divides airplanes into three categories
for these inspections to ensure the oldest airplanes are inspected
first. The NPRM also proposes that all aging airplane inspections and
records reviews be repeated at specified intervals. However, the
proposal includes a provision for extending the thresholds and
intervals to accommodate unforeseen scheduling conflicts.
The NPRM also requires operators to notify the FAA within a
specific time period before an airplane is available for an inspection
and records review.
Existing Maintenance Programs Make the Rule Redundant
Comments: Most commenters believe the requirement to accomplish
inspections and records reviews is redundant. One operator asserts
``every air carrier'' already has a continuous airworthiness program
and an FAA-approved maintenance program, which include corrosion
prevention, corrosion control, and damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. Also,
that operator believes ``every'' carrier also must have a Continuing
Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) and must analyze structural
defects for their approved maintenance reliability programs for
principal structural elements. The commenter notes the regulation and
oversight of maintenance programs is a daily FAA requirement. The ATA
notes FAA Certificate Management Offices are responsible for overseeing
an air carrier's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP)
and CASS and ensuring an air carrier's airplanes are operated and
maintained according to FAA regulations and the air carrier's
operations specifications. The ATA notes these responsibilities do not
begin only after an airplane has been in service for 14 years.
Furthermore, the RAA emphasizes that the FAA has complete authority to
determine whether an operator has deficiencies in its maintenance
program.
One commenter states that the FAA should revise the proposal to
compensate for existing maintenance programs that address aging
airplane concerns. For example, the 14-year in-service threshold should
be increased to 20 years to coincide with the Aging System Task Force
definition, which established ``20 years since an airplane's
certification'' as the nominal age threshold. Another commenter states
that the FAA should provide special consideration for low-utilization
airplanes that may have more than 14 years of total service. A third
commenter states the proposed inspections should be associated with the
renewal or continued effectiveness of ``an airline's standard
airworthiness certificate'' and should include all phases of continued
airworthiness in addition to aging airplane considerations. However,
that commenter questions the reason for a 14-year time period. The Air
Line Pilots Association (ALPA), however, supports proposed inspections
for airplanes after 14 years in service.
FAA Response: The requirements to accomplish inspections and
records reviews stem directly from the AASA, which states, in part,
that the FAA shall prescribe regulations that ``at a minimum, require
the Administrator to make such inspections, and conduct such reviews of
maintenance and other records, of each aircraft used by an air carrier
to provide air transportation as may be necessary to enable the
Administrator to determine that such aircraft is in safe condition and
properly maintained for operation in air transportation.''
In addition, the AASA specifies that inspections and records
reviews ``shall be carried out as part of each heavy maintenance check
of the aircraft conducted after the 14th year in which the aircraft has
been in service.''
Differences Between Current and New Inspections and Records Reviews
Comments: Several commenters are uncertain how the proposed
inspections and records reviews would differ from those currently
conducted by ASIs. The ATA notes that Sec. 121.153(a) currently
requires airplanes to be maintained in an airworthy condition, which
would include compliance with any mandated aging airplane requirements.
Also, some commenters contend this proposal represents a shift of
responsibility from air carriers to the FAA in ensuring airplane
airworthiness. These commenters state they are uncertain why the FAA
desires such a shift.
Another commenter recommends that the FAA allow an air carrier's
quality assurance department to conduct the proposed inspections and
records reviews when an FAA representative is unavailable. ALPA
supports the proposal, which would permit certain representatives of
the Administrator to conduct inspections.
FAA Response: Section 44717(b)(2) 49 U.S.C. states that the aging
aircraft inspections ``shall be carried out as provided under [49
U.S.C.] Sec. 44701(a)(2)(B) and (C) * * *'' (emphasis added). Section
44701(a) reads as follows:
(a) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing * * *
(2) Regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety
for * * *
(B) Equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of,
the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling (of aircraft, aircraft
engines, propellers, and appliances); and
(C) A qualified private person, instead of an officer or
employee of the Administrator, to examine and report on the
inspecting, servicing and overhauling.
Section 44717(b)(2) was added in 1994 as part of the recodification
of the FAA's enabling legislation. The AASA and the recodified Sec.
44717(a)(1) require the Administrator to make the aging airplane
inspections.
The rules prescribed by the Administrator under Sec.
44701(a)(2)(B) establish regulations and minimum standards for many
different activities by nongovernment persons, including air carrier
maintenance organizations and repair stations. Section 44701(a)(2)(C)
requires the
[[Page 72732]]
Administrator to establish regulations and minimum standards for
qualified private persons who examine and report on inspecting,
servicing, and overhauling. It does not address the delegation of
authority to act on behalf of the Administrator nor does it describe
persons who act on behalf of the Administrator. A certificate holder
and its employees are not employees of the Administrator, nor are they
necessarily representatives of the Administrator in accordance with
Sec. 44702(d).
Congress clearly intended that the Administrator would determine
``whether an aircraft is in safe condition and maintained properly for
operation in air transportation.'' This is evident in Sec.
44717(a)(1), which requires the Administrator to perform the
inspections and records reviews. It also is consistent with the
legislative history of the AASA. The FAA notes, however, the AASA was
never intended to relieve the operator from the responsibility for the
airworthiness of the aircraft as described in current Sec. 121.363,
Sec. 129.14 (ICAO Annex 6, chapter 8), or Sec. 135.413. there is no
language in Sec. 44717 that implies that operators are to be relieved
of compliance with regulations issued under Sec. 44701.
Furthermore, the FAA notes that the text of the AASA, and the
recodification thereof, instructs the Administrator to establish a
program to provide FAA inspectors and engineers with the necessary
training to conduct auditing inspections of airplanes operated by air
carriers for corrosion and metal fatigue (see Sec. 44717(c)(2)(A)). If
it had been the intent of Congress to have private persons make those
inspections instead of FAA employees (or perhaps designees), that text
would have been changed.
The above interpretation is also consistent with the general
position that the recodification of the FAA's enabling act was not
intended to change the substantive law.
Given the extensiveness of the scope and quantity of airplane
inspections required by Sec. 44717(a)(1), the Administrator could
still elect to use ``a qualified private person'' to conduct those
inspections and records reviews under a delegation of authority. Hence,
the FAA intends to use DARs to help in conducting the inspections and
records reviews required by Sec. 44717(a)(1). Such action is
consistent with the act and gives meaning to the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 44717(b)(2) in its context. This interpretation also gives
meaning to ``qualified private person'' in the context of implementing
the Aging Airplane Program.
Incompatibilities Between Current Practices and the Proposal
Comments: One commenter emphasizes that current regulations do not
allow a used airplane to be placed on an operator's certificate until
its records have been reviewed by the Administrator. Another commenter
notes a complete records review is not possible for some airplanes
because the history of those airplanes has not been maintained. Yet
another commenter asserts compliance with current FAA-scheduled
maintenance program requirements along with FAA verification of records
accuracy on a routine interval is a more logical approach than that
presented in the proposal.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 44717, 49 U.S.C. states
that the FAA--
shall prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness
of aging aircraft and that the Administrator shall make the
inspections, and review the maintenance and other records of each
aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation that the
Administrator decides may be necessary to enable the Administrator
to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition.
The statute further specifies that these regulations shall--
require an air carrier to demonstrate to the Administrator, as part
of the inspection, that maintenance of the airplane's age-sensitive
parts and components has been adequate and timely enough to ensure
the highest degree of safety.
The alternate courses of action described by commenters, including
existing practices, do not relieve the FAA of its obligations under the
statute.
Burdens of Proposed Inspection Intervals
Comments: Many commenters assert the proposal is burdensome to
operators and the FAA. The ATA states the proposal for inspections at
5-year intervals is contrary to the intent of the AASA and would
require air carriers to redefine their maintenance programs to match
the 5-year intervals. According to the ATA, the FAA may be exceeding
its mandate if this requirement is implemented. Several commenters
support the ATA's position stating that the FAA should revise the
proposal so inspection intervals align with operator maintenance
programs. One commenter asserts the first inspection after the rule
becomes effective should be required 5 years from the rule's effective
date or during the next HMC, whichever is later, regardless of the age
of the airplane.
The ATA asserts that the inspection interval requirement would
subject carriers to disruptions if the FAA fails to provide the air
carrier with timely notice that the aging airplane inspections and
records reviews have been completed. The proposal states that the FAA
may take an airplane out of service before analyzing the results of an
aging airplane inspection and records review.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the AASA does not establish
specific repeat inspection intervals based on calendar time. However,
because of the wide variances in HMC intervals and maintenance
programs, the FAA chose to establish a fixed repeat interval. The FAA
notes that HMC intervals vary greatly among operators. Operators have
segmented maintenance programs, progressive inspection programs, or
approved aircraft inspection programs that do not easily lend
themselves to the use of HMC intervals for the conduct of the mandated
inspections and records reviews.
Even though the AASA requires an initial inspection as part of each
HMC after the beginning of an airplane's 14th year in service, and
thereafter at each HMC, the FAA believes that an inspection interval
based on calendar time is consistent with the AASA. A fixed repeat
interval is consistent with the intent of the AASA that requires the
Administrator to ``assure the continuing airworthiness of aging
aircraft.'' The repeat intervals established in the rule will allow the
Administrator to ensure that ``each aircraft used by an air carrier to
provide air transportation is in a safe condition and properly
maintained for operation in air transportation.''
As previously noted, the ATA recommended, in memorandum 96-AE-014,
dated March 11, 1996, that ``a `C' check compliance period (18 months)
or `D' check period (5 years) be adopted for all rules unless it can be
shown that a shorter time interval is required for safety reasons.''
The FAA, in keeping with the AASA's mandate, established a repeat
inspection interval as part of this final rule that is consistent with
this recommendation.
The FAA realizes that the repeat inspection intervals established
in this final rule may not be consistent with current operator
maintenance schedules. Therefore, based on the comments received, the
FAA has changed the proposed 5-year repeat interval to a 7-year
interval to be more compatible with air carriers' HMCs.
In addition, the FAA extended the 3-year requirement for initial
inspections on airplanes over 24 years old to 4 years to provide the
FAA with additional time to develop guidance and training
[[Page 72733]]
material for designees and FAA inspectors.
Ninety-Day Reporting Requirement
Comments: The ATA believes the FAA should modify the proposal to
allow 90 days for an operator to provide a report to the Administrator
on findings and conclusions related to aging airplane effects from an
HMC and the maintenance activities in the interval since that HMC.
Additionally, the ATA recommends the FAA provide a similar 90-day
timeframe during which the FAA would be required to provide an operator
with written acknowledgment of such a report and a determination of the
FAA's acceptability.
One ATA member suggests that an operator submit a summary report,
for like airplanes in the air carrier's fleet, of findings and
conclusions related to aging airplane effects from the HMC and the
maintenance activities in the interval since that HMC within 60 days of
each 90-day period. According to this ATA member, quarterly summary
reports can depict trends more easily than individual airplane check
reports.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that submission of a 90-day inspection
and records review report would be a beneficial practice. This should
be agreed to between each operator and its PMI. However, because this
would add a burden to operators and was not required by the AASA, such
a report will not be added to the final rule but will be an acceptable
option to assist operators in demonstrating compliance with the
provisions of this rule.
Accomplishment of Records Reviews and Inspections
Comments: One commenter asserts the proposal could result in
enormous costs to operators if ASIs or DARs fail to make inspections
and reviews in a timely manner. Also, the RAA states that the proposal
that an air carrier cannot operate its airplanes until inspections and
records reviews are completed is excessive. The RAA is particularly
concerned about such a case in which the lack of personnel to conduct
an inspection and records review causes grounding of an airplane. Other
commenters question the FAA's ability to conduct or train
representatives to perform the proposed inspections and reviews. One
commenter states that the FAA should consider an alternative to the
inspections and records reviews that would have an ASI or DAR at an air
carrier's facility each night a carrier conducts a scheduled segmented
inspection.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. To
ensure rapid implementation of the inspections and records reviews,
this final rule includes provisions to allow for DARs to perform those
required inspections and reviews. The FAA anticipates that there will
be an increased demand for DARs as a result. In the short run, this may
create problems with the availability of DARs, given their current
supply and the time it takes for an individual to become a DAR. Over
time, it will be possible for qualified individuals to become DARs and
fill the demand. Additionally, the FAA will not require operators of
affected aircraft to immediately comply with the inspections and
records reviews after the effective date of the rule. Significant
multi-year implementation periods have been provided in the rule to
ensure sufficient trained personnel will be available to accomplish the
inspections and reviews without disruption to certificate holders'
operations. As a result, the industry's needs will be met and operators
will be able to comply with the requirements of the AASA in a timely
manner.
Also, operators should be aware that while this final rule imposes
restrictions on airplanes operating under parts 121, 129, and 135 until
the required inspections and records reviews have been accomplished, it
does not affect any part 91 operations conducted by part 121, 129, and
135 air carriers, such as training or positioning flights.
Regarding the comment on the effects of the rule and the FAA's
workload, the FAA is committed to train a group of inspectors and DARs
to perform the inspections and records reviews required by this final
rule. The FAA will also monitor the performance of those inspectors and
DARs.
Each operator should plan each inspection and records review and
schedule it with the appropriate ASI or DAR. The ASI/DAR inspection and
records review should normally follow the inspection by maintenance
personnel. However, if an unforeseen scheduling conflict occurs, the
final rule permits a 90-day extension to accomplish the inspection and
records review. An unforeseen scheduling conflict may arise, for
example, if an operator finds that the hangar space dedicated for the
incoming aircraft is not available because of additional work required
on the aircraft currently in the hangar. The Administrator may approve
an extension of up to 90 days, provided the operator presents to the
PMI written justification for the scheduling conflict. Also, the FAA
will accept electronic, facsimile, or other forms of notification. The
request for an extension should provide the PMI ample opportunity to
respond to the operator's request.
Single Airplane Versus Fleets
Comments: Several operators note the proposal would require review
of airplanes on an individual basis rather than as a fleet. These
operators strongly oppose the proposal, indicating the process would be
too expensive, time-consuming, and unlikely to increase airplane
safety. According to these operators, most audit programs sample the
fleet and require additional review only when problems are discovered.
One commenter recommends that the FAA implement a fleet sampling
program beginning with the oldest airplanes in a fleet type, with
inspections every 5 years on a different airplane within that fleet.
Another commenter recommends the FAA allow air carriers to complete
these remaining airplane inspections and records reviews.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA states that each airplane
that has exceeded its 14th year in service should have an inspection
and records review to determine the adequacy and timeliness of the
maintenance of the aircraft's age-sensitive parts and components.
Therefore, fleet audit programs do not meet the Congressional mandate
and are not suitable.
The FAA again notes that the proposed 5-year interval has been
changed to a 7-year interval to be more compatible with the air
carriers' HMCs. However, with respect to air carriers completing
inspections and records reviews, the AASA states specifically that the
Administrator must accomplish the required inspections and records
reviews.
The FAA recognizes that operators will incur additional expenses as
a result of this rule. The FAA has therefore worked to minimize the
cost. Affected airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer
passenger seats have been allowed to have incorporated into their
inspection program service-history-based SSIPs instead of damage-
tolerance-based SSIPs. Additionally, provisions that allow for delayed
compliance until 2010 of certain airplanes with damage-tolerance-based
and service-history-based inspection programs have also been included
in the rule.
Limiting Inspection Scope
Comments: The ATA recommends requiring only that portion of an
airplane scheduled for detailed maintenance and repair at an HMC after
[[Page 72734]]
the 14th year of service be made available along with corresponding
records. According to the ATA, this revision of the proposal would
allow the air carrier to demonstrate the adequacy and timeliness of its
continuous maintenance and surveillance programs and other aging
airplane programs without having to examine every part, component, or
record of an airplane.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. As stated in the NPRM--
Although it is the FAA's intent to carry out records reviews and
inspections to the extent that the aircraft structure is accessible
during the HMC maintenance visit, the FAA may require additional
access to determine that the maintenance of the airplane's age-
sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely.
The FAA expects the air carrier to identify the most comprehensive HMC
within the interval identified in the rule as the time for the conduct
of the inspections and records reviews.
The intent of the final rule is that aging airplane inspection and
records reviews should be concurrent with the HMC maintenance being
accomplished on each airplane and the FAA has revised the rule to
facilitate this action.
Access to Airplane Structure
Comments: Many commenters express concern about allowing an ASI or
DAR access to areas of inspected airplanes that may not be opened
during HMCs to determine whether the airplanes meet the requirements of
the NPRM. These commenters question what criteria would be used to
determine whether such additional access is required. The ATA contends
if additional access is required, it should be negotiated in advance
with the air carrier or mandated under existing authority without
signaling ASIs or DARs that they should be opening additional areas at
all HMCs.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. It is not the FAA's intent to
disrupt operators' scheduled maintenance in such a way that it would
impact their schedules. However, each airplane subject to the final
rule cannot be returned to service until the Administrator or a
designee has completed its inspection and records review and notifies
the operator accordingly. The FAA agrees that it would behoove the
operator to schedule these inspections with the ASI or DAR well in
advance of scheduled maintenance visits; however, the FAA does not
intend to limit its access to those areas inspected under the
provisions of the operator's appropriate maintenance or inspection
program.
Although it is the FAA's intent to carry out the inspections and
records reviews to the extent that the airplane structure is accessible
during the maintenance visit, at the discretion of the ASI or DAR, the
FAA may require additional access to confirm that the maintenance of
the airplane's age-sensitive parts and components has been adequate and
timely as required by the AASA.
Acceptable Records
Comments: The ATA states that conflicts would undoubtedly arise
when an airplane is inspected and the records for that airplane are
located elsewhere. The ATA asserts an air carrier should not be
required to move the airplane or its records in such cases. Several
commenters agree with the ATA's position. According to the ATA, the FAA
should allow for the use of electronic or other copies of records.
Also, the ATA states that the FAA should allow for the use of a summary
of maintenance actions in place of original airplane records, to focus
on aging effects rather than recordkeeping compliance. The Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIAA), opposes the potential
need to maintain a duplicate set of records. The AIAA further contends
that reliance on automated records is inadequate, even though it may
help ensure consistency in format.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that these are
legitimate issues related to airplane records. The FAA recognizes that
airplanes subject to this rule are maintained at FAA-approved repair
stations throughout the world. It would place an undue burden on the
air carrier or operator to provide original maintenance records that
are kept at their main base. Therefore, the FAA will accept a status
summary of maintenance actions in lieu of original airplane records
provided the status summary meets the requirements of the rule. Also,
the FAA will accept electronic, facsimile, or other copies of airplane
records as long as the information is accurate and complete. These
details should be coordinated individually with each ASI or DAR.
Sixty-Day Notification Requirement
Comments: Several commenters object to the requirement that an air
carrier must notify the Administrator 60 days before an airplane and
its records are available for review. According to one commenter,
although the current proposal increases the advanced notification
requirement from 30 days (as set forth in the Aging Airplane Safety
NPRM published October 5, 1993 (58 FR 51944)) to 60 days, it does not
respond to the original complaints by several commenters that normal
surveillance of an operator's fleet would provide the FAA with ample
time to find out the details of a carrier's heavy maintenance schedule.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. In 1993, the FAA proposed in its
Aging Airplane Safety NPRM a 30-day time period to notify the
Administrator before an airplane and its records would be available for
review. In notice no. 99-02, the FAA extended this time period to 60
days. The FAA believes that this notification is necessary because
notification obtained through normal surveillance of an operator's
fleet may be insufficient to ensure the FAA has sufficient time to
schedule its resources and minimize the impact on the air carrier.
Ninety-Day Extensions
Comments: One ATA member states the proposed 90-day extension
provisions should be open-ended to take into account unforeseen
scheduling conflicts of an airplane and possible delays resulting from
FAA resource constraints. However, the ATA generally supports the
extension provision.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees and contends that 90 days is a
sufficient time period for an operator to resolve an unforeseen
scheduling conflict. Operators must therefore plan to account for this
requirement. An unforeseen scheduling conflict may arise, for example,
if an operator finds that the hangar space dedicated for the incoming
aircraft is not available because of additional work required on the
aircraft currently in the hangar. The Administrator may approve an
extension of up to 90 days, provided the operator presents to the PMI
written justification for the scheduling conflict. Also, the FAA will
accept electronic, facsimile, or other forms of notification. The
request for an extension should provide the PMI ample opportunity to
respond to the operator's request. The 90-day extension provision is
adopted as proposed.
Cargo-Modified Airplanes
Comments: According to comments, the FAA should create a separate
category of inspections for cargo-modified airplanes to require shorter
intervals between their baseline inspection programs, unless the FAA
takes into account enough precautions during the supplemental type
certificate (STC) substantiation process.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The final rule is applicable to
those
[[Page 72735]]
airplanes modified by cargo conversion STCs. The inspections mandated
by the AASA should not be a substitute for routine maintenance. If
maintenance is necessary at shorter intervals, the documentation of
that maintenance will be a part of the records review.
Definitions
Comments: Commenters state that the FAA should define the term
``age-sensitive parts.'' According to the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA), other documents, such as AC 25.571-1C, ``Damage Tolerance and
Fatigue Evaluation of Structure,'' and AC 91-MA, ``Continued
Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and Commuter Airplanes;
Establishment of Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures,''
and many aging initiatives do not define clearly the affected
structural parts and the various sources of deterioration.
In addition, commenters suggest that the FAA should define more
clearly the difference between a ``minor'' and a ``major'' repair or
structural alteration, for reporting purposes.
FAA Response: The FAA interprets ``age-sensitive parts and
components'' to mean, for the purpose of this rule, those parts and
components of the primary structure of an airplane that are susceptible
to fatigue or corrosion.
Minor and major repairs, and structural alterations, are already
defined in 14 CFR. Additional definitions would be beyond the scope of
the AASA and are not addressed in this final rule.
Recordkeeping Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA proposes in Sec. Sec.
121.368(d), 129.33(c), 135.422(d) and 135.422a(d) to require a
certificate holder to make certain specific airplane records available
to the Administrator for review. These records must contain the
following information:
[sbull] Total years in service of the airplane;
[sbull] Total flight hours of the airframe;
[sbull] Total flight cycles of the airframe (not required by Sec.
135.422a(d));
[sbull] Date of the last inspection and records review;
[sbull] Current status of the life-limited parts of the airframe;
[sbull] Time since the last overhaul of all structural components
required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
[sbull] Current inspection status of the airplane, including the
time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under
which the airplane is maintained;
[sbull] Current status (including the method of compliance) of ADs,
the CPCP, and other inspections and procedures required;
[sbull] A list of major structural alternations; and
[sbull] A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status of those repairs.
Current Recordkeeping Requirements
Comments: Commenters note most of this information already is
required to be maintained by operators under current regulations.
The AIAA states proposed Sec. 121.368(d) duplicates the
requirements of current Sec. 121.380. The AIAA further asserts that
Sec. 121.380 is more comprehensive than proposed Sec. 121.368(d),
particularly regarding ADs. Because most operators of large transport
airplanes have developed elaborate maintenance recordkeeping
requirements based on Sec. 121.380, the AIAA recommends the FAA revise
proposed Sec. 121.368(d) to allow compliance with Sec. 121.380 as an
alternative.
FAA Response: Airplane records for air carriers operating under
part 121 must be maintained under Sec. 121.380. Proposed Sec.
121.368(d) requires retention of certain records that are not part of
current Sec. 121.380 or Sec. 121.707, such as airframe flight cycles,
total years in service of the airplane, damage-tolerance inspections,
and date of last inspection records review. However, there is no
restriction on operators using records maintained under current Sec.
121.380 to comply with part of the requirements of Sec. 121.368.
Part 129 Recordkeeping Requirements
Comments: One commenter states the FAA has never established
definitive records and documentation requirements and that part 129
operators use documents developed by ``listings companies'' and
airplane owners. The commenter also notes there is no coordination of
guidelines among the various FAA regions, and between ASIs and FAA
headquarters. Additionally, the commenter notes most ``offshore''
operators maintain more complete and detailed records systems than U.S.
operators; according to the commenter, a main area of weakness is
centered around parts and assemblies that have been overhauled by U.S.-
based repair stations, which often fail to deliver proper records with
parts.
FAA Response: The FAA has established definitive recordkeeping
requirements for persons operating aircraft under part 129. As a
signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United
States requires each commercial operator of a U.S.-registered aircraft
to maintain that aircraft in accordance with ICAO Annex 6, part I.
Current Sec. 129.14 requires each air carrier and foreign person
operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage to ensure each
aircraft is maintained in accordance with a program approved by the
Administrator. The FAA approves maintenance programs under Sec. 129.14
that, at a minimum, comply with ICAO Annex 6, part I. Section 129.33
requires records beyond those required by programs under current Sec.
129.14.
Annex 6, part I, Standard 8.8, Records, contains recordkeeping
requirements, as follows:
(1) 8.8.1. An operator shall ensure that the following records
are kept:
(a) In respect of the entire aeroplane: the total time in
service;
(b) In respect of the major components of the aeroplane:
(1) The total time in service;
(2) The date of the last overhaul;
(3) The date of the last inspection;
(c) In respect of those instruments and equipment, the
serviceability and operating life of which are determined by their
time in service;
(1) Such records of the time in service as are necessary to
determine their serviceability or to compute their operating life;
(2) The date of the last inspection.
(2) 8.8.1.1. These records shall be kept for a period of 90 days
after the end of the operating life of the unit to which they refer.
Flight Cycles, Landings, and Total Years in Service
Comments: Commenters state that current regulations do not require
certificate holders to log flight cycles or landings; therefore, the
FAA should specify that tracking this information is a new requirement.
Also, the FAA should define ``flight cycle'' in 14 CFR 1.1 and develop
guidelines for establishing a baseline number of airframe flight cycles
if an operator has not been maintaining this information.
In addition, commenters suggest that the FAA publish guidelines to
be used in cases where a true determination of total years of service
for an airplane is not possible.
FAA Response: Under parts 121 and 129, operators track flight
cycles to determine the current status of life-limited parts for each
airframe, engine, propeller, and appliance. However, the FAA has
revised the part 135 inspection and records review rules for airplanes
initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats by
eliminating the requirement to track total flight cycles on the
airframe. The FAA has made this change to the rule because the
inspection programs for these aircraft
[[Page 72736]]
may include service-history-based SSIPs instead of only damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures. In addition, operators
should be able to determine the total number of years in service of an
airplane subject to the rule. If the operator cannot determine the
total number of years in service of an airplane, the FAA will rely on
the date of manufacture of the airplane in question.
Designated Airworthiness Representatives
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Because of the many airplanes that will
have to be inspected over a short period of time and the anticipated
growth of the aging fleet, the FAA proposed permitting DARs to
accomplish the inspections and records reviews required by the rule.
Proposed Sec. 183.33(a) expands the authority of DARs to permit them
to make findings necessary to determine the continuing effectiveness of
airworthiness certificates by conducting the inspections and records
reviews required by Sec. Sec. 121.368, 129.33, 135.422, and 135.422a.
General
Comments: Commenters generally oppose this provision. Several
commenters, including the RAA, indicate the FAA is exceeding the intent
of the AASA by delegating inspection authority and responsibility from
the FAA to DARs.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA requires the inspections
and records reviews to be performed by the Administrator. There is,
however, no statutory prohibition on the Administrator delegating the
responsibilities specified under the AASA. A DAR is a designee of the
FAA and a representative of the Administrator and, therefore, is
qualified to accomplish the inspections and records reviews required by
this final rule.
Qualifications of DARs
Comments: Several commenters assert that delegating to DARs the
responsibility of performing inspections and records reviews is a
mistake, because DARs are not qualified to conduct the proposed
inspections and records reviews. One commenter notes familiarity with
the section of 14 CFR pertinent to records documentation and states
that there has never been a requirement for a ``DAR certificate.''
In addition, several commenters contend a PMI assigned to an
operator or an operator's own quality control inspectors may be more
qualified to conduct the proposed inspections and records reviews than
either an ASI or a DAR not familiar with the operator. The RAA asserts
requiring an ASI or DAR to conduct the inspections and records reviews
is unprecedented and impractical, and would confuse the FAA's oversight
responsibilities with that of an air carrier's responsibility for the
airworthiness of its airplanes. Another commenter states the FAA should
specifically and individually test and establish the capabilities of
all DARs who are authorized to perform the inspections and reviews as
stated in the proposal. Additionally, one commenter recommends that the
FAA permit operator designees or Designated Engineering Representatives
(DERs), in addition to DARs, to conduct the inspections and records
reviews. Finally, one commenter states that under such a system, air
carriers should make available to the FAA any and all records and
findings necessary for the FAA to evaluate an airplane.
FAA Response: While the AASA allows properly qualified persons to
act on behalf of the FAA to conduct inspections and records reviews,
the FAA acknowledges that many DARs currently may not be properly
trained or qualified to conduct the required inspections and records
reviews. The FAA will develop a training program and guidance material
to enable DARs to properly accomplish the requirements of this rule.
For this reason, initial inspections and records reviews are not
required to be completed until a number of years after the effective
date of the rule. After the FAA develops the training program and
guidance material, ASIs and DARs will be trained and qualified to
conduct the inspections and records reviews required by this rule.
Regarding the commenter's reference to air carrier quality control
inspectors, they are not representatives of the FAA and, therefore,
would not be eligible to conduct the required inspections and records
reviews under the AASA.
However, an operator could facilitate the application of a member
of its staff to become a DAR. There is an established procedure on how
DARs are appointed, and the FAA does not foresee using a test to make
this assessment. The FAA is unsure what the commenter means by the term
``operator designees.'' However, DARs are the only designees allowed to
conduct records reviews. Performing such reviews is not within the
scope of a DER's delegation.
In response to the commenter's assertion that there has never been
a requirement for a ``DAR certificate,'' the FAA notes that a DAR is
issued a Certificate of Authority and a Certificate of Designation in
accordance with 14 CFR 183.13.
Lack of FAA Resources
Comments: Many commenters question the FAA's assumptions about its
ability to conduct inspections and records reviews. The ATA states its
members are concerned that the ASI force, even augmented by DARs, would
be insufficient to support the proposed inspections and reviews.
According to ATA members, airlines currently find it difficult to hire
qualified aircraft maintenance employees and predict a shortage in the
near future of qualified ASIs and DARs. These members believe this
situation would result in inexperienced ASIs and DARs conducting the
inspections and reviews, and further delays in returning airplanes to
service.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA believes that there will
be enough ASIs and DARs to accomplish needed inspections and records
reviews and has therefore adopted a rule that permits the initial
inspections and records reviews to be completed a number of years after
the effective date of the rule. As previously stated, the FAA will
train a group of inspectors and DARs to perform the inspections and
records reviews required by this final rule and subsequently monitor
the performance of those inspectors and DARs.
Supplemental Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Supplemental damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures refer to an ``inspection program that
specifies the procedures, thresholds, and repeat intervals that have
been developed using damage tolerance principles.'' Damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures are developed by a type certificate
holder or operator based on an engineering evaluation of likely sites
where damage could occur, considering expected stress levels, material
characteristics, and projected crack growth rates. The damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures specified in the proposal
can be developed using one of the following methods:
[sbull] Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that
comply with the damage tolerance provisions for metallic structure
listed in 14 CFR 23.573, amendment 23-45, or subsequent amendments;
[sbull] Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that
comply with 14 CFR 25.571, amendment 25-45, or subsequent amendments;
[[Page 72737]]
[sbull] Advisory Circular (AC) 91-56, ``Supplemental Structural
Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,'' or AC 91-
56A, ``Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Large Transport
Category Airplanes''; or
[sbull] Any other method the Administrator finds complies with the
principles of damage tolerance.
Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures may be approved
through an amended type certificate or STC process for airplanes
certificated under a type certificate and associated amendments dated
before those that require damage tolerance as part of airplane type
design. Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for certain
older airplanes also may be approved by a Letter of Approval issued by
the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or office of the Small
Airplane Directorate or Transport Airplane Directorate having
cognizance over the type certificate for the affected airplane.
Also, for some airplanes, the FAA has approved major structural
modifications under an STC. The original type certificate holder may
not have sufficient technical data pertinent to these modifications to
assist the airplane operator in conducting a damage tolerance
assessment of the modification. In these situations, the FAA expects
the operator to work with the STC holder to develop damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures for that modification. If necessary,
as an alternative, an operator may conduct its own damage tolerance
assessments using competent engineering personnel, inspection findings
from the current maintenance program, the airplane's design database,
and model fleet experience.
General
Comments: One operator asserts the proposal would result in the
grounding of approximately 62 percent of the commuter fleet.
FAA Response: The commenter has provided no data to substantiate
its claim.
Alternatives to Damage Tolerance
Comments: An Alaskan operator is not opposed to a SSIP that would
be implemented in a cost-effective manner through incorporation into
the operator's AAIP and developed by either the FAA or the
``manufacturer.'' The commenter states the FAA and ``manufacturers''
have the competent engineering staff and access to the relevant design
information, while the operators do not.
The RAA notes the FAA fails to reference in the NPRM any technical
basis for rejecting the alternative inspection program for smaller
airplanes (submitted by the ARAC Small Transport/Commuter Airplane
Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (SAAWG)). According to the RAA,
damage tolerance analysis may be the most realistic analysis for
certain principal structural elements but not necessarily all principal
structural elements.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the significant efforts of the
SAAWG to explore alternative inspection programs for small- and
commuter-sized aircraft. Based on the comments received, the FAA has
changed the regulation to require damage-tolerance-based SSIPs for
affected airplanes initially certificated with 10 or more passenger
seats and service-history-based SSIPs for airplanes initially
certificated with 9 or fewer passenger seats. Acceptable means of
compliance for damage-tolerance-based SSIPs are contained in AC 91-56
and AC 91-56A, and acceptable means of compliance for service-history-
based SSIPs are contained in AC 91-60. The FAA is requesting comments
on draft AC 91-56B and AC 91-60A. Once these ACs become final, they too
will be considered an acceptable means of compliance with this rule.
Nonmandated Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs
Comments: The RAA states that proposed provisions to allow certain
airplanes (with AD-mandated SSIPs) to operate until December 20, 2010,
without damage tolerance programs discriminates against regional
airplane operators with equivalent structural inspection programs not
mandated by SSIP ADs.
FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA allows airplanes
initially certificated with 9 or fewer passenger seats to have service-
history-based SSIPs that will be valid indefinitely. For those
airplanes that were initially certificated with 10 or more passenger
seats, the FAA expects damage-tolerance-based SSIPs for these aircraft
to be completed within 4 years after the effective date of the rule.
However, the FAA is delaying implementation of the requirement for
damage-tolerance-based inspections with respect to those airplanes with
AD-mandated non-damage-tolerance-based SSIPs until December 20, 2010.
Potentially Mandated Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs
Comments: The RAA notes there may be airplane fleet types that are
in the process of qualifying for an approved SSIP AD program but that
may not be included in the final rule because the program was not
complete at the time of publication of the NPRM. According to the RAA,
several regional/commuter original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
report that they have submitted ``SIPs'' to the FAA as early as 1990,
but the FAA has not adopted the ADs to mandate changes to the affected
operators' maintenance programs.
The RAA further asserts most airplanes with SSIPs are considerably
older than the regional airplane types cited in the NPRM as having
damage-tolerance-based ``maintenance inspection programs.'' Although
the RAA appreciates the value of SSIPs, the RAA notes that the service
experience for demonstrating structural integrity of the affected
regional/commuter airplane types without SSIPs has been excellent.
FAA Response: The commenter did not distinguish between damage-
tolerance-based SSIPs and service-history-based SSIPs. Those airplanes
that have service-history-based SSIPs implemented through ADs will have
until December 20, 2010, before they will have to comply with the
damage tolerance requirements of this final rule. Those airplanes that
do not have a service-history-based SSIP will have to comply with the
damage tolerance requirements within 4 years after the effective date
of this final rule.
Approval of Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural Inspection
Programs
Comments: Regarding the FAA's proposal that airplane damage
tolerance requirements may be approved through an amended or
supplemental type certificate when necessary, one type certificate
holder questions whether it is the FAA's intent to require type
certificate holders to submit applications (FAA form 8110-12) for a
type certificate amendment. If so, the type certificate holder warns
that ACOs may become overwhelmed, which is a workload situation the FAA
failed to consider in its cost-benefit analysis. The type certificate
holder also questions whether it is the FAA's intent to modify the type
certificate data sheet as a result of incremental changes to type
design (as per the definition of an amended type certificate) or as the
result of an STC.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA understands that there are
many ways to accomplish approved damage-tolerance-based or service-
history-based SSIPs, such as amended type certificates, STCs, letters
of approval issued by the FAA, or service bulletins issued by the type
certificate
[[Page 72738]]
holder and approved by the FAA. However, each operator is ultimately
responsible for ensuring each of its airplanes has the appropriate
inspection programs for the baseline airplane structure, which is the
airplane structure as designed by the original type certificate holder,
and each specific major repair, modification, and alteration to the
baseline structure.
Regarding the comment on FAA workload, the FAA has considered the
effects of the rule on the FAA workload and has concluded that the
workload will be within acceptable levels during the implementation
period.
Letter of Approval
Comments: The NPRM includes a provision that damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures for certain older airplanes also may be
approved by a letter of approval issued by the FAA. The type
certificate holder questions whether this process is intended to
address damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures prepared by
someone other than the type certificate holder. Also, the type
certificate holder requests the FAA clarify whether the letter would be
placed in the airworthiness limitations section of an airplane's
maintenance manual, in the Airplane Flight Manual, in logbooks, or in
another procedural manual.
FAA Response: Inspection programs other than those developed by the
airplane type certificate holder will be approved through a letter of
approval by the FAA ACO or office of the Small Airplane Directorate or
Transport Airplane Directorate responsible for that airplane's type
certificate. The inspection programs required by this rule are for
specific operations under part 121, 129, or 135 only and are to be
added to the operator's maintenance or inspection program. Airplanes
not being operated under the conditions specified in this rulemaking
are not required to have these inspection programs. Adding such
programs to the airworthiness limitations section of an airplane's
maintenance manual is not appropriate because it would require that all
operators comply with the program, not just those operators identified
in this rulemaking.
Structural Assessment of Major Repairs, Alterations, and Modifications
Comments: Transport Canada states the proposal is unclear about how
an STC holder is required to support its designs as far as a structural
assessment is concerned. Transport Canada notes major modifications/
alterations (including major repairs) may have resulted in a
significant alteration to the design, affecting the usage spectrum
associated with the STC. According to the commenter, this may result in
an undue burden on the operator who may need to perform a damage-
tolerance-based assessment without assistance from the type certificate
holder. Transport Canada states it is inappropriate to require a type
certificate holder to provide assistance in such cases. Transport
Canada recommends the FAA provide procedures to allow an operator to
implement a supplemental integrity program for its airplanes when the
type certificate holder is not able to do so because of an STC or major
repair.
FAA Response: This rulemaking states that no operator may operate
an airplane after 4 years after the effective date of the rule unless
the maintenance or inspection program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based or service-history-based SSIPs, as applicable.
This program applies to the baseline structure of the airplane, which
is that structure designed by the original type certificate holder, as
well as any existing or future major repairs, major alterations, or
modifications. The exceptions to the 4-year requirement are listed in
Sec. Sec. 121.370a, 129.16, and 135.168.
Modifications to the baseline structure can be accomplished by an
STC or by the type certificate holder who has certificated a major type
design change. The preamble to the NPRM states that the operators
should work with STC holders and type certificate holders to accomplish
a damage tolerance assessment of the modified structure, but in the
event that the STC holder or type certificate holder is not able or
willing to help the operator, then the operator will be responsible for
accomplishing the damage tolerance assessment. As stated in the
preamble to the NPRM, the operator may (1) accomplish the assessment if
it has the capability or (2) contract the appropriate persons to
accomplish the assessment. The FAA recognizes that this may be a burden
on the operator, but the AASA requires the Administrator to ensure the
continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes. The FAA has determined
that damage-tolerance-based and service-history-based SSIPs are the
best way to achieve that goal.
The FAA also has revised AC 91-56A, which provides detailed
guidance to type certificate holders and operators regarding the
accomplishment of damage tolerance assessments of repaired, altered, or
modified structures.
Compliance Alternatives
Comments: Commenters recommend various alternatives to the proposed
regulations on damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. The ATA states
incorporation of mandated programs, including ``supplemental structural
inspection document programs,'' CPCPs, repair assessment programs, and
compliance with air carrier maintenance programs, provides the means
necessary to comply with the proposed rule. Other commenters agree with
the ATA's position.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part and has revised the rule to
permit the use of service-history-based SSIPS for certain aircraft. The
programs the commenters describe only satisfy part of the requirements
of this final rule. SSIPs only address certain portions of an
airplane's structure while the damage-tolerance-based or service-
history-based SSIPs specified by this rule address the entire primary
structure of an airplane, including the baseline structure, and major
repairs, major alterations, and modifications to baseline structure.
The ``Repair Assessment for Pressurized Fuselages'' final rule (65
FR 24108, April 25, 2000) established new Sec. Sec. 121.370 and
129.32. These sections require a repair assessment program for many of
the airplanes also affected by this final rule. These include the
Airbus A300, excluding the -600 series; Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, and
747; BAe BAC 1-11; Fokker F28; and Lockheed L-1011; and McDonnell
Douglas DC-8, DC-9/MD-80, and DC-10. However, Sec. Sec. 121.370 and
129.32 address only fuselage pressure boundary repairs (fuselage skin,
door skin, and bulkhead webs).
Meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec. 121.370 and 129.32 is an
acceptable means of compliance with this final rule to the extent that
these requirements address repairs to the fuselage pressure boundary
for the above-noted airplanes. Operators will have to accomplish
additional work to fully comply with this rule. They must establish
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs or service-history-based SSIPs, as
applicable, for major repairs, major alterations, and modifications to
structures not affected by the repair assessment program, such as
fuselage frames and longerons, and wing and empennage structures.
Alternatives to Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural
Inspection Programs
Comments: One foreign aircraft type certificate holder states that
the 3- to 10-year compliance thresholds in the NPRM require further
detail regarding
[[Page 72739]]
the intended program before they can be implemented. The type
certificate holder specifically would like the FAA to further discuss
alternate means of complying with this proposed rule. An FAA-approved
repair station specializing in the major repair, alteration, and heavy
maintenance of deHavilland DHC-6 airplanes also states the required
implementation of existing proven type certificate holder inspections
and procedures is a more appropriate response to the airworthiness
concerns presented by the FAA than the implementation of new, costly
programs. Although the commenter admits damage-tolerance-based
``inspections and procedures'' may prove useful in the successful
maintenance of DHC-6 airplanes, the commenter states that current safe-
life-based component replacement requirements and inspections have
proven successful for over 30 years and should be retained.
The GAMA asserts that a regime of replacing components and parts
when they reach their design service lives is one way to ensure
structural integrity. Other commenters support the GAMA position,
noting a damage-tolerance-based SSIP alone is too restrictive.
According to the GAMA, these regimes should be appropriate for
particular structural configurations and should employ a schedule of
supplemental inspections, as necessary. The GAMA states reliance on
frequent, repetitive inspection under a damage-tolerance-based approach
would allow for greater human error. Additionally, the GAMA disagrees
with the FAA's implied requirement that ``manufacturers'' must be
responsible for developing or assisting operators in the development of
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures. Also, the GAMA notes
several ``manufacturers'' already have developed and made available
appropriate structural integrity inspection programs.
Transport Canada agrees with the GAMA position and states a
structural integrity inspection program must include mandatory
component replacement (safe life), as well as a mandatory inspection
program with a CPCP to ensure the fatigue inspections and part
replacement remains valid. According to Transport Canada, including a
component replacement (safe life) program is important for the
following reasons:
[sbull] A safe life program may be required to avoid the risks
associated with structural degradation caused by a form of widespread
fatigue damage known as multiple site damage (MSD). According to
Transport Canada, failure to detect MSD exposes an airframe to a risk
of sudden crack coalescence, possibly leading to total structural
failure without adequate warning. To ensure structural integrity,
Transport Canada asserts a structure that is at risk for MSD must be
replaced or repaired at the appropriate interval. According to
Transport Canada, an inspection program may not alleviate the risk that
there may be cracks too small to be detected reliably. Transport Canada
lists several methodologies, including fracture mechanics (crack-
growth) techniques and tear-down techniques, that could be used to
determine the appropriate component/part replacement (safe life)
interval.
[sbull] For aging airplanes, particularly in the small commuter
class (for example, CAR 3 aircraft, 14 CFR part 23 aircraft, and SFAR
41 aircraft), component design was not influenced by damage tolerance
inspection principles. As such, it may be impractical, in an
airworthiness sense, to apply the damage tolerance requirements in a
retroactive manner. Transport Canada notes the designers of these
airplanes may not have considered the inspectability of their designs
and may have designed components to be replaced to ensure structural
integrity.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (CASA) supports
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures and recommends
changing the phrase `` * * * unless the maintenance program for that
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures''
to `` * * * unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
inspections or other procedures developed in accordance with Sec. Sec.
23.571 to 23.574, or Sec. 25.571, as applicable'' for the following
reasons:
[sbull] Consistency with the design rules--While operational rules
may match current design rules, they should not exceed them as proposed
in the NPRM, because the NPRM is more restrictive. Part 23 allows three
fatigue control options while the NPRM allows only damage-tolerance-
based inspections.
[sbull] To allow more than one method of analysis--For light
airplanes, this change would allow a conventional fatigue evaluation as
well as a crack-growth analysis to determine inspection thresholds and
life limits for all structures, not just fail-safe structures.
[sbull] To allow more than one method of control--There are two
ways to control fatigue: safety by inspection and safety by retirement.
Neither method is superior and each has its place. Retirement is a
practical alternative to inspection and Australian operators routinely
replace wing spar lower caps on small twin-engine airplanes. This
procedure costs less than an engine overhaul and is required less
often. Often operators choose to replace rather than inspect. The CASA
suggests the FAA allow and promote replacement and modification in
accordance with its policy to avoid relying on continuing inspection
for in-service cracking.
[sbull] To reduce the cost of compliance--Consistency with the
design rules would allow immediate acceptance of airplanes whose
maintenance programs have already complied with the part 23 fatigue
rules in Australia, the United Kingdom, and (to a lesser extent) the
United States.
[sbull] To avoid duplication in regulations and guidance material.
FAA Response: The FAA notes that the method of compliance with the
rule is currently outlined in AC 91-56A and AC 91-60. The FAA is
requesting comments on draft AC 91-56B and AC 91-60A. Once these ACs
become final, they too will be considered an acceptable means of
compliance with this rule. For each airplane initially certificated
with 10 or more passenger seats, the inspection program will be based
on damage tolerance. Many of the new regional commuter airplanes have
already been certificated to damage tolerance requirements.
Operators are ultimately responsible for ensuring a damage-
tolerance-based SSIP is developed for airplanes initially certificated
with 10 or more passenger seats. The FAA encourages airplane type
certificate holders to participate in this development. Even if certain
airplanes were not initially certificated to a damage tolerance
requirement, completing a damage-tolerance-based SSIP is still possible
on the airplanes' structures.
In response to the CASA comments, the FAA has deliberately made
changes to parts 121, 129, and 135 to address the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes. This method of compliance is
consistent with the AASA. The CASA's comment with reference to the
certification requirements of part 23 are appropriately noted, but any
changes to part 23 would only affect new designs. Procedures on how to
develop a damage-tolerance-based SSIP are described in AC 91-56A.
As discussed earlier in this final rule, the FAA requires a
service-history-based SSIP for airplanes initially certificated with 9
or fewer passenger seats, but retains the proposed requirement of
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs for airplanes initially certificated with
10 or more passenger seats.
[[Page 72740]]
Mandating Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural Inspection
Programs Through Airworthiness Directives
Comments: Several commenters state that the implementation of
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs on any additional airplane types should be
addressed in ADs for those airplane types.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The inspection programs required
by this rule are for specific operations under part 121, 129, or 135
only and are to be added to the operator's maintenance or inspection
program. Adding such programs through an AD would require that all
operators comply, not just those operators identified in this
rulemaking. The damage-tolerance-based SSIP must still be approved by
the FAA ACO or office of the Small Airplane Directorate or Transport
Airplane Directorate responsible for each affected airplane's type
certificate and the final rule has been revised to reflect this
approval requirement.
Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs for
Small Transport Airplanes
Comments: According to the ADOT&PF, a damage-tolerance-based
``inspection program'' is not an appropriate inspection program for
smaller airplanes and components that were not designed to have damage-
tolerance-based inspections. Many smaller transport category airplanes
are not manufactured to enable applicable components to be reconfigured
for damage-tolerance-based inspections. The commenter believes real-
world experience is a better indicator of mechanical failure; neither
accident records nor Structural Difficulty Reports support a mandatory
damage-tolerance-based ``program'' for smaller airplanes.
Also, the ADOT&PF notes that developing a damage-tolerance-based
``inspection program'' requires engineering data for the affected
components. These data are not available for most airframes and
components; therefore, each user of each type of airframe would be
required to reverse engineer the components at great expense. According
to the commenter, the only cost-effective way to establish a damage-
tolerance-based ``inspection program'' is for the FAA or the
``manufacturer'' to develop such a program for only those airframe
components compatible with such a retrofit program and to make the data
available to users.
The commenter further states retrofitting damage-tolerance-based
``programs'' may introduce risks to continued airworthiness caused by
inspection access issues; that is, inspecting can result in maintenance
problems. Additionally, the commenter notes that operators of aging
airplanes eventually phase out older airplanes because the maintenance
costs for these airplanes increase as the airplane ages; therefore,
focusing on aging airplane inspection may not be necessary.
FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA requires a service-
history-based SSIP for airplanes initially certificated with 9 or fewer
passenger seats, but retains the proposed damage-tolerance-based SSIPs
for airplanes initially certificated with 10 or more passenger seats.
Applicability to Large Transport Category Airplanes
Comments: One commenter states proposed Sec. 121.370a(a) could be
misinterpreted to apply equally to large transport category airplanes.
To eliminate confusion, the commenter recommends the FAA alter this
paragraph to read as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate
holder may operate an airplane listed in appendix [N] under this
part after [insert date 4 years after the effective date of the
rule] unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Except for airplanes operated by a
certificate holder between any point in Alaska and another point in
Alaska, Sec. 121.370a is applicable to all airplanes that operate
under part 121, including large transport category airplanes.
Part 121 Proposed Changes
Comments: The RAA recommends the FAA remove all part 121 provisions
in the NPRM. The RAA asks that the FAA replace them with the
requirement that each certificate holder incorporate into its
maintenance program either a damage-tolerance-based inspection program
or a structural integrity inspection program for each airplane operated
by that certificate holder. The inspection program should require
approval by the FAA ACO having cognizance over the type certificate for
the affected airplane. According to the RAA, compliance should be
required under the guidelines specified in proposed Sec. 121.368(b).
The GAMA recommends the FAA revise Sec. 121.370a(a), (b), and (c)
by allowing the use of an FAA-approved structural integrity inspection
program based on fatigue analysis and fatigue tests, in addition to the
proposed damage-tolerance-based SSIP.
Transport Canada recommends the FAA revise Sec. 121.370a to
include and explicitly state that component replacement (safe life)
programs are acceptable as a means of ensuring continued structural
integrity as an airframe ages.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. All airplanes operating under part
121 must have a maintenance program based on damage tolerance
regardless of the passenger seating capacity. Many of those airplanes
were designed with multiple load path fail-safe or multiple load path
crack-arrest design features; therefore, the inspection thresholds can
be based on a conventional fatigue analysis and tests with an
appropriate scatter factor based on AC 25.571-1C.
Compliance Timeframe for Establishing Damage-Tolerance-Based
Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs
Comments: According to the ATA, the requirement in proposed Sec.
121.370a(a) to establish a damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
program'' within 4 years of the effective date of the rule is
unreasonable because damage-tolerance-based ``inspections'' usually are
imposed at a cycle threshold greater than 75 percent of the design-life
goal. For example, an anomalous result of the proposal would be for a
Boeing 737-800. The Boeing 737-800 is not fully damage tolerance
designed and would be required to have a complete SSID within 4 years
even though it has been in service only 2 years. The paragraph should
be limited to airplanes that do not otherwise have FAA-mandated aging
programs, or it could state that such airplanes already meet the
paragraph's requirements. One foreign aircraft type certificate holder
asks the FAA to reconsider the proposed compliance dates for affected
airplanes in proposed Sec. 121.370a.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. For any airplane certificated
before the effective date of the rule, the operators must have a
damage-tolerance-based SSIP in place within 4 years from the effective
date of the rule. For an airplane certificated after the effective date
of the rule by an amended type certificate that preceded Amendment 25-
45 (43 FR 46238 published in 1978), the FAA has revised Sec. Sec.
121.370a and 129.16 to allow operators to have a damage-tolerance-based
SSIP in place within 4 years of the date of the amended type
certification. Although this rule specifies dates when a damage-
tolerance-based SSIP will be required, the actual inspection thresholds
may occur much later. The FAA believes the times specified in this
final rule are adequate.
[[Page 72741]]
Proposed Changes to Sec. Sec. 121.135 and 121.369
Comments: One operator states that Sec. 121.135, Manual content,
and/or Sec. 121.369, Manual requirements, can be revised to include
the proposed Sec. 121.370a damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
requirements.''
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The requirement for a damage-
tolerance-based SSIP is independent of any requirement for inclusion in
an operator's manual. It has been added to Sec. 121.370a to keep all
the requirements for aging airplane supplemental inspections in part
121 in one section.
Part 129 Proposed Changes
Comments: The RAA recommends the FAA remove all part 129 provisions
in the NPRM. The RAA asks that the FAA replace them with the
requirement that each certificate holder incorporate into its
maintenance program either a damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
program'' or a structural integrity inspection program for each
airplane operated by that certificate holder. The inspection program
should require approval by the FAA ACO having cognizance over the type
certificate for the affected airplane. According to the RAA, compliance
should be required under the guidelines specified in proposed Sec.
129.33(b).
The GAMA recommends that the FAA revise Sec. 129.16(a), (b), (c),
and (d) by allowing the use of an FAA-approved structural integrity
inspection program based on fatigue analysis and fatigue tests, in
addition to a proposed damage-tolerance-based ``inspection program.''
Additionally, the GAMA notes that the preamble to the NPRM refers to
requiring damage-tolerance-based ``inspections and procedures'' earlier
than December 20, 2010, for airplanes with nine or fewer passenger
seats operated under part 129. The GAMA states that the preamble does
not properly reflect the proposed requirement in Sec. 129.16(b).
Transport Canada recommends the FAA revise Sec. 129.16 to include
and explicitly state that component replacement (safe life) programs
are acceptable as a means of ensuring continued structural integrity as
an airframe ages.
FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA requires a service-
history-based SSIP for airplanes initially certificated with 9 or fewer
passenger seats, but retains the proposed damage-tolerance-based SSIPs
for airplanes initially certificated with 10 or more passenger seats.
A large number of airplanes operating in part 129 were designed
with multiple load path fail-safe or multiple load path crack-arrest
design features; therefore, the inspection thresholds can be based on a
conventional fatigue analysis and tests with an appropriate scatter
factor based on AC 25.571-1C.
Airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats
will not require a service-history-based SSIP until December 20, 2010,
unless the airplane is listed in appendix B to part 129. For those
airplanes, a schedule based on the design-life goal is shown in Sec.
129.16(d).
Section 129.16(a)
Comments: One commenter states proposed Sec. 129.16(a) could be
misinterpreted to apply equally to large transport category airplanes.
Similar to its comment regarding Sec. 121.370a, the commenter
recommends the FAA reference appendix B to part 129 in Sec. 129.16(a).
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 129.16(a) is applicable to
all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes that operate under part 129,
which includes large transport category airplanes.
The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 129.1(b) to specify the
applicability of the aging airplane requirements to some operations
conducted under part 129. In this regard, the FAA inadvertently failed
to cite Sec. 129.32 and proposed Sec. 129.33 in proposed Sec.
129.1(b). This final rule corrects that omission.
In addition, the FAA has revised the rest of Sec. 129.1 to make it
easier to read. The paragraph (a) reference to the ``exception'' in
paragraph (b) was not accurate, because the requirements referenced in
paragraph (b) add to those in paragraph (a), as opposed to conflicting
with them. Thus, the FAA has deleted from paragraph (a) ``except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.'' The FAA has added headings
to paragraphs (a) and (b), and has placed the definition of ``foreign
person'' and ``years in service'' in a new paragraph (c). Paragraph (b)
now specifically includes the applicability of Sec. Sec. 129.14,
129.16, 129.20, 129.32, and 129.33 to operations of U.S.-registered
aircraft operated solely outside the United States in common carriage
by a foreign person or foreign air carrier.
The FAA has not made any substantive changes to part 129, other
than adding the aging airplane requirements and specifying that the
requirements would only apply to U.S. multiengine airplanes operated
under the part.
Part 135 Proposed Changes
Comments: The RAA recommends the FAA remove all part 135 provisions
in the NPRM. The RAA asks that the FAA replace them with the
requirement that each certificate holder incorporate into its
maintenance program either a damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
program'' or a structural integrity inspection program for each
airplane operated by that certificate holder. The inspection program
should require approval by the FAA ACO having cognizance over the type
certificate for the affected airplane. According to the RAA, compliance
should be required under the guidelines specified in proposed Sec.
135.422(b).
The GAMA recommends the FAA revise Sec. 135.168(a), (b), (c), and
(d) by allowing for use of an FAA-approved structural integrity
inspection program based on fatigue analysis and fatigue tests, in
addition to a proposed damage-tolerance-based ``inspection program.''
Additionally, the GAMA notes the preamble to the NPRM refers to
requiring damage-tolerance-based ``inspections and procedures'' sooner
than December 20, 2010, for airplanes with nine or fewer passenger
seats operated under part 135. The GAMA states the preamble does not
properly reflect the proposed requirement in Sec. 135.168(b).
Transport Canada recommends the FAA revise Sec. 135.168 to include
and explicitly state that component replacement (safe life) programs
are acceptable as a means of ensuring continued structural integrity as
an airframe ages.
Although generally supportive of the proposal, the CASA is
concerned about the practicalities and details of the proposed rule,
particularly for light airplanes operating under part 135.
The U.K. CAA notes that the NPRM states that it ``does not propose
requirements for on-demand passenger or cargo carrying operations under
part 135.'' However, the NPRM does introduce a new Sec. 135.168. The
CAA questions how the distinction would be made so that on-demand
operations are exempt from the rule.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. In response to the U.K. CAA's
comment, this rule is applicable to operators conducting scheduled
operations as defined in Sec. 119.3. The three requirements for
scheduled operations include: five round trips per week, one route
between two or more points, and the publication of a schedule. On-
demand or cargo-only operations conducted under part 135 are not
affected by this rule.
[[Page 72742]]
In this final rule, the FAA requires a service-history-based SSIP
for airplanes initially certificated with 9 or fewer passenger seats,
but retains the proposed damage-tolerance-based SSIPs for airplanes
initially certificated with 10 or more passenger seats.
Proposed Appendixes
Summary of Proposal/Issue: To assist in implementing the proposed
rule, the FAA included appendixes that list the FAA-established design-
life goals of several airplane types commonly used in scheduled
service. Proposed appendix N to part 121 lists the airplanes and
design-life goals referenced in proposed Sec. 121.370a. Proposed
appendix B to part 129 lists the airplanes and design-life goals
referenced in proposed Sec. 129.16. Proposed appendix G to part 135
lists the airplanes and design-life goals referenced in proposed Sec.
135.168.
General
Comments: The RAA states the proposed appendixes would conflict
with other FAA-approved certification documents unless they are updated
continually. The RAA notes several of the design-life goals provided
are inaccurate and, once adopted, would require constant revision.
According to the RAA, several foreign-based airframe OEMs contend that
the proposed fatigue lives for their fleet types are inaccurate and
that extensions have been approved by foreign regulatory authorities.
Also, the RAA states the design-life goals do not account for the
differences in design-life goals that exist between the various
airplane structures (for example, wings, fuselage, and vertical and
horizontal stabilizers).
FAA Response: This rulemaking action is intended to ensure the
continued airworthiness of the affected airplanes by requiring SSIPs
based on damage tolerance or service history. In response to the RAA's
comment, the FAA has published the design-life goals of certain
airplanes in the appendixes of the final rule to provide a quick
reference to operators. The FAA has not imposed any new requirements
through these appendixes. However, as a result of comments received,
the FAA has corrected the appendixes to reflect current FAA-approved
design-life goals. The FAA has no intention to further delay
implementation of the damage-tolerance-based SSIPs.
For airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger
seats, the FAA originally proposed an inspection program that includes
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. In response to the comments received,
this final rule adds an exception for multiengine airplanes initially
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats and conducting
scheduled operations under part 129 or part 135. Those airplanes can
have a service-history-based SSIP instead of a damage-tolerance-based
SSIP.
Airplanes operating under part 121 must have damage-tolerance-based
SSIPs 4 years after the effective date of the rule. For those airplanes
listed in the appendix, from 4 years after the effective date of the
rule, the certificate holder may operate that airplane until the date
the airplane's time in service reaches the design-life goal or until
December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner. As noted in the preamble to
the proposal, the design-life goals listed are a result of information
from the type certificate holder, the airworthiness authorities of
other countries, or the FAA.
Appendix N to Part 121
Comments: Commenters provide specific comments regarding proposed
appendix N to part 121. The RAA states that the information provided in
appendix N to part 121 can be obtained from other sources and is
therefore redundant. Another commenter believes the FAA should include
in appendix N any airplane that has design-life goals established for
flight cycles and afford them the same opportunities to develop
``SIPs'' based on these goals. According to the commenter, the FAA also
should consider providing another appendix to part 121 listing those
airplanes that have existing FAA-approved ``SIPs'' that meet the
proposed requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Appendix N is necessary to
determine when damage-tolerance-based SSIPs are required for airplanes
with design-life goals; appendix N lists those design-life goals. The
rest of the airplanes operating under part 121 must comply within 4
years after the effective date of the rule.
The FAA did not want to provide another appendix to part 121
because a list of SSIPs mandated through specific ADs may have to be
revised. If these ADs were listed in such an appendix, the FAA would
have to revise the appendix through rulemaking action each time a SSIP
was changed.
Appendix B to Part 129
Comments: Regarding proposed appendix B to part 129, the RAA states
the information provided in the appendix can be obtained from other
sources and is therefore redundant.
FAA Response: Appendix B is necessary to determine when damage-
tolerance-based SSIPs are required for airplanes with design-life
goals.
Appendix G to Part 135
Comments: Regarding proposed appendix G to part 135, the RAA states
the information provided in appendix G can be obtained from other
sources and is therefore redundant.
Another commenter operating in Alaska states there is no technical
basis for including some airplanes in appendix G and not others. The
commenter cites the example of the Piper Seneca, which could operate
until 2010 without a ``SIP'' even though it may be older and have
``higher time'' than a Piper PA31-350 that would have to comply 6 years
earlier. This results in arbitrary and capricious rules. Operators who
are fortunate, whose airplanes were the subject of ``non-damage-
tolerance-based ADs'' before the rule change, also could operate until
2010.
According to the commenter, the FAA should consider allowing all
nonpressurized airplanes of nine or fewer passenger seats to operate
without a ``SIP'' until 2010 and reevaluate these airplanes based on
the experience with larger pressurized airplanes. The NPRM is not clear
about whether compliance would be delayed for airplanes with nine or
fewer passenger seats. Such a change would dramatically reduce the
burden to small businesses and would be a negligible change to the
rule.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. Appendix G is necessary to
determine when damage-tolerance-based or service-history-based SSIPs
are required for airplanes with design-life goals.
In response to the commenter's suggestion that the FAA delay
compliance with this final rule for airplanes initially certificated
with nine or fewer passenger seats, the FAA agrees and has amended
proposed Sec. 135.168 to reflect this change.
BAe Jetstream Model 3101 or 3201
Comments: British Aerospace (Operations) Limited states that the
design-life goals listed in this proposal for the Jetstream 3101 and
3201 do not represent current figures published in approved aircraft
maintenance documentation. The commenter indicates that the U.K. CAA
approved revised figures in 1997. According to the commenter, the
revised Jetstream 3101 lives of the components of the airframe are as
follows: (1) 45,750 landings for the wing, (2) 46,200 landings for the
fuselage, (3) 60,360 landings for the vertical stabilizer, and (4)
45,000 landings for the horizontal stabilizer. The revised Jetstream
3201 lives of the components of the airframe are as follows: (1) 30,000
landings for the
[[Page 72743]]
wing, (2) 46,200 landings for the fuselage, (3) 55,500 landings for the
vertical stabilizer, and (4) 40,000 landings for the horizontal
stabilizer.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Using correlation between flight
hours and landings specified in notice no. 99-02, the FAA has revised
appendix N to part 121, appendix B to part 129, and appendix G to part
135 to reflect the new design-life goals for the Jetstream 3101. The
Jetstream 3201's design-life goal remains at 30,000 hours.
Beech 1900 (Any Model)
Comments: The Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) states the wings
on Beech 1900 aircraft use a damage tolerance approach based on test
data to define an inspection program. The fuselage uses a fail-safe
approach based on test data to define an inspection program. Also, the
empennage currently is a safe-life item based on analysis only.
Raytheon recommends the FAA include this information in the proposal.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that Beechcraft uses a damage
tolerance approach based on test data to define an inspection program
for the Beech 1900 wings. The FAA also recognizes that the fuselage
uses test data to define an inspection program, and the empennage is a
safe-life item based on analysis only.
The FAA finds that an inspection program based solely on test data
is not consistent with the requirements of the final rule. A damage-
tolerance-based SSIP still needs to be developed for the Beech 1900
within the timeframes listed in this rulemaking.
Beech 300, 300LW, B300, or B300C
Comments: Raytheon states the wings on these airplanes use a damage
tolerance approach based on test data to define an inspection program.
The fuselage uses a fail-safe approach based on test data to define
an inspection program. Also, the empennage currently is a safe life
item based on analysis only. Raytheon recommends the FAA include this
information in the final rule.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that Raytheon uses a damage
tolerance approach based on test data to define an inspection program
for the Beech 300 empennage. The FAA also recognizes that the fuselage
uses test data to define an inspection program.
The FAA finds that a SSIP based solely on test data is not
consistent with the requirements of the final rule. A damage-tolerance-
based SSIP still needs to be developed for the Beech 300 within the
timeframes listed in this rulemaking.
Beech 99 (Any Model)
Comments: Raytheon recommends the FAA note in the proposal that
currently there is a Continued Airworthiness Program in place for Beech
99 models, based on full-scale tests and field experience. According to
Raytheon, this program details inspections of all major components:
wing, fuselage, and empennage. Raytheon states the current 46,000-hour
life limit is based on analysis supported by test data.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that Raytheon has a continued
airworthiness program in place for the Beech 99 models based on full-
scale tests and field experience. The FAA also acknowledges that the
current 46,000 hour limit is based on analysis supported by test data.
The FAA finds that an inspection program based solely on test data
is not consistent with the requirements of the final rule. A damage-
tolerance-based SSIP still needs to be developed for all Beech 99
models within the timeframes listed in this rulemaking.
Cessna 402
Comments: One operator states that DOT/FAA/AR-98/66
(Supplementation Inspection Document Development Program for the Cessna
Model 402) and Cessna Aircraft Company Structures Report No. S-402-76-2
(Model No. 402) do not support design-life goals for the Cessna 402C
(7,700 hours for the wing structure was cited in the proposal). The
commenter notes all tests were conducted in accordance with fail-safe
requirements in Sec. 23.572, Metallic wing, empennage, and associated
structures.
An Alaskan operator states that AD 79-10-15, ``Cracks in Wing
Structure,'' on the Cessna 402 has been very successful in addressing
aging airplane concerns. However, while the NPRM proposes inspections
every 5,000 hours, the AD requires inspections every 400 hours. This
demonstrates that the ``one-size-fits-all'' approach does not address
the safety needs of aging airplanes. According to the commenter,
inspection of such a critical primary structure can and should be
undertaken much more frequently than every 5,000 hours, especially for
airplanes with fewer than 10 seats. For example, the commenter's fleet
of Chieftains operates under an approved airworthiness inspection
program that ensures all critical structures are inspected every 360
hours.
FAA Response: The FAA is requiring service-history-based SSIPs for
each multiengine airplane initially certificated with nine or fewer
passenger seats. However, Cessna has developed a damage-tolerance-based
SSIP, and the FAA strongly encourages operators to incorporate this
program into their existing inspection programs.
The Cessna-developed damage-tolerance-based SSIP provides
sufficient continuing airworthiness information to meet the intent of a
service-history-based SSIP and can be used to comply with that
requirement.
The FAA has corrected the design-life goal for the Cessna 402 in
appendix B to part 129 to 7,700 hours, which is based on the design-
life goals established by U.K. and Australian airworthiness
authorities. With respect to the commenter's reference to a 5,000-hour
repetitive inspection interval number, it is unclear where the
commenter obtained this number, which is not applicable to the Cessna
402 SID program.
This final rule includes the requirement for service-history-based
SSIPs for airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger
seats. Guidance for complying with a service-history-based SSIP will be
provided in an AC. The FAA is requesting comments on draft AC 91-56B
and AC 91-60A. Once these ACs become final, they too will be considered
an acceptable means of compliance with this rule. Based on service
experience, different inspection thresholds and intervals may be
required for different aircraft models.
deHavilland DHC-6 (Any Model)
Comments: Bombardier Aerospace (Bombardier) notes that the
deHavilland DHC-6 Series 300 originally was certificated with a 66,000-
hour safe life with a one-time wing replacement mandated at 33,000
hours. However, Bombardier and Transport Canada concluded in 1996 that
continued operation of this airplane type under the originally
certificated safe-life provisions (augmented by damage-tolerance-based
inspection of those parts of the structure where this was practicable)
was the most appropriate course of action for ensuring the
(certification) level of safety of these airplanes is preserved. The
commenter also notes that Transport Canada issued AD CF-96-15 on
September 17, 1996, for all models of the DHC-6 Twin Otter airplanes
requiring these additional actions to ensure continued structural
integrity. The commenter notes the FAA has not mandated this program
and requests that the FAA do so as part of its aging airplane safety
initiative. Additionally, according to Bombardier, the retirement time
for the DHC-6 (100,
[[Page 72744]]
200, or 300 series) is 66,000 hours or 132,000 flights, whichever
occurs first. According to Bombardier, the design-life goal for the
DHC-6 is identified incorrectly in the proposed appendixes as 33,000
hours.
One FAA-approved repair station specializing in the major repair,
alteration, and heavy maintenance of DHC-6 airplanes notes DHC-6
component life limits are provided in deHavilland PSM 1-6-11,
``Structural Components Service Life Limits.'' The structural
components addressed in this document include the wing box, strut, and
FS 219 fuselage lower frame. According to the commenter, these
``manufacturers'' limits have been validated successfully through
decades of field experience. The use of damage tolerance analysis to
further assess airplane structure is redundant. According to the
commenter, although certain remaining components might be subject to
further structural fatigue evaluation, several of these components are
either replaceable, already inspected at continuous intervals, or not
considered fatigue-critical. The commenter states a more appropriate
fatigue analysis approach would be to establish safe-life criteria for
these additional components.
Transport Canada states that the NPRM statement ``This Canadian AD,
issued in September of 1996, mandates the retirement of the airplane at
66,000 hours'' is incomplete. Airplane retirement at 66,000 hours is
dependent on the completion of the mandatory supplemental integrity
requirements in Canadian AD CF-96-15. To achieve the 66,000-hour
design-life goal, a program of inspections and parts replacements is
required. Transport Canada recommends that the statement be amended to
say, `` * * * the retirement of the airplane at 66,000 hours is
required as a result of AD CF-96-15, providing all the requirements of
the AD are accomplished.''
Transport Canada also states that the DHC-6 meets the requirements
of Sec. 511.34 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, Supplemental
Integrity Instructions, per Transport Canada AD CF-96-15, which
requires additional actions to ensure continued structural integrity as
an airframe ages. Transport Canada was unaware of a similar FAA-
mandated AD.
Twin Otter International, Ltd. (TOIL), states that the DHC-6 should
not have to comply with damage-tolerance-based inspection techniques
for the following reasons:
[sbull] deHavilland designed the Twin Otter (DHC-6-300) with the
intention that fatigue-critical components (that is, fuselage
mainframe, wing struts, and wing boxes) must be replaced upon reaching
either a flight hour or a cycle limit, whichever occurs first. Although
the life limit of the wing struts and fuselage mainframe originally
were established at 30,000 hours/60,000 cycles, Transport Canada, in
revision 4 to the life limits manual (Structural Components Service
Life Limits Manual, PSM-1-6-11), raised the wing strut life to 36,000
hours/72,000 cycles and the mainframe life to 39,000 hours/78,000
cycles. These components are inspected frequently using strict damage
criteria. The commenter notes that the life of wing boxes (30,000
hours/60,000 cycles) can be raised to 33,000 hours/66,000 cycles with
incorporation of a service bulletin that adds structural reinforcement.
The commenter adds that each of these components is inspected
frequently in accordance with strict damage criteria. Also, upon
reaching their life limits, the components must be replaced completely
or, in the case of wing boxes, re-lifed (which may be done only once).
Because of re-lifing, Transport Canada established a safe life for DHC-
6 wing boxes of 66,000 hours/132,000 cycles. TOIL also notes that two
STCs have been approved to extend the life of DHC-6-300 wing boxes.
[sbull] TOIL maintains its DHC-6 airplanes in accordance with the
factory inspection and maintenance program Equalized Maintenance for
Maximum Availability (EMMA), which requires certain scheduled
inspections every 100 hours. If EMMA is followed, TOIL states that
there is no additional benefit to implementing damage-tolerance-based
inspection procedures.
[sbull] TOIL believes corrosion, not structural fatigue, is the
cause of structural damage in the DHC-6. TOIL reminds the FAA that on
August 24, 1994, Transport Canada issued an AD requiring all DHC-6
airplanes to be subject to exhaustive and repetitive corrosion
inspections.
[sbull] In 1994, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
Technical Oversight of Aging Airplanes working group generally accepted
the ``manufacturer's'' method of ensuring continued structural
integrity based on structural fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and
field experience correlation. Additionally, TOIL notes that the AASA
does not mandate damage-tolerance-based analysis and inspection
techniques. However, the AASA recognizes that the continued
airworthiness of airplanes could be ensured through other means,
particularly those airplane designs not based on damage tolerance
guidelines.
FAA Response: The FAA believes that the commenter's reference to
the ARAC Technical Oversight of Aging Airplanes group actually refers
to the Technical Oversight Group Aging Aircraft (TOGAA) that works with
the FAA, but that group does not directly participate in ARAC group
activities. The FAA assumes that the commenter is referring to the
TOGAA in its comment.
In November 1996, the Commuter Assessment Review Team (CART), which
included members from the TOGAA, visited deHavilland to determine what
difficulties were associated with conducting a damage tolerance
assessment of the DHC-6. The CART found that deHavilland had the
capability to perform a damage tolerance assessment of the DHC-6 if
they chose to do so. At that meeting, the members of the TOGAA on the
CART recommended that deHavilland perform a damage tolerance assessment
of the DHC-6.
Congress, through the AASA, instructed the Administrator to
``prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of
aging aircraft.'' The AASA also stated that air carriers must
``demonstrate to the Administrator, as part of the inspection, that the
maintenance of the aircraft's age-sensitive parts and components has
been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of
safety.''
The FAA has determined that to ensure the continuing airworthiness
of these aging aircraft, each airplane operated under part 121, each
U.S.-registered multiengine airplane that was initially certificated
with 10 or more passenger seats operated under part 129, and each
multiengine airplane that was initially certificated with 10 or more
passenger seats operated in scheduled operations under part 135 should
be required to have a damage-tolerance-based SSIP included in its
maintenance or inspection program.
For the DHC-6, if the aircraft is used in any of the affected
operations, then the operator must have a damage-tolerance-based SSIP
included in each aircraft's maintenance or inspection program, in
accordance with the schedule in this rulemaking.
Regarding the commenter's discussion of component life limits, the
FAA used these limits to establish the design-life goal for many of the
airplanes identified in the appendixes. The design-life goal for the
DHC-6 was chosen based on the wing life-limit of 33,000 hours. Also,
the FAA has determined that a damage-tolerance-based SSIP must be
accomplished for all airplanes initially certificated with 10 or more
passenger seats. In addition, for DHC-6 airplanes
[[Page 72745]]
that are in service 4 years after the effective date of the rule and
have not yet reached the design-life goal, the FAA has determined that
a damage-tolerance-based SSIP must be in place by 33,000 hours or by
December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner. As a result, the FAA has
not issued an AD similar to Canadian AD CF-96-15.
Comments: One Alaskan commenter argues that no replacement
airplanes are being manufactured that can match the rugged and
unpressurized DHC-6 Twin Otter. The commenter uses the airplanes to
provide essential service to many communities in Alaska that have no
other source of air transportation. The commenter claims that
relegating the airplanes to part 135 cargo operations as a result of
the rule change would be a great disservice to the Alaskan people and
would degrade safety because the airplanes would be replaced by single-
engine, single-pilot airplanes with nine or fewer passenger seats.
FAA Response: Regarding the Alaskan commenter's contention that the
DHC-6 provides essential service to many communities in Alaska, the FAA
has decided to permit relief from all requirements of this rule for
those airplanes operating between any point within the State of Alaska
and any other point within the State of Alaska. This change is
reflected in Sec. Sec. 121.368(a), 121.370a(a), 135.168(a),
135.422(a), and 135.422a(a).
Embraer EMB-110
Comments: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) states
that the expected fleet in operation by December 2010 would have a
substantial residual life (based on original certification criteria).
The proposed rule would significantly impact operators and
``manufacturers'' and would put a sizeable portion of the EMB-110 fleet
in an economically impracticable situation unless the FAA makes some
simplified methodology available.
Embraer understands that the particular characteristics of each
airplane's design would be taken into consideration to allow
alternative courses of action. In the case of the EMB-110, two facts
must be taken into account: (1) Contrary to the proposal, the EMB-110
is not a pressurized airplane, and (2) a service bulletin permitting
the extension of the ``design service goal'' from 30,000 to 45,000
flight hours is available.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the comment; however, the
commenter did not provide any evidence that the 45,000 flight hour
design-life goal in the service bulletin has been approved by the
Brazilian regulatory authority. Therefore, the FAA is not changing the
design-life goal of the EMB-110 from 30,000 to 45,000 flight hours.
These airplanes will be required to have a damage-tolerance-based SSIP
within the timeframes mandated in this rulemaking. The FAA encourages
Embraer to support development of the damage-tolerance-based SSIP for
the EMB-110.
Piper Navajo and PA-31 Series
Comments: One operator indicates it has spoken with a
representative from New Piper, Inc., regarding the impacts of this
proposal. The commenter notes that the Piper Aircraft Corporation that
originally produced the PA-31 series went bankrupt. New Piper, Inc.,
supports out-of-production airplanes only on any issues affecting the
airworthiness of those airplanes. The commenter fears that because
Australia and the United Kingdom already have established an arbitrary
maximum airframe limit, New Piper simply might endorse that limit. The
commenter opposes such acceptance. The commenter notes that the Piper
Chieftain series of airplanes have relatively few stresses placed on
them compared to pressurized airframes.
One Alaskan operator states that the design lives set for the PA-
31-350 airplanes (excluding the pressurized version) appear to have no
basis and are unrealistically low. The average fleet service life
already exceeds the design life set by the proposal. The commenter
knows of no failures of primary structure on these airplanes that would
justify attributing such a limit to aging. According to the operator,
neither the FAA nor the ``manufacturer'' has set a design-life goal on
the airplanes, and it is unreasonable to rely on a design life set by a
foreign country that did not certificate the airplanes. The commenter
also states that there is no evidence that the foreign country
conducted any analysis to develop the design life for the airplanes.
The commenter's company has operated several PA-31-350 airplanes in
excess of 20,000 hours total time without any indication that the
airplanes have reached their design life.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the rule so that operators of
airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats may
develop a service-history-based SSIP instead of a damage-tolerance-
based SSIP.
Short Brothers SD3-30
Comments: The European Aging Aircraft Working Group (EAAWG) states
that the SD3-30 meets the requirements of AC 91-56 and the FAA should
consult the ``manufacturer'' to clarify this issue.
FAA Response: Through informal discussions with the U.K. CAA, the
FAA has learned that the Short Brothers 3-30 and 3-60 airplanes meet
the intent of AC 91-56, but the U.K. CAA is unable to present
documentation to confirm that the FAA has previously accepted the U.K.
CAA finding. This final rule requires that the operators of these
airplanes include damage-tolerance-based SSIPs in the maintenance
program for each airplane within the timeframes in this rulemaking. If
the type certificate holder can demonstrate that the existing
maintenance program for each airplane meets the intent of AC 91-56,
then compliance with this rule will be made considerably easier for
each operator. Operators can use the type certificate holder's program
as the basis for their damage-tolerance-based SSIPs, altering each one
as necessary to account for any modifications and repairs incorporated
into specific airplanes in an operator's fleet.
Because documentation from the U.K. CAA is not available at the
time this final rule is being published, the economic analysis portion
of this rule reflects costs associated with development of damage-
tolerance-based SSIPs of the Short Brothers 3-30 and 3-60 airplanes
assuming none currently exist.
Short Brothers SD3-60
Comments: Bombardier Aerospace Short Brothers (USA), Inc., states
that the proposal lists a design-life limit of 28,800 hours for the
SD3-60. However, the commenter states that type certificate data sheet
A41EU, note 3, states the life limit is as listed in chapter 5 of the
approved Maintenance Manual Document Ref. 360/MM. According to the
commenter, this manual states the airplane has an economic structural
limit of 57,600 flight hours or 100,000 flights (whichever occurs
first). The commenter notes that the manual requires a structural half-
life audit at 28,800 flight hours or 50,000 flights.
The EAAWG states that the SD3-60 meets the requirements of AC 91-56
and the FAA should consult the ``manufacturer'' to clarify this issue.
FAA Response: Through informal discussions with the U.K. CAA, the
FAA has learned that the Short Brothers 3-30 and 3-60 airplanes meet
the intent of AC 91-56, but the U.K. CAA is unable to present
documentation to confirm that the FAA has previously accepted the U.K.
CAA finding. This final rule requires that the operators of
[[Page 72746]]
these airplanes include damage-tolerance-based SSIPs in the maintenance
program for each airplane within the timeframes in this rulemaking. If
the type certificate holder can demonstrate that the existing
maintenance program for each airplane meets the intent of AC 91-56,
then compliance with this rule will be made considerably easier for
each operator. Operators can use the type certificate holder's program
as the basis for their damage-tolerance-based SSIPs, altering each one
as necessary to account for any modifications and repairs incorporated
into specific airplanes in an operator's fleet.
Because documentation from the U.K. CAA is not available at the
time this final rule is being published, the economic analysis portion
of this rule reflects costs associated with development of damage-
tolerance-based SSIPs of the Short Brothers 3-30 and 3-60 airplanes
assuming none currently exist.
Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa
Comments: Short Brothers PLC proposes that the FAA amend the
proposal so that (1) the reference to SD3-30 in line 4 of the proposed
appendixes section of the preamble for the Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa
(64 FR 16304) correctly reads ``SD-3 Sherpa''; (2) 40,000 hours in line
10 reads ``35,000 flights''; and (3) the SD3-60 Sherpa airplanes and
the following descriptive text be included:
The Short Brothers SD3-60 Sherpa is a 32-seat airplane
configured for 30 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-60
Sherpa was certificated in the United States in 1996 under U.K.
certification basis and to the additional validation requirements of
part 25, Amendment No. 35. The ``manufacturer'' has limited the
maintenance program to 12,000 flights as defined in the airplane
maintenance manual.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that some of the references made
to the SD3-60 and SD-3 Sherpa as stated in the NPRM (64 FR 16304) were
incorrect. All of the appendices in the final rule have been revised to
reflect the correct information.
Non-Damage-Tolerance-Based Structural Supplemental Inspection Programs
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA notes that non-damage-tolerance-
based SSIPs based on AC 91-60, ``The Continued Airworthiness of Older
Airplanes,'' have been mandated by ADs on the following airplanes:
Convair 340, 440, 580, and 600 series; Douglas DC-3 and DC-6; Fokker F-
27; and Lockheed Electra. Although inspections and procedures based on
AC 91-60 address known service difficulties, they do not anticipate the
possibility of future fatigue cracks that could be predicted through
the use of damage tolerance principles. The FAA has determined that
some inspection programs developed in accordance with AC 91-60 do not
qualify as damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures because
they are either based solely on service experience or combine partial
damage-tolerance-based assessments with service experience. For these
reasons, the proposed rule would not allow continued use of inspection
programs based on AC 91-60 alone. Instead, the FAA proposes to require
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures to supplement or
replace existing inspection programs based on AC 91-60 no later than
December 20, 2010.
Inspection Programs in Accordance With AC 91-60
Comments: The GAMA notes, contrary to the FAA's statements, that
some AC 91-60 inspections and procedures programs have been designed to
anticipate the possibility of future cracking in the structure and have
specified appropriate inspections and procedures to find such
occurrences. The FAA should revise its incorrect and broad
generalization.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The existing AC 91-60 inspection
programs were accomplished by different type certificate holders that
made different assumptions to create their individual programs. The FAA
understands that differences exist between these programs. The minimum
standard for a service-history-based SSIP was provided in AC 91-60.
Fokker F-27
Comments: Several commenters question the FAA's assertion that the
Fokker F-27 ``SIP'' is not based on damage tolerance principles.
According to these commenters, the Fokker F-27 ``SIP,'' Document No.
27438, part 1, has been declared by the FAA as having been prepared in
accordance with AC 91-56, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program
for Large Transport Category Airplanes,'' which qualifies the program
as an acceptable damage-tolerance-based inspection program. One
operator notes Fokker performed full-scale and detailed tests as well
as fatigue analysis (calculations) of the Fokker F-27 primary structure
during the original certification process of the airplane. These tests
were performed to ultimate loads. The fatigue inspection requirements
and structural life limits resulting from those tests were included in
the ``SIP.'' Additionally, the operator notes Fokker continues to add
service experience, including stress corrosion, to the program. Also,
Fokker continues to evaluate the areas of concern, new designs and
developments, and service experience using damage tolerance
assessments.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Based on a review of our records, the
FAA has determined that the Fokker F-27 SSIP mandated by AD was
approved by the FAA as a damage-tolerance-based inspection program in
compliance with AC 91-56.
Convair 580
Comments: One operator states the Convair 580 has had excellent
engineering and product support for over 45 years and has a well-proven
structural integrity inspection document and corrosion inspection
programs. The operator also asserts that it has implemented AD 88-22-06
(revised to AD 92-06-06), ``Boeing: Amendment 39-6490,'' and AD 92-25-
13, ``General Dynamics, Convair Division: Amendment 39-8427.''
According to the operator, implementation of these ADs added 132 new
inspection tasks relating to the AASA. Additionally, the operator has
implemented AD 90-13-13, ``General Dynamics (Convair): Amendment 39-
6638,'' and AD 74-16-01, ``General Dynamics: Amendment 39-1904, as
amended by Amendment 39-3206.'' Another commenter states the type
certificate data sheet holder for the Convair 580 indicated it would
cost approximately $2.5 million for an operator of this airplane to
develop a damage-tolerance-based ``SIP,'' because the historical data
required for development do not exist.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that Convair 340/440/580
aircraft can operate until December 20, 2010. At that time, a damage-
tolerance-based SSIP will be required. The FAA encourages the current
type certificate holder to develop a damage-tolerance-based SSIP to
support this airplane in service.
Lockheed L-188 Electra
Comments: According to one operator, the Lockheed L-188 Electra SID
program was developed using damage-tolerance-based principles and was
not based solely on empirical service data. In a separate comment,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (Lockheed) indicates to operators
of the Lockheed L-188 Electra that the cost to develop an aging
airplane program and perform its inspections and modifications would
need to be
[[Page 72747]]
addressed by each operator. According to Lockheed, operators should
consider the following options:
[sbull] Individually or as a group, develop an Electra aging
airplane program;
[sbull] Fund a third party to develop an Electra aging airplanes
program, which Lockheed would be willing to do if funded by operators;
or
[sbull] Petition the FAA for relief using the AC 90-60 non-damage-
tolerance-based ``SIP'' issue to defer action until 2010.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Based on a review of our records, the
FAA has determined that the Lockheed L-188 SSIP mandated by AD was
approved by the FAA as a damage-tolerance-based SSIP in accordance with
AC 91-56.
DC-6 and C-46
Comments: One commenter who currently operates Douglas DC-6 and
Curtiss C-46 airplanes notes it may continue to operate either or both
types of airplanes beyond 2010. The commenter further states that if it
does upgrade to newer airplanes, the newer airplanes probably will not
have damage-tolerance-based inspections in their maintenance programs.
Additionally, the commenter notes the lack of ``manufacturer'' support
in developing adequate damage-tolerance-based ``inspection programs.''
According to the commenter, the Curtiss company no longer supports its
airplanes. Also according to the commenter, Boeing (which acquired
Douglas) has indicated to the commenter that it is not considering
supporting the DC-6 (and probably nothing older than the DC-10) in this
area.
FAA Response: The FAA has established that a damage-tolerance-based
SSIP must be developed for the DC-6 by December 2010 and for the C-46
within 4 years after the effective date of the rule, or those airplanes
will not be eligible for operations in part 121, or part 129, or in
scheduled operations in part 135. In the future, operators of these
airplanes will have to make decisions on how best to support the
operation of these airplanes.
Other FAA Initiatives
Comments: One commenter singled out the Fokker F-28 jet, noting
there was significant activity a few years ago on a repair assessment
program for elements of damage tolerance. According to the commenter,
because there has been no regulatory activity (that is, establishment
of repair requirements) on repairs for the Fokker F-28, it would be
inappropriate to review repairs for damage-tolerance-based inspections.
FAA Response: The final rule titled ``Repair Assessment for
Pressurized Fuselages'' (65 FR 24108, April 25, 2000) that became
effective May 25, 2000, is applicable to the Fokker F-28. Therefore,
operators must make a damage tolerance assessment of the repairs to the
Fokker F-28 fuselage pressure boundary.
Discussion of Economic or Cost Comments
Summary of Proposal/Issue: In accordance with Executive Order
12866, the FAA prepared an economic analysis of the proposed changes to
the Code of Federal Regulations. The FAA assessed the costs associated
with the following items:
[sbull] Implementation of damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures for those scheduled operators of multiengine airplanes not
currently subject to these inspections and procedures.
[sbull] Operator development of these procedures for the affected
airplane models.
[sbull] Additional FAA inspections and records reviews mandated by
Congress.
The FAA noted in its analysis that the attributed costs of this
proposal do not include the expense of making repairs that may be found
necessary during either an operator's damage-tolerance-based
inspections or the FAA's oversight inspections. The FAA does not
attribute these repair costs in the proposal because current
regulations require that repairs be made as necessary to ensure the
airworthiness of an airplane. Also, the FAA noted that its analysis did
not address directly the costs the proposal eventually would impose on
airplanes produced after the effective date of the rule.
The FAA identified two benefits in the proposed rule: (1) Age-
related accidents would be prevented and (2) the FAA and the industry
would be able to monitor the airworthiness of the affected airplanes as
they age and either take timely corrective action to maintain their
continued airworthiness or retire them from service before they become
unairworthy; consequently, the airplanes would be able to stay in
service longer because their continued airworthiness would be
monitored, rather than the airplanes being retired at an arbitrary age.
Comments: Commenters generally believe the FAA underestimated the
costs associated with this proposal. One commenter provided the
following comments regarding the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Determination completed by the FAA: In the ``Compliance Assistance''
section, the NPRM indicates the FAA has undertaken a research program
to develop a simplified damage-tolerance-based methodology directly
applicable to commuter-sized airplanes. The company states that if this
document has not yet been issued, the FAA should consider withholding
issuance of the final rule until such adequate guidance material is
available.
FAA Response: In its efforts to assist small entities and other
affected parties in complying with the rule, the FAA will publish two
ACs for comment with this final rule. One of these is AC 91-56B,
``Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes,'' and it will
provide guidance for implementing a damage-tolerance-based SSIP. The
other document is AC 91-60A, ``The Continued Airworthiness of Older
Airplanes,'' which will provide guidance for implementing a service-
history-based SSIP. Notices of availability for these two ACs are
published concurrently with this rule, with a request for public
comments. The research referred to by the commenter has not yet been
published. The document is in final review and will be published in the
near future.
Comment: Additionally, the GAMA and other commenters contend the
following statement is incorrect for ``SIPs'' developed using
comprehensive fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and the correlation of
field service data, as applicable: ``* * * non-damage-tolerance-based
program would induce lower costs but with a concomitant reduction in
safety assurance'' (64 FR 16314). Also, GAMA states this statement
contradicts the FAA's assertion that the proposed rule does not
increase the intended level of safety but maintains the level of safety
established at type design (64 FR 16311).
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that damage-tolerance-based SSIPs
provide the highest level of safety and that service-history-based
SSIPs provide something less than that. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
that full damage-tolerance-based SSIPs be imposed on all affected
airplanes after 2010. After reviewing the comments, the FAA had to
consider the cost, the exceptional difficulty in obtaining the
necessary data for airplanes with fewer than nine seats, and the
capability of the airlines operating these smaller airplanes to
effectively accomplish these requirements. As a result of the review
and based on the comments received, the FAA is revising the proposal to
allow airplanes initially certificated
[[Page 72748]]
with nine or fewer passenger seats to have service-history-based SSIPs.
Comment: The ATA estimates aligning HMCs with the inspections at 5-
year intervals alone would cost more than $1.3 billion. According to
ATA, one member states this alignment would add $21 million annually to
its costs. Another ATA member asserts the proposal would require each
airplane to be kept in heavy maintenance a minimum of 2 days longer
than scheduled (compared with the FAA's estimate of 0.7 to 1.6 days).
According to that operator, this additional time would result in
$80,000 in lost revenue (compared with the FAA's estimate of 7 percent
of the value of capital, or $2,700 per inspection). Another ATA member
with 230 airplanes estimates the proposed rule would cost that operator
as much as $150 million during each 5-year cycle and recommends the FAA
consider a separate rule for part 121 operators of large transport
category airplanes. Six ATA members representing more than 50 percent
of the total domestic ATA fleet estimate the proposed rule would cost
the group of part 121 operators of large transport category airplanes
more than $236 million per year.
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has changed
the repeat inspection and records review interval from 5 years to 7
years to allow an operator to align the inspection and records review
interval more closely with the scheduled HMC interval. This does not
require the operator to have its HMC at the initial or repetitive
limits set by this rule. The scheduled HMC can occur at any time within
those intervals, and the FAA inspection and records review can be held
concurrently with the HMC. The intervals shown in the rule are maximum
intervals. In addition, it is not the FAA's intent to disrupt
operators' scheduled maintenance in such a way that it would
significantly impact their schedules. However, each airplane subject to
the final rule cannot be returned to service after the specified
interval until the Administrator or a designee has completed its
inspection and records review and notifies the operator accordingly.
With regard to cost estimation, a time estimate of 2 days per
airplane inspection, as suggested by the commenter, was used in the
final regulatory evaluation for the oversight inspection of an airplane
by an ASI or DAR. This time estimate was used for the large transport
airplanes that have damage-tolerance-based SSIPs (the great majority of
the affected airplanes).
With regard to downtime costs, the FAA maintains that a reasonable
approximation of the cost for the oversight inspection of an airplane
by ASIs/DARs is the rate of return applied to the value of the
productive capital asset used by the business enterprise (rather than
revenue lost per day). Seven percent is the rate of interest that OMB
directs agencies to use in present-value calculations. Moreover, such
an approach has the advantage of being applied uniformly over the
entire air carrier industry. By comparison, ``revenue lost per day''
varies considerably across companies in the industry and is affected by
different accounting procedures. In addition, utilization rates vary
across equipment. The FAA estimates the total cost to the industry
where revenue lost by one firm is gained by another.
Calculations were made that resulted in estimates of intervals
between C-checks and D-checks, in terms of years, for some large
transport airplanes (including Boeing models). These calculations
showed that the C-checks take place, on the average, every 1 to 2 years
depending on the airplane model type. D-checks are estimated to take
place, on the average, every 5 to 12 years depending on the airplane
model type. Thus, the initial inspection and records review (4 or 5
years after the effective date of the rule) could likely take place at
a C-check; while the repeat inspection and records review, at 7-year
intervals, could take place at a D-check or a C-check. In addition,
those operators that use a segmented D-check schedule will have more
opportunity to accommodate the initial and repeat inspections and
records reviews. The increasing use of non-destructive inspection
techniques should facilitate inspections at C- or D-checks.
Comment: One operator states the FAA assumption that only 50
percent of all fleets affected by the proposal would require
modification is too conservative. The operator contends almost 100
percent of the fleets mentioned in the proposal would have to be
modified to some extent. The operator further states the high costs of
this modification would cause many operators to go out of business.
FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA's cost estimates for
modifications included airplanes initially certificated with nine or
fewer passenger seats (part 135), because they also were supposed to
implement damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. This group of airplanes will
now be required to implement service-history-based SSIPs. Consequently,
the number of airplanes needing modifications is reduced. However,
there has been an increase in the number of part 121 airplanes needing
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs since the publication of the NPRM.
Therefore, in the absence of substantiation to support the
contention of the comment, the economic analysis keeps the 50 percent
as a reasonable estimate.
Comment: Based on its own economic analysis of the effects of a 5-
year fixed interval ``on airplane'' inspection with extensive
additional access, one part 121 air carrier states the proposal would
result in an increased maintenance expense of $404 million for that
carrier's fleet alone. The carrier asserts this expense would affect
future travel costs but provide no increase in passenger safety for
part 121 operations.
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has changed
the repeat inspection and records review interval from 5 years to 7
years to allow the operator to align the inspection and records review
interval more closely with the scheduled HMC interval (C-check or D-
check).
Comment: One commenter states the FAA's cost impact analysis on air
carrier records preparation does not account for the time carrier
employees spend during the inspections and records reviews. The
commenter notes that a carrier's employees would have to prepare the
airplane records as well as provide a support role during the
inspections and records reviews.
Another commenter states the FAA failed to consider adequately the
costs of reviewing each repair on each airplane, updating airplane
structural repair manuals for damage tolerance repairs, and training
professional engineering personnel in damage tolerance repair design.
FAA Response: In the NPRM and the final regulatory evaluation,
there is cost estimation for personnel of the operator to prepare the
airplane and its records for the inspection and records review by ASIs
or DARs.
The FAA estimated the cost of damage-tolerance-based SSIPs per
affected airplane, including repairs.
With regard to updating airplane structural repair manuals (SRMs),
that cost should be minimal and it is included in the development and
review cost. Several type certificate holders of large transport
category airplanes have already updated their SRMs to include the
results of damage tolerance assessments of repairs.
With regard to training professional engineering personnel, the
commenter does not provide information as to the purpose of the
training for professional engineers in damage tolerance repair
[[Page 72749]]
design. The cost of engineering time to develop damage-tolerance-based
SSIPs has been estimated using a fully burdened engineering rate of $95
per hour. This rate can be applied for engineering services (to develop
the SSIP) provided by the type certificate holder, a consulting firm,
or the operator's own engineering personnel.
Comment: One part 135 Alaskan operator provided the following
comments regarding costs of the proposed rule:
[sbull] The FAA expects operators to work with STC holders and the
original airplane ``manufacturer'' to develop damage-tolerance-based
supplemental inspection programs, which would require that each unique
combination of type design and STC require a separate inspection
program. The commenter therefore asserts the cost analysis is off by a
factor equal to the number of unique type design and STC combinations
for each type design.
[sbull] The FAA's estimate that 209 part 135 multiengine airplanes
would be affected by this rule seems low. (ADOT&PF agrees, estimating
that approximately 727 of the 3,198 airplanes in commercial service in
Alaska would be affected (the airplanes not counted are single-engine
airplanes). According to the ADOT&PF, almost all of these airplanes are
more than 14 years old and none have a current damage-tolerance-based
inspection program.)
[sbull] The commenter does not disagree with the FAA's reasons for
excluding the costs of repairs that may result from an operator's
damage-tolerance-based inspections or the FAA's oversight inspections;
however, because air carriers should maintain their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, the new regulations are redundant.
[sbull] The enormous costs associated with the proposal would
deplete the pool of funds available to maintain airplanes and limit the
use and development of other more efficient initiatives that could
improve aging airplane safety at a lower cost. The commenter cites two
examples: (1) Requiring replacement of all avionics and autopilot
wiring after 25 years of service, and (2) requiring all commuter
carriers to operate only under instrument flight rules.
[sbull] The proposed rule places the economic burden on operators,
not ``manufacturers'' as stated in the NPRM. The operator notes the
redundant expenses operators would incur in developing ``SIPs.''
[sbull] The operator questions the FAA's assumption that developing
``SIPs'' for related models would produce efficiencies. The commenter
indicates operators would be unwilling to develop ``SIPs'' for models
related to their own models. Furthermore, if an operator did develop a
``SIP'' that might be useful to other operators, the developing
operator would be hesitant to transfer development information without
charging a fee.
[sbull] The proposal underestimates the costs associated with
developing damage-tolerance-based inspection techniques. According to
the operator developing such techniques may (1) take more than 80 hours
and (2) require extensive training for mechanics responsible for
implementing the programs.
[sbull] The FAA's estimated 20-year annualized cost stream figure
is misleading and inaccurate because operators would face costs sooner
than 20 years. Furthermore, the economic analysis fails to consider
costs beyond 2018.
[sbull] The economic analysis fails to consider that financing
costs are particularly high for commuter operators.
FAA Response: The final rule excepts part 135 multiengine airplanes
initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats from the
requirement to incorporate damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. These
operators are to implement service-history-based SSIPs in 2010. Also,
the rule provides an exception for those airplanes operated between any
point within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State
of Alaska.
The final rule covers part 135 multiengine airplanes in scheduled
service and the NPRM used a count of these airplanes. The commenter
refers to a count of 727 airplanes as being in ``commercial'' service
rather than in ``scheduled'' service. A count of airplanes in
``commercial'' service includes scheduled and unscheduled operations.
The rule places the responsibility for developing the SSIP on the
operators. However, the FAA anticipates that a number of type
certificate holders will choose to support the development of the SSIP
because it affects the future marketability of their airplanes. For
those cases where a type certificate holder does not develop a damage-
tolerance-based SSIP, the FAA anticipates that operators of a
particular model will recognize the advantages of cooperating and
jointly financing the development of a SSIP for that model. This can be
done through the airplane type certificate holder or through an
aviation engineering/consulting firm. Moreover, the final rule excepts
part 135 multiengine airplanes initially certificated with nine or
fewer passenger seats from implementing damage-tolerance-based SSIPs.
With regard to efficiencies in developing SSIPs, that factor was
removed from the cost-estimating methodology in the final regulatory
evaluation. With regard to charging a fee, such a fee can be charged.
Then, the cost of developing a damage-tolerance-based SSIP can be
shared by all the affected operators.
The development of a damage-tolerance-based SSIP was estimated in
the NPRM to take between 10,000 to 25,000 hours. The 80 hours was an
estimate of the time needed for an operator to incorporate the damage-
tolerance-based SSIP into its maintenance program.
With respect to training mechanics, it is not expected that airline
mechanics will need additional training to do damage-tolerance-based
inspections. Airline mechanics, through their training and work
experience, already have the necessary skills to do such inspections.
Most airlines have nondestructive testing capability already and it is
only a matter of including those inspections in their maintenance or
inspections programs.
The 20-year annualized cost does not mean that operators would not
face costs sooner than 20 years. They will face costs sooner, and those
costs have been incorporated in the economic assessment.
The period used to analyze the costs of the rule is a 20-year
period. In the NPRM, the time period was 1999-2018. In the final
regulatory evaluation, it is 2001-2020. If the period becomes longer
than this (e.g., 2001-2025), the estimated (undiscounted) costs of the
rule will increase.
The final rule contains relieving actions. Airplanes initially
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats have been excepted from
damage-tolerance-based SSIPs and, instead, need to implement service-
history-based SSIPs in 2010. The repeat inspections interval has been
increased from 5 to 7 years. Finally, the FAA will make available
advisory material through AC 91-56B and AC 91-60A. This material will
be useful to small and commuter operators.
Comments: Commenters also note the FAA is unable to quantify the
benefits associated with the proposed rule, thus the proposal seems
unjustified. However, according to the GAMA, some reliable information
on potential benefits associated with the proposed rule is available in
the form of results compiled from the AATF program and other
``manufacturer'' programs where results have been shared with the FAA.
[[Page 72750]]
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has revised
the final rule to allow airplanes initially certificated with nine or
fewer passenger seats to have service-history-based SSIPs. In addition,
the FAA has decided to permit relief from the damage tolerance and SSIP
requirements of this rule airplanes operating between any point within
the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska.
This change is reflected in Sec. Sec. 121.368(a), 121.370a(a),
135.168(a), and 135.422(a).
The FAA economic analysis provides a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the rule justify the costs. The FAA and Congress
believe that the risk of accidents does exist. This rule is expected to
prevent aging aircraft accidents. The FAA and industry will be better
able to monitor the aircraft airworthiness and thus comply with the
AASA. This rule is expected to prevent potential aging-related
accidents and to extend the airworthy life of affected aircraft.
Comment: One commenter asserts the FAA must provide for alternative
inspection methods other than those based on damage tolerance criteria.
According to the commenter, maintaining a damage-tolerance-based
inspection and records program is administratively cost prohibitive,
especially for smaller carriers. Also, the FAA has failed to
demonstrate that such alternative approaches are less safe than damage-
tolerance-based programs.
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that damage-tolerance-based SSIPs
provide the highest level of safety and that service-history-based
SSIPs provide something less. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that full
damage tolerance inspections be imposed on all airplanes after 2010.
After reviewing the comments, the FAA had to consider the cost, the
exceptional difficulty in obtaining the necessary data for fewer than 9
seats, and the capability of the airlines operating these smaller
airplanes to effectively accomplish these requirements. As a result,
based on the comments received, the FAA is revising the proposal to
allow airplanes that were initially certificated with nine or fewer
passenger seats to have service-history-based SSIPs.
Comment: This commenter, who operates deHavilland DH-6 Twin Otter
airplanes, presumes that deHavilland would not fund a damage-tolerance-
based program for the Twin Otter because the airplane has been out of
production since 1988. The commenter also presumes that for liability
reasons, deHavilland would not provide the necessary engineering and
test data upon which a damage-tolerance-based program would be
developed by operators of that airplane. Therefore, the commenter
asserts it would have to retain a company such as Structural Integrity
Engineering to develop its damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
program.'' According to the commenter, Structural Integrity Engineering
reports that the commenter should expect to spend between $500,000 and
$600,000 on the analysis and an additional $250,000 in flight testing
to validate flight loads and other criteria.
Because of these liability concerns, the commenter would not sell
its damage-tolerance-based ``inspection program'' to other DHC-6
operators as a means of defraying the initial investment of at least
$750,000. In addition, because more of its customers cannot afford to
maintain personnel trained and certified in ultrasonic inspection
techniques, the commenter would have to add additional personnel and
keep them qualified to support its customers. According to the
commenter, its ``lease rents'' would decline in proportion to increased
maintenance costs. The commenter states it cannot place a cost on a
reduction in rents or in how that income loss could reduce DHC-6 hull
values. However, the commenter estimates it would cost at least
$100,000 per year in additional personnel costs for the commenter and
potentially reduce the DHC-6 hull values by between $400,000 and
$500,000 (a total of $15.6 to $19.5 million for the commenter's fleet
of 39 DHC-6s).
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that operators are responsible for
the development of their inspection programs. However, the FAA expects
type certificate holders to support the operators in the development of
those programs. This should be particularly likely when the type
certificate holder is still producing a particular airplane model,
which is the case for the great majority of the affected airplane
models. Operators of an airplane model also may engage and fund the
type certificate holder of the airplane to develop a damage-tolerance-
based SSIP. In the event that a type certificate holder chooses not to
support the airplane, and if the operator is unable to economically
justify the development of the damage-tolerance-based inspections,
along with other operators of the same model, the airplane will be
ineligible for operation in scheduled service in the United States.
Comment: An Alaskan operator obtained an estimate to develop a
``SIP'' for PA-31-350 airplanes and was advised that without the
original design data from the ``manufacturer,'' the cost would
approximately double. For an airplane no longer in production, there is
no incentive for ``manufacturers'' to voluntarily provide such data to
the operator; it only extends their liability. The commenter alleges
that ``manufacturers'' have strong incentives to impede the development
of cost-effective ``SIPs'' for out-of-production models because
withholding data would force airplane retirements and generate demand
for new airplanes.
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA is revising
the proposal to allow airplanes initially certified with nine or fewer
passenger seats to have service-history-based SSIPs, which includes the
PA-31-350. However, for airplanes initially certificated with 10 or
more passenger seats, a damage-tolerance-based SSIP is required to
ensure the continuing airworthiness of these aircraft.
Fairchild has developed a damage-tolerance-based SSIP for its Metro
aircraft. However, the FAA realizes that other type certificate holders
may choose not to support the development of SSIPs and that this may
lead to the retirement of certain airplanes. The FAA notes that each
operator, not the type certificate holder, is responsible for ensuring
the continuing airworthiness of its aging aircraft.
International Trade Considerations
One international operator submitted a comment on the International
Trade Impact Analysis completed by the FAA. The operator states--
[sbull] In encouraging foreign governments to adopt this proposal,
the FAA must accept the inspection and review findings of those
governments without further FAA-approved review or inspection. The
operator indicates the CASA probably will adopt this NPRM; therefore,
incurring costs for non-U.S.-registered fleets.
[sbull] The international trade impact analysis is underestimated.
The NPRM could affect international trade if restrictions apply to the
importation of second-hand airplanes into the United States.
Another international operator noted that the proposal will have an
effect on foreign trade by increasing operating costs for foreign
operators of U.S.-registered aircraft due to the additional costs
associated with compliance with this rule.
FAA Response: The commenter's assertion that the FAA must accept
the inspection and review findings of foreign governments without
further FAA-approved inspection and review is erroneous. The FAA agrees
that if
[[Page 72751]]
another country adopts this rule, it will impact airplanes registered
in that country; however, that cost is not a direct cost of this rule.
The rule applies to all affected U.S.-registered airplanes. It does
not apply to non-U.S.-registered airplanes. The FAA notes, however,
that anyU.S.-registered airplane will be subject to the requirements of
this rule whether it is purchased from a seller in a U.S location or
from a seller in a foreign location. Owners of foreign-registered
airplanes seekingU.S. registration and prospective owners of such
airplanes are aware of the need to comply with applicable U.S.
regulations and should take these requirements into account before
attempting to transfer a foreign-registered aircraft to the U.S.
registry. It is their responsibility to ensure that an aircraft
imported into the United States complies with current U.S. regulatory
requirements.
Editorial Comments
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Several commenters addressed editorial
items related to the proposed rule.
Comments: Commenters recommend that the FAA--
[sbull] Correct the appendix references in Sec. 135.168 to read
``appendix G.''
[sbull] Correct the appendix references in Sec. 121.370a to read
``appendix N.''
[sbull] Better define what is meant by the term ``age-related
fatigue damage.'' The EAAWG asks whether the term means corrosion
fatigue or refers to the more conventional understanding of damage
resulting from repeated cyclic loading.
[sbull] Better describe what is meant by ``fatigue.'' According to
the EAAWG, the description of this term in the Description of Benefits
section of the preamble to the proposal implies fatigue may be
something other than cracking, although cracking is the specific
concern of the proposal.
[sbull] Reconsider the use of the term ``supplemental'' to refer to
inspections in Sec. Sec. 121.370a, 129.16, and 135.168. According to
the CASA, whether inspections are supplemental or integral to the basic
maintenance program is irrelevant. Also, the CASA states these
inspections increasingly would become integral rather than
supplemental.
FAA Response: The term ``age-related fatigue damage'' is damage
resulting from repeated cyclic loading, not from corrosion. ``Fatigue''
is related to cracking only. The FAA disagrees with the comment on the
use of the word ``supplemental.'' Such inspections are supplements to
the normal maintenance program, and the use of the term
``supplemental'' is accepted by the industry and is used in FAA
advisory material.
The FAA also has corrected the appendix references in Sec. Sec.
121.370a and 135.16.
Other Issues
Part 23 Airplanes
Comments: The NATA recommends that the FAA suspend the proposed
rules for scheduled part 135 air carriers operating part 23 airplanes
initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats. According to
the NATA, currently there are no systemic structural problems in these
airplanes that require implementing damage-tolerance-based inspections.
The NATA proposes to assist the FAA in conducting evaluations of
current inspection and maintenance requirements for these airplanes to
determine whether an unsafe condition exists.
The NATA proposes a different method of addressing aging concerns
for part 23 airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer
passenger seats certificated before 1993:
[sbull] The FAA should identify airplanes for which damage-
tolerance-based inspections have been developed and approved by the
FAA.
[sbull] The FAA should identify airplanes for which the
``manufacturer'' has developed a SSIP or a supplemental corrosion
inspection program.
[sbull] For any airplane not covered by the above provisions, the
FAA should develop a special inspection to enhance the scheduled
periodic/annual inspection currently required. The inspections should
be developed through the use of structural difficulty reports and other
such reports available to the FAA.
[sbull] The owner/operator of any affected airplanes in air carrier
service should be required to implement, no later than 14 years after
the date of manufacture, a SSIP designated by the ``manufacturer.'' If
the ``manufacturer'' has not designated such a program, the operator
should be required to implement the FAA's SSIP.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the suggested changes to the
rule. However, based on the comments received, the FAA has amended the
final rule to specify that airplanes initially certificated with nine
or fewer passenger seats can accomplish service-history-based SSIPs
instead of damage-tolerance-based SSIPs as proposed in the NPRM.
New Rulemaking Mandating CPCP and Other Programs
Comments: One commenter proposes that the FAA initiate a new
rulemaking to mandate structural integrity programs and CPCPs instead
of AD action supplemented with structural and corrosion reliability
programs for airplanes with non-damage-tolerance-based ``inspection
programs.''
FAA Response: The FAA agrees and is considering rulemaking to
impose CPCPs for the same fleet of airplanes as is covered by this
rule.
Operations Specifications
Comments: One operator proposes an aging airplane program that
would function through amendments to operations specifications. Under
this program, an operator's quality department would have
responsibility for records reviews, airplane inspections, and reporting
of results. Also, the FAA could focus on providing oversight through
sampling or unannounced inspections and records reviews.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The inspection programs must be
approved by the FAA ACO or office of the Small Airplane Directorate or
Transport Airplane Directorate responsible for each airplane's type
certificate. The final rule has been revised to reflect this approval
requirement. Once approved, each air carrier's operations
specifications can be revised to include these inspections in each
airplane's maintenance or inspection program.
DAR Services
Comments: A number of commenters state that the FAA underestimated
the cost for DAR services. One commenter states that the increased
inspection and DAR costs would add significantly to the costs per
flight hour for low utilization operators.
Another commenter indicates he has been a DAR since 1983 and
generally charges $125 per hour for services performed (based on
appendix A to part 187, Methodology for Computation of Fees for
Certification Services Performed Outside the United States, and AC 187-
1, Flight Standards Service Schedule of Charges Outside the United
States). The ATA estimates the costs of hiring a DAR would be no less
than $100 per hour, compared with the FAA's estimate of $55 per hour.
Other commenters worry that the operator would have to bear the
costs of the DAR inspections and records reviews. One operator states
that some FAA offices routinely direct operators to
[[Page 72752]]
seek the services of a DAR whenever the task can be accomplished by a
DAR, indicating the FAA office is too busy.
FAA Response: The FAA has established that the benefit of doing the
inspections and records reviews outweighs the associated costs of using
DARs to accomplish these tasks. However, the FAA will establish policy
on how DARs will be used, and the FAA has revised the regulatory
evaluation to reflect the cost of DAR services.
In the NPRM cost calculations, the FAA used $95 per hour for the
burdened hourly wage of DARs. The FAA used $55 per hour for other types
of skills. In the cost calculations of the final regulatory evaluation,
the FAA used $100 per hour for the burdened wage rate of DARs. With
regard to the availability of FAA inspectors, the cost-estimation
methodology recognizes the possible obstacles with the supply and
availability of FAA inspectors, and has consequently assumed that 60
percent of this cost will be for the use of DAR services and 40 percent
will be for the use of FAA inspector services. The total cost of the
rule remains the same.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreement (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by state, local or tribal government, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: (1) Has benefits which do justify its costs, is a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order, and is
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(2) will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (3) will have a neutral impact on international trade; and
(4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector. These analyses, available in the
docket, are summarized below.
Introduction
This rule represents a critical step toward compliance with the
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. Section 44717 of title 49 instructs
the Administrator to ``prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging aircraft'' and to ``make inspections, and review
the maintenance and other records, of each aircraft an air carrier uses
to provide air transportation.''
Consistent with section 44717 of title 49, the purpose of the rule
is to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes operating
in commercial air transportation. The implementation of this rule
ensures that: (1) Modern damage-tolerance analysis and inspection
techniques will be applied to older airplane structures that were
certificated before such techniques were available, and (2) the FAA
will conduct mandatory aging-aircraft inspections and records reviews.
Since the publication of the NPRM, the FAA made changes to the
final rule consistent with the enabling legislation to ensure the
airworthiness of aging aircraft, while factoring in public comments
about the economic consequences. The net effect is that all operators
have more time to be in compliance with this rule and that operators of
smaller aircraft implement less rigorous inspections. Despite these
cost-reduction factors, the estimated total cost of the rule is higher
than that initial regulatory evaluation, due to cost adjustments
resulting from information provided by the industry.
Differences Between the Current Rules and the Aging Rule
There is strong evidence that the current system of maintenance
inspections is not working effectively in the detection, and repairing,
cracks on airplanes during regular maintenance inspections, while these
cracks are still small. This section discusses the differences between
the current rules and the aging rule in order to show the focused
emphasis of the aging rule toward the early detection of cracks.
There are significant differences between the requirements under
current rules for aircraft inspection/maintenance and the new
requirements of the ``Aging Airplane Safety'' rule. Under current
operation rules--with an exception \1\--there are no requirements for
operators to accomplish a damage-tolerance based inspection program for
any airplane; however, the FAA has mandated DT-SSIPs for large
transport airplanes by the use of ADs. These ADs are applicable to the
operators. The manufacturers agreed to provide DT-SSIPs to the
operators. However, there is no rule mandating this, and it has been
taking a long time for the manufacturers to develop the DT-SSIPs.
Consequently, for some airplane models, there are various degrees of
implementation of damage-tolerance-based standards, while for other
airplane models, there is still no such implementation. For example,
for the Boeing 757 and 767 models, it took 18 years for DT-based SSIPs
to be implemented. The MD-80 model still does not have an implemented
DT-based SSIP--after 18 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ '' That exception is the recently implemented rule on
``Repair Assessment for Pressurized Fuselages,'' which requires
damage-tolerance assessment of repairs to the fuselage pressure
boundary of eleven aging, large transport airplane models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the inspection programs of small transport airplanes
(such as DeHavilland/DHC-6) are not damage-tolerance based. Parts of
these airplanes were certificated to either safe-life or fail-safe
requirements. Under existing programs, that use these requirements,
there are no provisions for inspections specifically focused on cracks.
These inspection programs (which are provided by the original equipment
manufacturer) involve a general visual inspection, but the mechanics
may never look in areas that are hard to inspect visually--such as the
horizontal stabilizer.
In contrast to the current situation/rules, this final rule will
require DT-based SSIPs within a reasonable length of time (4 years)
after the effective date of the rule--so that all (part 121) transport
airplanes will have DT-based SSIPs applicable for each model. Damage-
tolerance standards emphasize inspections and procedures to detect
cracks at an early stage. These cracks can then be repaired. By
contrast, the current inspection and maintenance programs of airplanes
do not place special emphasis on cracks. Under the current system, the
finding of cracks depends more on the quality of the particular
mechanic doing the inspection, and on the particular inspection
programs adopted by different airlines (or repair stations).
Consequently, there is considerable variability in the detection of
these cracks, across the U.S. commercial airplane fleet.
[[Page 72753]]
The damage-tolerance-based program uses both non-invasive and
invasive techniques to detect cracks on airplanes. By contrast, the
current non-DT-based programs use simpler and fewer non-invasive
techniques, and they do not use invasive techniques at all. The damage-
tolerance-based program uses (new) non-invasive technology--such as
eddy current, ultrasonic waves, and magnetic particle inspections--to
detect cracks, particularly small cracks. The existing non-DT-based
maintenance programs do not require the use of these techniques; eddy
current is used only if it is mandated by an AD for a previous cracking
problem.
Also, DT-based SSIPs implement inspections for fatigue ``hot
spots''--that is, areas on the aircraft where cracks may develop. In
this way, it will be possible for an airline to detect and follow the
progress of these spots, or potential cracks, and repair them promptly.
With regard to invasive techniques, the damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures will mandate that operators of the affected
airplanes inspect--by invasive techniques--in areas where that they
probably would not have inspected before, such as the horizontal
stabilizer. To get access to the stabilizer, operators may have to
install access doors. Inside the horizontal stabilizer, there are ribs
and spar caps that are covered by airplane skin. These components can
crack without being detected by an inspection from the outside. A crack
in a horizontal stabilizer can result in the loss of control of the
aircraft--and lead to an accident.
The comprehensive status of the U.S. airplane fleet with regard to
cracking is fairly unknown. It is known that the fleet is aging and the
metal of airplanes' structures is accumulating more flight cycles,
resulting in an increasing risk of fatigue cracks and a catastrophic
airplane accident. The current ad hoc approach relies heavily on
airplane mechanics reporting cracks from visual inspections (leading to
repairs). These inspections have resulted in the discovery of large
cracks. If/when the discovery of cracks is deemed to be a serious
problem, the FAA issues an AD for a particular model (and part of the
airplane). In contrast to the current ad hoc approach, this rule will
require all commercial airplanes to have damage-tolerance based SSIPs
which include directed inspections for cracks.
Benefits
The purpose of this rule is to play a key-role in assuring the
continued structural airworthiness of air carrier airplanes as they
continue in service. The rule puts into place one integral part of the
FAA's ``Aging Aircraft Program'', initiated in 1988, to address the
unique problems associated with older airplanes. This initiative was
undertaken because significant numbers of air-carrier airplanes were,
and are, continuing to operate beyond their original design service
goals. The Aging Airplane Program was launched with participation by
airplane operators and manufacturers, and with the specific goal of
identifying maintenance procedures that are necessary beyond current
requirements to deal with the phenomena of aging materials.
After an extended period of working with industry's Airworthiness
Assurance Task Force and the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group
within the Aviation Regulatory Advisory Committee (ARAC), the FAA has
concluded that four distinct areas of airplane aging need to be
individually addressed. These areas are (1) fatigue cracking, (2)
corrosion, (3) damage tolerance of structural repairs, and (4)
widespread fatigue damage. Protection from fatigue cracking is the most
generalized of these four areas, and was the first area of focus by the
FAA. The agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on fatigue
cracking on April 2, 1999, entitled ``Aging Airplane Safety''.
Structural properties of materials change as a result of prolonged
and/or repeated application of stress cycles on those materials. After
some duration of cyclic stress, the material will fail under the
applied load because of fatigue. One manifestation of fatigue in
materials is cracking. In principal-structural elements of the
airplane, cracking due to fatigue can result in a catastrophic failure
of the aircraft. Left unchecked, it is not a question of whether the
repeated loadings on aircraft will produce a major structural failure
but, rather, when that failure will occur. At the time when the NPRM
for this final rule was published, more than 29 percent of the
airplanes affected by that proposal were already 20 years old or older;
14 percent were over 30 years old; and 7 percent of the airplanes were
over 40 years old. The average age of the U.S. airplane fleet has
increased, in recent times, from 13.3 years in 1995 to 14.2 years in
1999 (even with retirement of older airplanes).
There is growing evidence of significant occurrence of fatigue
cracks on airplanes and the potentially dire consequences of such
cracks. This evidence includes: (1) The accident of the Aloha Boeing
737-200, on April 28, 1988, when 18 feet of upper fuselage separated
from the airplane in flight; and (2) the substantial, accumulated data
showing the development of significant numbers of cracks on airplanes.
In the Aloha accident, the National Transportation Safety Board
determined the probable cause of the accident to be metal fatigue and
corrosion. In addition, many cracks have been found over time on
airplanes, including some that are quite long--thus, increasing the
risk of accidents. These cracks are typically the result of fatigue
from aging. The evidence of significant risk of airplane accidents as a
result of cracks is described below, and includes: (1) A relative risk
assessment, followed by (2) the record of Service Difficulty Reports,
and ending with (3) a discussion of the Airworthiness Directives issued
on fatigue and cracking for the U.S. commercial fleet.
Relative Risk Assessment
This benefit analysis provides an estimate of the increasing
relative risk of accidents over time, based upon existing data and some
conservative assumptions. The FAA believes that the analysis results in
a reasonable estimate of how much the accident risk, due to fatigue
cracking, increases over time with aging aircraft, in the absence of
the rule. The analysis is not an estimate of actual future accidents.
To date, the airplane fleets affected by this rule have not
experienced a fatigue-related accident, resulting in loss of life or
serious injury, although the Aloha accident (mentioned previously) was
partly attributed to the age of the airplane involved. The Aloha
accident was followed by a series of ADs, on operators, whose
successful implementation depended on the voluntary development of DT-
SSIPs by manufacturers. The development of these DT-SSIPs has been
taking a relatively long time, and is still not completed. Moreover,
numerous instances of serious cracking have been discovered among the
fleet even during currently-required inspections that do not
systematically investigate for fatigue cracking, as is required by this
rule. This suggests that a fatigue problem does exist. An attempt is
made here to provide an estimate of the magnitude of that problem--now
and in the future.
Based upon extensive testing, it is common engineering practice to
assume that materials fail from fatigue according to a normal
probability curve. The ``mean'' or highest point of the bell-shaped
normal curve denotes the point at which half of the test samples have
failed; or, stated another way, that is the point where the probability
that any one
[[Page 72754]]
sample will have failed is one-half. Engineers often define ``Safe
life'' as outside three standard deviations of the curve, to the left
of the mean.
An airplane is made up of a great many different and independent
elements, each with its own failure characteristics. Consideration of
the probabilities of time-to-failure resulting from fatigue for an
entire airplane can be analyzed in terms of a normal distribution. The
Central Limit Theorem allows the useful assumption that a plot of the
means, of the various times-to-failure of a sufficient number of
samples of individual parts of an airplane, will approximate a normal
distribution, without regard to the actual underlying distribution of
various times-to-failure of the parts. Using this approach, it can
reasonably be assumed that in the absence of some preventive action,
the fleet of aircraft affected by this rule would experience fatigue
failure according to an approximately normal distribution curve. This
analysis makes such as assumption. A normal curve is defined by its
mean and standard deviation, and unfortunately neither of those numbers
is known for the fleet of affected airplanes. As a result, a reasonably
accurate failure curve cannot be constructed.
However, by making some conservative assumptions, a curve of
relative failure risk may be developed that could yield some useful
indications. The relative risk curve would be identical to the actual
failure curve if the failure curve could be identified. Therefore, the
relative risk curve is also assumed to be approximately a normal
distribution. The mean and standard deviation of this curve are also
unknown. However, for the purpose of discussing relative risk, it is
assumed that the mean of the relative risk curve is 50 years of age.
That is to say, the probability of fatigue failure risk reaches 50
percent at age 50, if no preventive action is taken. If the curve under
discussion were an actual failure curve, it would mean that one-half of
the fleet would have experienced fatigue failure by age 50 if no
preventive actions were taken.
For the purpose of discussing relative failure risk--not actual
failure risk--it is assumed that the point of three standard deviations
on the risk curve (to the left of the mean) occurs at the age of 14
years. This matches the statutory requirement and the requirements of
this rule that additional preventive actions be initiated at that time.
Three standard deviations matches the often-used engineering convention
that a component is ``safe'' outside that point (to the left of the
mean).
The curve is defined with a mean of 50 years and a standard
deviation of 12 years ((50-14)/3). Interpolating from a standard normal
probability table, the probabilities associated with such a curve by
aircraft age are shown in Table 1. As previously stated, available data
are not sufficient to claim that this table shows the fraction of the
fleet that would experience fatigue failure with age, in the absence of
this rule, but it may be a reasonable indicator of relative risks of
failure for individual aircraft.
A very small risk of failure occurs by age 14 years (0.001), as
shown in Table 1. By age 22, however, the relative risk is ten times
greater--one order of magnitude (at 0.01). By age 35, the risk of
failure is one-hundred times greater, than that at age 14--two orders
of magnitude (at 0.1). If the maximum, acceptable ``safe life'' risk
occurs when an airplane reaches the point of three standard deviation
from the mean, at 14 years of age, then this analysis indicates that
this maximum acceptable risk is exceeded by one order of magnitude by
age 22, and two orders of magnitude by age 35.
A similar tabulation was done for relative probabilities of fatigue
failure if the mean is assumed to be 62 years, instead of 50 years. (62
years, instead of 60 or 65 years, was selected simply for ease of
interpolation from the standard normal curve table.) In this case, the
relative risk increases by one order of magnitude when an airplane
reaches age 25 and two orders of magnitude by age 42.
Although the above brief risk analysis is not precise and depends
upon assumptions that could be varied, it does provide an idea of how
the risk to aging aircraft increases over time. From this analysis,
there is no question that over the years, the risk of fatigue failure
for an airplane's structural parts increases. When the above analysis
is applied to the fleet of airplanes affected by the rule, there is a
strong indication that the level of safety from fatigue crack accidents
has significantly declined. The analysis suggests that in the absence
of the action proposed by this rule, the accident risk has increased
beyond ``safe life'' by one order of magnitude when an aircraft reaches
around 22 to 25 years of age. Over 25 percent of the fleet has reached
or exceeded that age range. Further, the analysis suggests that the
accident risk has increased to two orders of magnitude, beyond ``safe
life'', in the 35 to 40 years of age range. Over 10 percent of the
fleet has reached or exceeded that range.
Table 1.--Relative Risk of Fatigue-Cracking Accident, With Age
[Mean = 50 years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Age Relative
Age (years) risk (years) risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14...................................... 0.0013 33 0.0793
15...................................... 0.0018 34 0.0918
16...................................... 0.0023 35 0.1056
17...................................... 0.003 36 0.123
18...................................... 0.0039 37 0.1401
19...................................... 0.0049 38 0.1587
20...................................... 0.0062 39 0.1814
21...................................... 0.008 40 0.2033
22...................................... 0.0099 41 0.2266
23...................................... 0.0122 42 0.2546
24...................................... 0.0154 43 0.281
25...................................... 0.0188 44 0.3085
26...................................... 0.0228 45 0.3409
27...................................... 0.0281 46 0.3707
28...................................... 0.0336 47 0.4013
29...................................... 0.0401 48 0.4364
30...................................... 0.0485 49 0.4681
31...................................... 0.0571 50 0.5
32...................................... 0.0668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Difficulty Reports
A review of Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) shows that a
significant problem exists with cracks on airplanes in the U.S.
commercial fleet. SDRs are reports that provide information on the
incidents (as opposed to accidents) of airplanes related to maintenance
problems. The reports are typically completed by airline (or repair
station) mechanics, and are then sent to, and collected by, the FAA. An
objective of the submission and collection of SDRs is to track problems
with aircraft parts and components. The findings of SDRs can lead to
the issuing of airworthiness directives (ADs), when conditions observed
are deemed to create a significant, adverse effect on air-transport
safety.
The FAA searched the National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center
(NASDAC) for service difficulty reports since 1990--for part 121
airplanes--using three keywords: ``crack'', ``aging'', or ``fatigue''.
The search resulted in over 94,000 records or SDRs. Of these, about 93
percent, or 88,000 SDRs, were on ``cracks'' (while the remaining were
on ``corrosion''). Eighty-eight thousand records are a significant
number of problems involving aircraft cracks. These cracks were found
on all the main parts of the airplane structure: fuselage, wings, and
doors (of both passenger and cargo airplanes). Therefore, this
assessment of SDRs shows a wide prevalence of cracks on U.S. commercial
airplanes.
[[Page 72755]]
Airworthiness Directives
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) are issued when serious problems
with airplanes are discovered that--if not repaired--have a high
likelihood of resulting in an accident. So, ADs are issued quickly in
order to maintain the airworthiness of the affected airplanes and thus
prevent accidents. Given the threat of an accident, when an AD is
issued, operators have a limited time to resolve the problem and often
require unscheduled maintenance.
A tabulation was made of ADs issued by the FAA for problems with
airframe ``fatigue'' and ``cracking''--for a recent period of less than
one year: January 1 through September 2000. The results show that 56
such ADs were issued by the FAA over that time period. These ADs apply
to various parts of the airplane structure and these parts include:
Fuselage, wings, door frames, deck floor beams, etc. A count of the
affected parts indicates that:
(1) Ten ADs were issued for cracks found on the fuselage skin;
(2) Nine ADs were issued for cracks on wings;
(3) Eight ADs were issued for cracks found on, and around, doors.
(4) Eight ADs were issued for cracks found on (and around)
bulkheads.
(5) Two ADs were issued for cracks found on the tail assembly
(which includes the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and rudder).
These Airworthiness Directives on cracks, also, affect all of the
well-known airplane models. They include: Aerospatiale, Airbus, Boeing,
Bombardier, British Aerospace, Dornier, Fairchild, Fokker, Lockheed,
and McDonnell Douglas. Also, some of these ADs affect an entire
airplane series. For example, an AD applies to the Airbus A-300 Series,
while another AD refers to the Boeing 727 Series. Still another AD
applies to the Boeing 737-200C Series, the Boeing 747 Series, and the
Boeing 777 Series.
If cracks are left undetected--and, thus, untreated--they grow.
Subsequently, they can result in accidents. With regard to crack sizes
and growth of cracks, one can refer--as an example--to the
``Airworthiness Directive; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes'', Final
rule; request for comments (Docket No. 2000-NM-206-AD). In the text of
this AD, it is pointed out that ``The FAA has received reports that,
during regular maintenance of certain Boeing Model 747 series
airplanes, operators detected cracking of certain areas of the fuselage
skin adjacent to the drag splice fitting. One operator reported finding
four skin cracks, which ranged in length from 0.19 to 1.37 inches,
under the drag splice fitting of the right side underwing. On another
airplane, there was detection of a 8.5-inch long crack under the drag
splice fitting of the left side. Moreover, another operator found a 25-
inch long diagonal crack between station (BS) 982 and BS 990 at
stringers 37L through 38L.'' These data show the existence of
different-size cracks found on different airplanes (of the same
airplane model). The cracks (in this particular case) range in size
from 0.19 inches to 25 inches. Therefore, these data indicate that
under current inspection/maintenance procedures, which are not based on
damage-tolerance standards, cracks have gone unnoticed and have become
quite large.
The text in the same AD goes on to emphasize the serious, potential
consequences of cracks. It states that ``Such conditions, if not
corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
fuselage, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.''
Depressurization means that the fuselage of the aircraft is breached
and that can result in an accident. When a fuselage is under pressure,
if a crack gets long enough, it will fast fracture.\2\ When a crack
fast fractures and is not arrested, the fuselage will experience a
rapid depressurization event. Rapid depressurization can result in a
number of serious adverse effects on the airplane and passengers. At
best, after the airplane has suffered depressurization, the passengers
ride in an unheated aircraft, breathe through oxygen masks, and hope
for a safe landing. Another possible result, however, is an airplane
accident. There are examples of catastrophic accidents occurring as a
result of rapid depressurization; these accidents were not caused by
cracks but they show the dire consequences of rapid depressurization.
In one accident, in 1974, a DC-10 operated by Turkish Airlines, lost a
door and had rapid depressurization. This caused the floor of the
airplane to move and sever control cables--with catastrophic results.
The accident killed 246 people. In another accident, in 1985, a B-747
operated by Japan Airlines experienced a failure in the aft pressure
bulkhead (from a bad repair). This affected the control system and the
airplane crashed in a mountain--killing 524 people. It was very
fortunate that the Aloha accident resulted in only one fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When a crack fractures at a rapid rate. A cleavage fracture
may run as fast as 1 mile/second (1600 meters/second), a dimple
fracture as fast as 1500 feet/second (500 meters/second), although
it may be slower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, cracks are a serious airworthiness problem, as evidenced
by the necessity to issue numerous ADs. These cracks have affected
critical parts of the entire airplane structure across all the airplane
types used in commercial aviation. The use of ADs is meant to address a
specific problem during a specific time period. It is not an effective
way to address a widespread problem that affects the entire U.S.
commercial airline fleet--such as cracks. The ``Aging Airplane Safety''
rule provides a comprehensive and effective way to address that
problem.
In sum, it is accepted that after some duration of cyclic stress,
metal will fail under applied load because of fatigue. From the
relative risk assessment discussed above, it is clear that risk of
metal fatigue increases by orders of magnitude as the airplanes age.
Since 1990, there are over 88,000 airplane service difficulty reports
that identify cracks found on all the main parts of airplane structure.
There is not only abundant evidence of pervasive cracking in airplanes,
but also many of these cracks have led to airworthiness problems. These
risks are not acceptable. The FAA concludes that action must be taken
to avoid this unacceptable risk. The inspections and records reviews
required by this rule are expected to achieve the goal of maintaining
an acceptable risk from fatigue cracking accidents.
Costs
Differences Between Costs of the NPRM and Final Rule
There are several differences between preliminary regulatory
evaluation of the NPRM and the final regulatory evaluation of the rule.
Some of these differences reduce the costs of the rule, while others
increase these costs. The net effect is for the estimated costs in the
final regulatory evaluation to exceed substantially the costs estimated
in the NPRM. These changes are explained in more detail below.
The following changes from the NPRM to the final rule, based on
information from public comments, reduced the cost of some requirements
of the rule:
(1) The time between repeat intervals was increased from 5 years to
7 years--in order for the required inspections to be better
accommodated by the schedule for heavy maintenance checks.
(2) For airplanes that will be 25 years or more on the rule
effective date, the time interval for the initial inspection was
increased from 3 to 4 years.
(3) In the final rule, operators of part 135 airplanes are exempt
from damage-
[[Page 72756]]
tolerance inspections. Instead, they only need to implement a service-
history based SSIP--and that by 2010.
(4) In the final rule, operations within Alaska are exempt from the
rule's requirements.
Despite the above factors that reduced costs, the estimated total
cost of the rule in the final regulatory evaluation is significantly
greater than the total cost of the rule estimated in the NPRM. This
increased cost was affected by the following factors:
(1) The number of affected airplanes was higher in the final
regulatory evaluation. The number of part 121 airplanes that need DT
SSIPs increased from 925 in the NPRM to 1,596 in the final regulatory
evaluation.
(2) For part 121 airplanes that have DT SSIPs, the cost estimation
in the final rule increased the downtime for FAA/DAR inspections and
records review to 2 days.
(3) In the final regulatory evaluation, efficiency factors were not
applied in the writing/development of damage-tolerance-based SSIPs.
(4) The average airplane values used in the final regulatory
evaluation were higher than those used in the preliminary regulatory
evaluation. This results in increased downtime costs.
As a result of the above changes, the total estimated cost of the
rule increased from $99.6 million in the NPRM to $173.5 million in the
final rule--in present value. The cost of the part 135 operators
declined from $8.5 million to $1.7 million, in present value.
Also, with respect to the distribution of the cost for inspections/
records review by FAA inspectors/DARs, in the final regulatory
evaluation it was assumed that 60% of this activity will be conducted
by DARs, while 40% will be conducted by FAA inspectors. In the NPRM,
the cost methodology assumed that the cost of this activity would be
shared 50%-50% between FAA inspectors and DARs. Consequently, the
methodology of the final regulatory evaluation increased the cost of
this activity for the operators.
The rule will affect the operators of airplanes under part 121 that
currently have (or are expected to have by 2004) damage-tolerance-based
SSIPs incorporated into their maintenance program. In addition, those
operators of airplanes under part 121 that are not currently required
to incorporate a damage-tolerance-based SSIP into their maintenance
program will need to develop such a program. The rule will also
generate costs for operators of multi-engine airplanes that are
operated in scheduled service under part 135 and initially certificated
with 10 or more passenger seats. These operators are required to
develop and implement damage-tolerance-based SSIPs by the year 2010.
Many of the airplanes in this group have moved over time into part 121;
consequently, their costs are measured through the part 121 airplane
list.
The rule will also generate costs for operators of multi-engine
airplanes that are operated in scheduled service under part 135 and
initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats. These
operators are required, by the final rule, to develop and implement
service-history-based SSIPs by the year 2010. Service-history-based
SSIPs have considerably lower costs than damage-tolerance-based SSIPs.
In the NPRM, the proposed rule required that the operators of these
airplanes also implement damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. However, as a
result of public comments and additional consideration, this final rule
exempts those airplanes from damage-tolerance-based SSIPs and, instead,
requires the lower-cost service-history-based SSIPs.
The estimated costs of this rule do not include the expenses of
making repairs to airplanes that may be found necessary during either
the SSIP-directed inspections, conducted by the airplane mechanics, or
the oversight inspections conducted by the FAA inspectors or DARs.
While the FAA recognizes that such repairs can sometimes constitute a
considerable expense, the costs of these repairs are not attributable
to this rule because existing FAA regulations require that repairs be
made to assure the continued airworthiness of the airplane.
Also, the economic evaluation focuses on existing airplanes and
does not address the costs that the rule will eventually impose on
newly-produced airplanes. The requirements of this rule on newly-
produced airplanes are beyond (or nearly so) the 20-year time period of
this study. Consequently, these costs, particularly their present
value, are expected to constitute a relatively small proportion of the
costs calculated in this study.
Costs for Part 121 Airplanes That Have Damage-Tolerance-Based SSIPs
For those part 121 operators that have (or will have by 2004) a
damage-tolerance-based SSIP, the rule will not impose costs for damage-
tolerance-based inspections conducted by their mechanics or for
downtime of airplanes caused by these inspections. The rule will
require that these airplanes implement inspections and records reviews
by FAA inspectors or Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs),
at designated time intervals. This requirement will result in
additional costs for the affected operators. These inspections/records
review are expected to result in additional time that an airplane is
out-of-service. While this downtime cost estimates in the NPRM were
based on loss-of-service estimates that ranged from 0.7 to 1.6 days per
airplane inspection, in these cost calculations, the downtime has been
increased to 2.0 days. This increase in downtime reflects the input of
public comments.
The estimated cost of airplane downtime is based on a rate of
return to capital approach, in which the operational airplane is the
productive capital and there is a return associated with its use.
Consequently, out-of-service cost can be estimated through the loss of
capital services of the aircraft. The value of this loss is measured by
the rate of return to capital (aircraft). This analysis uses 7 percent
per annum as the average rate of return to capital; this rate is also
preferred by the Office of Management and Budget for present-value
calculations. Consequently, downtime costs were calculated as the
product of the 2 downtime days, divided by 365 days (per year),
multiplied by the rate-of-return to capital, at 7 percent. The
resulting estimate is a downtime cost per airplane (in a model group),
per inspection. To obtain the cost of downtime for a model group, the
downtime cost per airplane is multiplied by the number of airplanes in
that model group. The total downtime cost of the rule is the summation
across model groups and over time. Thus, the estimate for downtime
costs, for part 121 airplanes with damage-tolerance-based SSIPs over
the period of analysis, is $98.4 million, undiscounted. Assuming an
average of two inspections per airplane over the 20-year period of
analysis, and using 7,620 airplanes and 2 days per inspection, one
estimates downtime costs at $3,228 per day per airplane (undiscounted).
This figure (of $3,228 per day) is significantly different/lower
than figures provided by some public comments of $80,000 in lost
revenue per inspection which--given a two-day downtime period--would
result in $40,000 lost revenue per day. On should note that the
relevant variable to measure for downtime cost is lost net income--that
is, ``revenue minus costs'' of operating the airplane. And lost net
income would be substantially lower than lost revenue per day for an
airplane. When an airplane is out-of-service, there is loss of revenue
but costs of operation are also
[[Page 72757]]
not incurred (pilot salaries, fuel, maintenance, etc.).
There were also adjustments to these cost estimates. The estimated
total cost of the rule, for this group of airplanes, was computed under
the hypothesis that all of the affected airplanes that exist today will
continue to be operating through the end of the study period--year
2020. In actuality, however, over time there will be normal replacement
and retirement, by operators of these airplanes. Consequently, a
substantial portion of these costs will not be incurred. The evaluation
assumes that at least one-third of the potential $245.0 million costs
will not be incurred due to normal replacement and retirement of
aircraft. This assumption is the same as that used in the initial
regulatory evaluation.
Cost of the Rule for Part 121 Airplanes That Need To Incorporate
Damage-Tolerance-Based SSIPs Into Their Maintenance Program
Steps in Cost Estimation
The relevant tasks and associated costs of the rule for these
airplanes include:
(1) Development of the damage-tolerance-based SSIP.
(2) Incorporation of damage-tolerance-based SSIPs into operators'
maintenance programs.
(3) Review/approval by FAA of operators' damage-tolerance-based
SSIP and of their incorporation into the operators' maintenance
programs.
(4) Modification costs.
(5) Inspections--conducted by airline mechanics.
(6) Downtime costs for airplanes for inspections--by airline
mechanics.
(7) Cost for operator personnel to prepare the airplane and its
records for the FAA inspector or DAR, to conduct their inspection and
records review.
(8) Direct costs for FAA inspectors/DARs, to conduct inspections
and records reviews of the affected airplanes.
(9) Downtime cost of airplane for the above inspection and records
review by FAA/DARs.
With regard to the downtime costs of airplanes for inspections by
mechanics, the evaluation assumes that each 40 hours of inspection
work, caused by this rule, will require one additional day of airplane
downtime. The methodology again uses the rate of return to capital
approach, with 7 per cent per year. Consequently, the cost of aircraft
downtime, for mechanic inspections, for the affected airplanes over the
period of analysis is estimated at $3.1 million, undiscounted.
With regard to the downtime costs of these airplanes for
inspection/records review by FAA/DARs, the additional downtime is
estimated to range between 0.7 and 1.6 days per airplane inspection --
depending on airplane value. Subsequently, the cost of downtime is
calculated by the rate of return to capital approach (using 7 percent).
The result is an estimate of $702,000 undiscounted, for downtime costs
of the affected airplanes.
Adjustments to Cost Estimates
For some models, the potential cost of complying with the
requirements of the rule could constitute a significant proportion of
(or may actually exceed) the economic values of the airplanes involved.
Consequently, for each airplane model group, the estimated potential
cost of compliance was compared with the estimated economic value of
the airplanes in that model group. In cases where the potential
compliance cost exceeds 50 percent of the group value, the methodology
assumes that an SSIP will not be developed and implemented.
Consequently, the related compliance costs for the rule will not be
incurred. Instead, it is expected that the affected models will be
retired or transferred out of scheduled service. The estimated forced
out-of-service costs for these models are estimated to be 50 percent
reduction in their economic value.
However, this (apparent) reduction in the cost of the rule is
accompanied by an increase in another type of cost. This includes the
hardship and economic dislocation that will result from the reduction
in operations, or by possibly going out of business, by some operators.
This hardship can include the loss of jobs by employees of the affected
operators, and the subsequent negative effects of this on themselves
(their households) and their communities. These costs are recognized
although not quantified.
Other Adjustments to the Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of the rule for this group of airplanes was
computed under the scenario whereby all of the affected airplanes that
exist today will continue to fly through the end of the study period
(year 2020). In actuality, however, there will be normal replacement
and retirement of these airplanes (by operators) and, consequently, a
substantial portion of these costs will not be incurred. The
replacement cycle for this group of airplanes can vary widely. For some
mainstream scheduled commuter carriers, it is common practice for
airplanes to be routinely replaced. In a number of cases, few if any of
the costs of this rule will be incurred. Conversely, the economics of
some smaller, or niche carriers, are such that airplanes may continue
to fly for 40 years or more. Given available information, the
evaluation assumes that at least one-third of the potential $163.8
million costs will not be incurred, as a result of normal replacement/
retirement of airplanes--leaving an estimated cost of $104.4 million.
Part 135 Airplanes
This final rule exempts certain part 135 airplanes from
implementing DT-based SSIPs. These are multi-engine airplanes, operated
in scheduled service, initially certificated with nine or fewer
passengers. Instead of a DT SSIP, the operators of these airplanes will
have to implement a service-history-based SSIP--by the year 2010. A
service-history-based SSIP is estimated to cost significantly less than
a damage-tolerance-based SSIP--in general, 0.20 of the cost of a DT-
based SSIP. The cost of the rule for this group of airplanes is
estimated at $1.7 million, discounted ($2.9 million, undiscounted).
Costs to the FAA
The rule is also estimated to have costs of $91.0 million
undiscounted to the FAA. Virtually, the entire amount of these costs is
for FAA inspectors to conduct inspections and records review. This cost
estimate is based on the assumption that 40 percent of the inspections/
records review will be conducted by the FAA inspectors while 60 percent
will be conducted by DARs.
Table 2 presents the total costs of the rule, over the period of
analysis--for the operators (and manufacturers) of the affected
airplanes and the FAA. Total costs are estimated at $362.9 million,
undiscounted, with a present value of $173.5 million.
[[Page 72758]]
Table 2.--Total Cost of the Rule
[Dollars in millions, 2001-2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operators of airplanes that have damage-tolerance-based SSIPs................. $164.1 $72.2
Operators of airplanes that need damage-tolerance-based SSIPs................. 104.9 59.6
Operators of airplanes that need service-history-based SSIPs.................. 2.9 1.7
FAA costs..................................................................... 91.0 40.0
------------------
Total Costs............................................................. 362.9 173.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The changes required by the rule are necessary to ensure the
continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes. The FAA finds that the
expected benefits of the rule justify its costs. The total estimated
costs of the rule are $173.5 million, discounted ($362.9 million,
undiscounted). The benefits have been assessed through several
perspectives as explained below.
There is growing evidence of significant occurrence of fatigue
cracks on airplanes and the potentially dire consequences of such
cracks. The evidence of significant risk of airplane accidents, as a
result of cracks, include: (1) The Aloha accident; (2) the results of
the relative risk assessment; (3) the number of Service Difficult
Reports on cracks; and (4) the Airworthiness Directives issued for
fatigue and cracking on the U.S. commercial aviation fleet.
The relative risk assessment showed that while a small risk of
failure--due to fatigue cracks--exists by year 14 of an airplane's
service life, by age 22, that risk is 10 times greater (one order of
magnitude). Furthermore, by age 35, the risk is 100 times greater than
at age 14 (two orders of magnitude). Over 25 percent of the fleet has
reached or exceeded the range of 22 to 25 years of age. Over 10 percent
of the fleet has reached or exceeded 35 years of age.
In addition, a search resulted in 88,000 Service Difficulty Reports
on cracks, since 1990. This number of records indicates a prevalent and
significant problem with cracks in the aircraft fleet. Furthermore, the
significant number of ADs on cracks on airplanes--issued during a
recent period (of less than a year) also indicates the existence of a
serious problem with cracks on the U.S. commercial fleet. ADs are
issued quickly to remedy problems that have a high likelihood of
resulting in accidents. Each AD, by itself, is proof that a significant
accident risk exists.
Therefore, based on the above evidence, the FAA finds that the
expected benefits of this rule justify its expected costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals, and to consider the
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will have
such an impact, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis as described in the Act. However, if an agency determines that
a proposed, or final, rule is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section
605(b) of the 1980 act provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
For the NPRM, the FAA conducted a complete initial regulatory
flexibility analysis to assess the impact on small entities. This rule
will affect commercial operators of airplanes, in the specified part of
the CFR. For these operators, a small entity is defined as one with
1,500 or fewer employees. As there are operators that met that criteria
for a small business, calculations were carried out to assess whether
the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of
these operators.
Issues Addressed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
The central focus of the FRFA, like the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), is the requirement that agencies evaluate
the impact of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory
alternatives that minimize the impact when there will be a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The requirements, outlined in section 604(a)(1-5), are listed and
discussed below:
(1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule.--This rule represents a critical step toward compliance with the
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. Section 44717 of title 49 instructs
the Administrator to ``prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging aircraft.'' The law also requires the
Administrator to make inspections, and review the maintenance and other
records, of each aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air
transportation. The objectives of the rule is to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in air transportation.
(2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the agency's assessment
of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed
rule as a result of such comments.--There were very few public comments
explicitly on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. There were a
substantial number of comments from part 135 operators that complained
about the financial burden that the proposed rule would place on them.
Small commercial operators (less than 1,500 employees) come from this
group, as well as from part 121 operators.
In response to public comments, the FAA made several changes to the
final rule:
(i) The primary change is that part 135 airplanes operating in
scheduled operations, initially certificated with nine passenger seats
or less, are exempted from implementing damage-tolerance-based SSIPs.
Instead, they are
[[Page 72759]]
to implement service-history-based SSIPs--and those by 2010. The SH
SSIPs are estimated to cost 20 percent of the cost of a DT SSIP (to
develop and implement).
(ii) The interval between repeat inspections was extended in the
final rule to seven years, from five years in the NPRM.
(iii) For the initial inspection, the interval from the effective
date of the rule was extended from 3 to 4 years for airplanes greater
than 25 years old.
(3) A description of, and an estimate of, the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available.--The FAA estimated the number and input of small
entities as follows. First, small operators in part 121 were selected,
by using a database that listed part 121 operators, with their number
of employees and annual revenue. This database came from a study on
small business done for the FAA by a consulting firm (GRA,
Incorporated). The search identified 58 operators with 1500 or fewer
employees, and with known annual revenue. Then, airplanes of these
operators were identified--by using data from the BACK database. This
search identified small entities operating under part 121, with
affected airplanes (those in part 121 that had DT SSIPs and those that
need DT SSIPs).
Next, the net present value of the cost of the rule was calculated
for each operator. As these cost calculations are based on airplane
model groups, the resulting net present value (NPV) for one airplane is
obtained by dividing the cost of the group by the total number of
airplanes in that group. The result is an ``average'' net present value
per airplane. The NPV per airplane is then multiplied by the number of
airplanes of that operator, in that model group. If there is more than
one model group, per operator, the NPVs of the model groups are summed
to derive the net present value of the cost of this rule for the
affected operators. Subsequently, these discounted costs are used to
derive annualized costs, for each affected small operator.
With respect to part 135 operators, a search was made in the GRA
database that listed part 135 operators, along with the number of
employees and annual revenues per firm. The identified small operators
were then checked against a database of the FAA which listed the names
of part 135 operators and their airplanes. This search identified 26
small entities operating under part 135, including two operators that
operate under parts 135 and 121. For part 135 operators, the net
present value of the rule's cost and annualized cost were derived in
the same manner as for part 121 operators.
Annualized costs for the affected operators were then divided by
annual revenues of the operators. The results show that for all--except
two--of the listed 58 small operators, under part 121, the ratio of
annualized cost to revenues is substantially less than one percent. For
one operator, the ratio is 5.9 percent, while for another operator, it
is 1.1 percent. With regard to part 135 operators, of the 24 identified
operators, all but two show a ratio of annualized cost to annual
revenue that is less than one percent. Thus, of the 82 identified small
operators--under part 121 and/or part 135--all except four have a ratio
of annualized cost to annual revenue that is substantially less than
one percent.
(4) A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record.--In order for the FAA to fulfill its obligation under 49
U.S.C. 44717, this rule will require that certain records be made
available by the operator. Most of the records that will be required
under this rule for part 121 airplanes are currently required by other
regulations. Consequently, there is expected to be a minimal additional
paperwork, for these airplanes, as a result of the rule. Concerning
part 135 airplanes, their exemption from DT SIPPs is expected not to
result in additional paperwork for their operators.
(5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.--In order to decrease the cost
burden for the final rule, the FAA will exempt operators of part 135
airplanes from implementing damage-tolerance-based (DT) SSIPs. These
operators are nearly all small entities. Instead of the DT-based SSIP
requirement, these operators' aircraft will be subject to a Service-
History (SH)-based supplemental inspection program to be implemented by
the year 2010. The SH-based SSIP is estimated to be 20 percent of the
cost of a DT-based SSIP.
Furthermore, in its efforts to assist small entities and other
affected parties operating part 135 airplanes, the FAA will publish
(with the final rule) an advisory circular, AC 91-60A ``The Continued
Airworthiness of Older Airplanes''.
Description of Alternatives
The FAA has considered several alternative approaches to this
rulemaking and has attempted to minimize the potential economic impact
of the rule, especially the impact on the operation of aircraft most
likely to be used by small entities. At the same time, the agency needs
to meet its primary responsibility for aviation safety and its
particular obligation under 49 U.S.C. 44717 to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging aircraft.
The FAA made two changes to the requirements of the final rule that
significantly lower compliance costs of operators. First, the FAA chose
to lengthen the time period between inspections from 5 to 7 years. This
longer period lowers the compliance cost of the affected operators as
the inspections can occur at a heavy maintenance check. Second, the FAA
exempted part 135 operators from the most expensive requirement of the
rule. Part 135 operators are nearly all small entities.
Compliance Assistance
In its efforts to assist small entities and other affected parties
in complying with the rule, the FAA will be publishing two advisory
circulars (for comment) with the final rule. One is AC 91-56B
``Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes'' and it will
provide guidance for complying with a DT SSIP. The other document is AC
91-60A ``The Continued Airworthiness of Older Airplanes'', which will
provide guidance for complying with a service-history based SSIP. These
circulars will be published concurrently with this rule, with a request
for comments.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential affect of this final rule and has determined that it will
impose the same costs on domestic and international
[[Page 72760]]
entities and thus will have a neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Analysis
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate, in a proposed or final agency
rule, that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any one year.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements in the final rule have been
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Numbers: 2120-0020-, 2120-
0008, and 2120-0039. Part 129 record requirements can be found in
International Civil Aviation Organization Annexes.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish, to the extent
feasible, barriers to international trade. This includes both barriers
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign
countries, and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and
services into the United States.
In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has determined
that it will impose the same costs on domestic and international
entities, and thus will have a neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Analysis
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate, in a proposed or final agency
rule, that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any one year.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a
categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been
determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under
the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 119
Air carriers, Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Commuter operations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 129
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 72761]]
14 CFR Part 183
Aircraft, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
1. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113,
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906,
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.
2. Amend Sec. 119.3 by adding the definition of ``years in
service'' after the definition of ``When common carriage is not
involved or operations not involving common carriage'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 119.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Years in service means the calendar time elapsed since an aircraft
was issued its first U.S. or first foreign airworthiness certificate.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
4. Add Sec. 121.368 to read as follows:
Sec. 121.368 Aging airplane inspections and records reviews.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all airplanes operated
by a certificate holder under this part, except for those airplanes
operated between any point within the State of Alaska and any other
point within the State of Alaska.
(b) Operation after inspection and records review. After the dates
specified in this paragraph, a certificate holder may not operate an
airplane under this part unless the Administrator has notified the
certificate holder that the Administrator has completed the aging
airplane inspection and records review required by this section. During
the inspection and records review, the certificate holder must
demonstrate to the Administrator that the maintenance of age-sensitive
parts and components of the airplane has been adequate and timely
enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.
(1) Airplanes exceeding 24 years in service on December 8, 2003;
initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an airplane
that has exceeded 24 years in service on December 8, 2003, no later
than December 5, 2007, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7
years.
(2) Airplanes exceeding 14 years in service but not 24 years in
service on December 8, 2003; initial and repetitive inspections and
records reviews. For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service
but not 24 years in service on December 8, 2003, no later than December
4, 2008, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(3) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years in service on December 8,
2003; initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an
airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on December 8, 2003,
no later than 5 years after the start of the airplane's 15th year in
service and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(c) Unforeseen schedule conflict. In the event of an unforeseen
scheduling conflict for a specific airplane, the Administrator may
approve an extension of up to 90 days beyond an interval specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Airplane and records availability. The certificate holder must
make available to the Administrator each airplane for which an
inspection and records review is required under this section, in a
condition for inspection specified by the Administrator, together with
records containing the following information:
(1) Total years in service of the airplane;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
(4) Date of the last inspection and records review required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components
required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
(7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under
which the airplane is maintained;
(8) Current status of the following, including the method of
compliance:
(i) Airworthiness directives;
(ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
(iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 121.370a of this
part;
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for those repairs.
(e) Notification to Administrator. Each certificate holder must
notify the Administrator at least 60 days before the date on which the
airplane and airplane records will be made available for the inspection
and records review.
5. Add Sec. 121.370a to read as follows:
Sec. 121.370a Supplemental inspections.
(a) Applicability and general requirements. After December 5, 2007,
a certificate holder may not operate an airplane under this part unless
the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures. Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section list the exceptions to this requirement. This section does not
apply to an airplane operated by a certificate holder under this part
between any point within the State of Alaska and any other point within
the State of Alaska.
(b) New model added through type certificate amendment. This
paragraph applies to each airplane added to a type certificate after
December 8, 2003, that has a certification basis that does not include
a requirement for damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures. A
certificate holder may not operate that airplane more than 4 years
after the date of the type certificate amendment unless the maintenance
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures.
(c) Design-life goal airplanes. If on or after December 5, 2007,
the time in service of an airplane reaches the design-life goal listed
in appendix N to this part, the certificate holder may operate that
airplane until the date the airplane's time in service reaches the
design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner.
After that date, the certificate holder may not operate the airplane
unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(d) Airworthiness directive-mandated service-history-based
inspections. Until December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may operate
an airplane for which an airworthiness directive requires the
maintenance program to include service-history-based inspections and
procedures. After that date, the certificate holder may not operate the
airplane unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(e) Approvals. The inspections and procedures required by this
section to
[[Page 72762]]
be included in the certificate holder's maintenance program for an
airplane must be approved by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office or
office of the Small Airplane Directorate or Transport Airplane
Directorate having cognizance over the type certificate for the
affected airplane.
6. Add appendix N to part 121 to read as follows:
Appendix N to Part 121.--Design-Life Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Design-life
Airplane type seats Type certificate data sheet goal (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon (Beech) Aircraft Co.:
--Beech 99 (all models)................. 15+2 A14CE............................. 46,000
--Beech 1900 and 1900C.................. 19+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
--Beech 300 and 300LW................... 13+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech B300 and B300C.................. 15+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech 1900D........................... 19+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
--BAe Jetstream 3101.................... 19+2 A21EU............................. 45,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201.................... 19+2 A56EU............................. 30,000
deHavilland Aircraft Co.: DHC-6............. 22+2 A9EA.............................. 33,000
Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH:
--Dornier 228-100 and -200.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
--Dornier 228-101 and -201.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 32,800
--Dornier 228-202....................... 19+2 A16EU............................. 29,600
--Dornier 228-212 (Except SN 155 & 191 19+2 A16EU............................. 26,400
and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 and 191 and 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
up).
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica (Embraer): 19+2 A21SO............................. 30,000
Embraer EMB-110.
Fairchild Aircraft Corporation:
--SA226-TC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AT.............................. 14+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-TT.............................. 9+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-PC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-BC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-CC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
--SA227-DC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman: PBN BN-2 Mk III (all 16+2 A29EU............................. 20,480
models).
Short Brothers PLC:
--SD3-30................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 57,600
--SD3-60................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 28,800
--SD3-Sherpa............................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE
7. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40104-40105, 40113, 40119, 44701-
44702, 44712, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906.
8. Revise Sec. 129.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 129.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) Foreign air carrier operations in the United States. This part
prescribes rules governing the operation within the United States of
each foreign air carrier holding the following:
(1) A permit issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board or the U.S.
Department of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 41301 through 41306
(formerly section 402 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended),
or
(2) Other appropriate economic or exemption authority issued by the
Civil Aeronautics Board or the U.S. Department of Transportation.
(b) Operations of U.S.-registered aircraft solely outside the
United States. In addition to the operations specified under paragraph
(a) of this section, Sec. Sec. 129.14, 129.16, 129.20, 129.32, and
129.33 also apply to U.S.-registered aircraft operated solely outside
the United States in common carriage by a foreign person or foreign air
carrier.
(c) Definitions. For the purpose of this part--
(1) Foreign person means any person who is not a citizen of the
United States and who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common
carriage solely outside the United States.
(2) Years in service means the calendar time elapsed since an
aircraft was issued its first U.S. or first foreign airworthiness
certificate.
9. Add Sec. 129.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 129.16 Supplemental inspections for U.S.-registered aircraft.
(a) Multiengine airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats. After
December 5, 2007, a foreign air carrier or foreign person may not
operate a U.S.-registered multiengine airplane initially type
certificated with 10 or more passenger seats under this part unless the
maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures. Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section list the exceptions to this requirement.
(b) Multiengine airplanes with nine or fewer passenger seats. After
December 20, 2010, a foreign air carrier or foreign person may not
operate a U.S.-registered multiengine airplane initially type
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats under this part unless
the inspection program for that airplane includes service-history-based
inspections and procedures. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section list
the exceptions to this requirement.
(c) New model added through type certificate amendment. This
paragraph applies to each U.S.-registered multiengine airplane
initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats that is
added to a type certificate
[[Page 72763]]
after December 8, 2003, that has a certification basis that does not
include a requirement for damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures. A foreign air carrier or foreign person may not operate
that airplane more than 4 years after the date of the type certificate
amendment unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(d) Design-life goal airplanes. If on or after December 5, 2007,
the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life goal listed
in appendix B to this part, the foreign air carrier or foreign person
may operate the airplane until the airplane's time in service reaches
the design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, whichever occurs
sooner. After that date, the foreign air carrier or foreign person may
not operate the airplane unless it complies with paragraph (a) or
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Airworthiness directive-mandated service-history-based
inspections. Until December 20, 2010, a foreign air carrier or foreign
person may operate a U.S.-registered multiengine airplane initially
type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats and for which an
airworthiness directive requires the maintenance program to include
service-history-based inspections and procedures. After that date, the
foreign air carrier or foreign person may not operate the airplane
unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(f) Approvals. The inspections and procedures required by this
section to be included in the certificate holder's maintenance program
for an airplane must be approved by the FAA Aircraft Certification
Office or office of the Small Aircraft Directorate or Transport
Airplane Directorate having cognizance over the type certificate for
the affected airplane.
10. Add Sec. 129.33 to read as follows:
Sec. 129.33 Aging airplane inspections and records reviews for U.S.-
registered multiengine aircraft.
(a) Operation after inspection and records review. After the dates
specified in this paragraph, a foreign air carrier or foreign person
may not operate a U.S.-registered multiengine airplane under this part
unless the Administrator has notified the foreign air carrier or
foreign person that the Administrator has completed the aging airplane
inspection and records review required by this section. During the
inspection and records review, the foreign air carrier or foreign
person must demonstrate to the Administrator that the maintenance of
age sensitive parts and components of the airplane has been adequate
and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.
(1) Airplanes exceeding 24 years in service on December 8, 2003;
initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an airplane
that has exceeded 24 years in service on December 8, 2003, no later
than December 5, 2007, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7
years.
(2) Airplanes exceeding 14 years in service but not 24 years in
service on December 8, 2003; initial and repetitive inspections and
records reviews. For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service,
but not 24 years in service, on December 8, 2003, no later than
December 4, 2008, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(3) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years in service on December 8,
2003; initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an
airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on December 8, 2003,
no later than 5 years after the start of the airplane's 15th year in
service and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(b) Unforeseen schedule conflict. In the event of an unforeseen
scheduling conflict for a specific airplane, the Administrator may
approve an extension of up to 90 days beyond an interval specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(c) Airplane and records availability. The foreign air carrier or
foreign person must make available to the Administrator each U.S.-
registered multiengine airplane for which an inspection and records
review is required under this section, in a condition for inspection
specified by the Administrator, together with the records containing
the following information:
(1) Total years in service of the airplane;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
(4) Date of the last inspection and records review required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components
required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
(7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under
which the airplane is maintained;
(8) Current status of the following, including the method of
compliance:
(i) Airworthiness directives;
(ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
(iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 129.16 of this
part;
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for those repairs.
(d) Notification to Administrator. Each foreign air carrier or
foreign person must notify the Administrator at least 60 days before
the date on which the airplane and airplane records will be made
available for the inspection and records review.
11. Add appendix B to part 129 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 129.--Design-Life Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Design-life
Airplane type seats Type certificate data sheet goal (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon (Beech) Aircraft Co.:
--Beech 99 (all models)................. 19+2 A14CE............................. 46,000
--Beech 1900 and 1900C.................. 13+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
--Beech 300 and 300LW................... 15+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech B300 and B300C.................. 19+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech 1900D........................... 15+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
--BAe Jetstream 3101.................... 19+2 A21EU............................. 45,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201.................... 19+2 A56EU............................. 30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
--Cessna 402 Series (all models except 8+2 A7CE.............................. 12,000
402C).
--Cessna 402C........................... 8+2 A7CE.............................. 7,700
[[Page 72764]]
deHavilland Aircraft Co.: DHC-6............. 22+2 A9EA.............................. 33,000
Dornier-Luftfahrt GmbH:
--Dornier 228-100 and -200.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
--Dornier 228-101 and -201.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 32,800
--Dornier 228-202....................... 19+2 A16EU............................. 29,600
--Dornier 228-212 (Except SN 155 & 191 19+2 A16EU............................. 26,400
and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 and 191 and 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
up).
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica (Embraer): 19+2 A21SO............................. 30,000
Embraer EMB-110
Fairchild Aircraft Corporation:
--SA226-TC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AT.............................. 14+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-TT.............................. 9+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-PC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-BC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-CC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
--SA227-DC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman: PBN BN-2 Mk III (all 16+2 A29EU............................. 20,480
models).
Piper Aircraft Inc., The New:
--PA 31 Navajo.......................... 6+2 A20SO............................. 11,000
--PA 31-300 Navajo...................... 6+2 A20SO............................. 15,500
--PA 31P Pressurized Navajo............. 6+2 A8EA.............................. 14,000
--PA 31T Cheyenne and Cheyenne II....... 7+2 A8EA.............................. 12,000
--PA 31-350 Chieftain and (T-1020)...... 9+2 A20SO............................. 13,000
--PA 31-325 Navajo CR................... 9+2 A20SO............................. 11,000
--PA 31T2 Cheyenne II XL................ 5+2 A8EA.............................. 11,400
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) without tip tanks.... 9+2 A8EA.............................. 17,400
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip tanks....... 9+2 A8EA.............................. 13,800
Short Brothers PLC:
--SD3-30................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 57,600
--SD3-60................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 28,800
--SD3-Sherpa............................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
12. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
13. Add Sec. 135.168 to read as follows:
Sec. 135.168 Supplemental inspections.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to each multiengine
airplane operated by a certificate holder in scheduled operations under
this part, except for those operations conducted between any point
within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of
Alaska.
(b) Multiengine airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats. After
December 5, 2007, a certificate holder may not operate, in scheduled
operations under this part, a multiengine airplane initially type
certificated with 10 or more passenger seats unless the maintenance
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures. Paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section list the
exceptions to this requirement.
(c) Multiengine airplanes with nine or fewer passenger seats. After
December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may not operate, in scheduled
operations under this part, a multiengine airplane initially type
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats unless the inspection
program for that airplane includes service-history-based inspections
and procedures. Paragraph (e) of this section lists the exception to
this requirement.
(d) New model added through type certificate amendment. This
paragraph applies to each U.S.-registered multiengine airplane
initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats added to a
type certificate after December 8, 2003, that has a certification basis
that does not include a requirement for damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures. A certificate holder may not operate that
airplane, in scheduled operations, more than 4 years after the date of
the type certificate amendment unless the maintenance program for that
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(e) Design-life goal airplanes. If on or after December 5, 2007,
the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life goal listed
in appendix G to this part the certificate holder may operate that
airplane in scheduled operations until the date the airplane's time in
service reaches the design-life goal or until December 20, 2010,
whichever occurs sooner. After that date, the certificate holder may
not operate the airplane in scheduled operations unless it complies
with paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this section.
(f) Airworthiness directive-mandated service-history-based
inspections. Until December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may operate
an airplane for which an airworthiness directive requires the
maintenance program to include service-history-based inspections and
procedures. After that date, the certificate holder may not operate the
airplane unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(g) Approvals. The inspections and procedures required by this
section to be included in the certificate holder's maintenance program
for an airplane
[[Page 72765]]
must be approved by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office or office of
the Small Aircraft Directorate or Transport Airplane Directorate having
cognizance over the type certificate for the affected airplane.
14. Add Sec. 135.422 to read as follows:
Sec. 135.422 Aging airplane inspections and records reviews for
multiengine airplanes certificated with 10 or more passenger seats.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to multiengine airplanes
with 10 or more passenger seats operated by a certificate holder in
scheduled operations under this part, except for those airplanes
operated by a certificate holder between any point within the State of
Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska.
(b) Operation after inspections and records review. After the dates
specified in this paragraph, a certificate holder may not operate a
multiengine airplane in scheduled operations under this part unless the
Administrator has notified the certificate holder that the
Administrator has completed the aging airplane inspection and records
review required by this section. During the inspection and records
review, the certificate holder must demonstrate to the Administrator
that the maintenance of age-sensitive parts and components of the
airplane has been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest
degree of safety.
(1) Airplanes exceeding 24 years in service on December 8, 2003;
initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an airplane
that has exceeded 24 years in service on December 8, 2003, no later
than December 5, 2007, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7
years.
(2) Airplanes exceeding 14 years in service but not 24 years in
service on December 8, 2003; initial and repetitive inspections and
records reviews. For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service,
but not 24 years in service, on December 8, 2003, no later than
December 4, 2008, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(3) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years in service on December 8,
2003; initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an
airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on December 8, 2003,
no later than 5 years after the start of the airplane's 15th year in
service and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(c) Unforeseen schedule conflict. In the event of an unforeseen
scheduling conflict for a specific airplane, the Administrator may
approve an extension of up to 90 days beyond an interval specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(d) Airplane and records availability. The certificate holder must
make available to the Administrator each airplane for which a
inspection and records review is required under this section, in a
condition for inspection specified by the Administrator, together with
the records containing the following information:
(1) Total years in service of the airplane;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
(4) Date of the last inspection and records review required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components
required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
(7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under
which the airplane is maintained;
(8) Current status of the following, including the method of
compliance:
(i) Airworthiness directives;
(ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
(iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 135.168 of this
part;
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for those repairs.
(e) Notification to Administrator. Each certificate holder must
notify the Administrator at least 60 days before the date on which the
airplane and airplane records will be made available for the inspection
and records review.
15. Redesignate existing Sec. 135.423 as Sec. 135.424.
16. Add new Sec. 135.423 to read as follows:
Sec. 135.423 Aging airplane inspections and records reviews for
multiengine airplanes certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to multiengine airplanes
certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats operated by a
certificate holder in scheduled operations under this part, except for
those airplanes operated by a certificate holder between any point
within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of
Alaska.
(b) Operation after inspections and records review. After the dates
specified in this paragraph, a certificate holder may not operate a
multiengine airplane in scheduled operations under this part unless the
Administrator has notified the certificate holder that the
Administrator has completed the aging airplane inspection and records
review required by this section. During the inspection and records
review, the certificate holder must demonstrate to the Administrator
that the maintenance of age-sensitive parts and components of the
airplane has been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest
degree of safety.
(1) Airplanes exceeding 24 years of service in service on December
8, 2003; initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an
airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on December 8, 2003, no
later than December 5, 2007, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
7 years.
(2) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years in service but not 24 years in
service on December 8, 2003; initial and repetitive inspections and
records reviews. For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service,
but not 24 years in service, on December 8, 2003, no later than
December 4, 2008, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(3) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years in service on December 8,
2003; initial and repetitive inspections and records reviews. For an
airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on December 8, 2003,
no later than 5 years after the start of the airplane's 15th year in
service and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
(c) Unforeseen schedule conflict. In the event of an unforeseen
scheduling conflict for a specific airplane, the Administrator may
approve an extension of up to 90 days beyond an interval specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(d) Airplane and records availability. The certificate holder must
make available to the Administrator each airplane for which an
inspection and records review is required under this section, in a
condition for inspection specified by the Administrator, together with
the records containing the following information:
(1) Total years in service of the airplane;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Date of the last inspection and records review required by this
section;
(4) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(5) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components
required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
(6) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under
which the airplane is maintained;
[[Page 72766]]
(7) Current status of the following, including the method of
compliance:
(i) Airworthiness directives;
(ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
(iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 135.168 of this
part;
(8) A list of major structural alterations; and
(9) A report of major structural repairs and the current inspection
status for these repairs.
(e) Notification to Administrator. Each certificate holder must
notify the Administrator at least 60 days before the date on which the
airplane and airplane records will be made available for the inspection
and records review.
17. Add appendix G to part 135 to read as follows:
Appendix G to Part 135.--Design-Life Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Design-life
Airplane type seats Type certificate data sheet goal (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon (Beech) Aircraft Co.:
--Beech 99 (all models)................. 15+2 A14CE............................. 46,000
--Beech 1900 and 1900C.................. 19+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
--Beech 300 and 300LW................... 13+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech B300 and B300C.................. 15+2 A24CE............................. 30,000
--Beech 1900D........................... 19+2 A24CE............................. 45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
--BAe Jetstream 3101.................... 19+2 A21EU............................. 45,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201.................... 19+2 A56EU............................. 30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
--Cessna 402 Series (all models except 8+2 A7CE.............................. 12,000
402C).
--Cessna 402C........................... 8+2 A7CE.............................. 7,700
deHavilland Aircraft Co.:...................
--DHC-6................................. 22+2 A9EA.............................. 33,000
Dornier-Luftfahrt GmbH:
--Dornier 228-100 and -200.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
--Dornier 228-101 and -201.............. 19+2 A16EU............................. 32,800
--Dornier 228-202....................... 19+2 A16EU............................. 29,600
--Dornier 228-212 (Except SN 155 & 191 19+2 A16EU............................. 26,400
and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 and 191 and 19+2 A16EU............................. 42,800
up).
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica (Embraer): 19+2 A21SO............................. 30,000
Embraer EMB-110.
Fairchild Aircraft Corporation:
--SA226-TC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AT.............................. 14+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-TT.............................. 9+2 A5SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-AC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-PC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-BC.............................. 20+2 A8SW.............................. 35,000
--SA227-CC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
--SA227-DC.............................. 19+2 A18SW............................. 35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman: PBN BN-2 Mk III (all 16+2 A29EU............................. 20,480
models).
Piper Aircraft Inc., The New:
--PA 31 Navajo.......................... 6+2 A20SO............................. 11,000
--PA 31-300 Navajo...................... 6+2 A20SO............................. 15,500
--PA 31P Pressurized Navajo............. 6+2 A8EA.............................. 14,000
--PA 31T Cheyenne and Cheyenne II....... 7+2 A8EA.............................. 12,000
--PA 31-350 Chieftain and (T-1020)...... 9+2 A20SO............................. 13,000
--PA 31-325 Navajo CR................... 9+2 A20SO............................. 11,000
--PA 31T2 Cheyenne II XL................ 5+2 A8EA.............................. 11,400
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) without tip tanks.... 9+2 A8EA.............................. 17,400
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip tanks....... 9+2 A8EA.............................. 13,800
Short Brothers PLC:.........................
--SD3-30................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 57,600
--SD3-60................................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 28,800
--SD3-Sherpa............................ 39+2 A41EU............................. 40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 183-REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
18. The authority citation for part 183 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44702,
45303.
19. Amend Sec. 183.33 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 183.33 Designated Airworthiness Representative.
* * * * *
(a) Perform examination, inspection, and testing services necessary
to issue, and to determine the continuing effectiveness of,
certificates, including issuing certificates, as authorized by the
Director of Flight Standards Service in the area of maintenance or as
authorized by the Director of Aircraft Certification Service in the
areas of manufacturing and engineering.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2002.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-30111 Filed 12-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P