[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16298-16320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7443]
[[Page 16297]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 119, 121, et al.
Aging Airplane Safety; Proposed Rule
Advisory Circulars (AC) 91-MA and (AC) 120-XX; Notice of Availability
and Request for Comments; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 1999 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 16298]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5401; Notice No. 99-02]
RIN 2120-AE42
Aging Airplane Safety
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and withdrawal of prior
proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to require all airplanes operated under part
121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), all U.S.-
registered multiengine airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129, and
all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled operations under 14 CFR
part 135 to undergo records reviews and inspections by the
Administrator after their 14th year in service to ensure that the
maintenance of these airplanes' age-sensitive parts and components has
been adequate and timely. The FAA also proposes to permit certain
representatives of the Administrator to conduct these inspections. The
proposed rule also would prohibit operation of these airplanes after
specified deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures are included in their maintenance or inspection program.
This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. It would help ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in air transportation by
applying modern damage-tolerance analysis and inspection techniques to
older airplane structures that were certificated before such techniques
were available, and through mandatory aging aircraft records reviews
and inspections to be performed by the Administrator.
The Aging Airplane Safety NPRM published on October 5, 1993 (58 FR
51944) is withdrawn.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking should be mailed or
delivered, in triplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation
Dockets, Docket No. FAA-1999-5401, 400 Seventh St. SW., Room Plaza 401,
Washington, DC 20590. Comments also may be submitted electronically to
the following Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be
filed and/or examined in Room Plaza 401, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. weekdays except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Sobeck, Aircraft Maintenance
Division (AFS-300), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267-7355.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this notice also are invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory
docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to the Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection
before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent
practicable. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-1999-5401.'' The postcard will be
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations
section of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:
(703) 321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: (202) 512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: (202) 267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's webpage at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published
rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM 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. Communications must identify the notice number or docket
number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
Statutory Requirement
In October 1991, Congress enacted Title IV of Public Law 102-143,
the ``Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991'' (AASA), to address aging
aircraft concerns. The AASA was subsequently codified as section 447717
of Title 49, Unites States Code (49 U.S.C.).
Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. instructs the Administrator to
``prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of
aging aircraft.'' That section 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
records reviews and inspections would be those necessary to ``enable
the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition
and maintained properly for operation in air transportation.'' Section
44717 of 49 U.S.C. specifies that these inspections and reviews must be
carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance check
conducted ``after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in
service.'' It also states that the 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.''
Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. further states that the rule issued by
the Administrator must require an air carrier to 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. It also states that the Administrator must
establish procedures to be followed for carrying out such an
inspection.
[[Page 16299]]
Aging Airplane Safety Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1993
On October 5, 1993, the FAA published Notice No. 93-14, ``Aging
Airplane Safety'' (58 FR 51944). The proposals contained in that notice
would have required operator certification of aging airplane
maintenance actions and would have established a framework for the
Administrator to impose operational limits on certain airplanes. Once
an airplane reached those limits, additional maintenance actions would
be necessary, such as inspections or parts replacements, for the
airplane to continue operating. Operational limits would have been
established in a separate rulemaking.
Other specific proposals related to operator certification of aging
airplane maintenance actions were included in the notice. Those
proposals included: (1) A definition of the terms ``heavy maintenance
check'' (HMC) and ``years in service''; (2) a requirement for
certificate holders to establish an HMC interval for each airplane they
operate; (3) a requirement for certificate holders to make a
maintenance record at the start of each airplane's 15th year in service
and at all subsequent HMCs to certify that the airplane met all
maintenance program requirements; and (4) a requirement for certificate
holders to notify the FAA at least 30 days before the start of an
airplane's HMC.
A number of commenters objected to certain provisions contained in
the notice. Many commenters indicated that current rules already enable
the Administrator to determine that an aircraft meets all maintenance
program requirements; therefore, they asserted that additional
rulemaking was unnecessary. Several commenters opposed the required 30-
day notice proposal because the current regulations provide the FAA
with sufficient means to determine the date of an aircraft's next
required inspection. Several commenters also were concerned that the
definition of ``heavy maintenance check'' was too broad.
A number of commenters opposed the concept of an operational limit
unless the FAA specified the requirements used to establish and extend
those limits. Finally, some commenters suggested that the FAA exclude
airplanes already having damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspection
programs (SIPs) from the operational limit requirement.
Withdrawal of Notice
After further review, and taking into consideration public
comments, the Aging Airplane Safety NPRM, Notice No. 93-14 (58 FR
51944, October 5, 1993) is hereby withdrawn.
General Discussion
Historical Perspective
The continued airworthiness of aircraft structure is significantly
affected by age-related fatigue damage. Evidence to date suggests that
when all critical structure are included, damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures provide the best approach to address
aircraft fatigue.
An underlying principle of damage tolerance is that the initiation
and growth of structural fatigue damage can be anticipated with
sufficient precision to allow damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures to detect damage before it reaches a size that affects an
airplane's airworthiness. When damage is discovered, airworthiness is
maintained by repairing the airplane before further flight.
Early fatigue requirements, such as ``fail-safe'' regulations, did
not provide for timely inspection of an aircraft's critical structure
to ensure that damaged or failed components could be dependably
identified and then repaired or replaced before a hazardous condition
developed. In 1978, the damage-tolerance concept was adopted for
transport category airplanes as an amendment to 14 CFR 25.571 by
Amendment No. 25-45 (43 FR 46238). That amended rule required damage-
tolerance analysis as part of the type design of transport category
airplanes for which application was received after October 5, 1978. On
May 6, 1981, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91-56,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport
Category Airplanes,'' guidance material based on the amended rule for
existing designs. Using the guidance provided in AC 91-56, many
manufacturers of large transport category airplanes (airplanes of more
than 75,000 pounds) developed SIPs for their existing models.
Beginning in 1984, the FAA issued a series of airworthiness
directives (ADs) requiring the operators of those airplanes to
incorporate the SIPs into their maintenance programs. SIPs provide
inspections and procedures that are based on damage-tolerance
principles.
On August 6, 1993, the FAA revised the airworthiness standards for
small metallic airplanes to incorporate Amendment No. 23-45 (58 FR
42163) into 14 CFR part 23. Those revisions provided an option to use
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures as a means for
achieving continued airworthiness of newly certificated normal,
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. On February 9,
1996, the FAA revised part 23 by Amendment No. 23-48 (61 FR 5148) to
require damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures on all newly
certificated commuter category airplanes.
Other airplanes were not affected by the described rule changes and
thus do not have prescribed damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures. These airplanes fall into four basic categories: (1)
Airplanes with non-damage-tolerance-based SIPs, based solely on service
history, as prescribed in AC No. 91-60, ``The Continued Airworthiness
of Older Airplanes''; (2) airplanes that were certificated with design-
life limits on the entire airplane or on major components such as the
wing, empennage, or fuselage; (3) airplanes that were designed to
``fail-safe'' criteria to comply with fatigue requirements; and (4)
airplanes that were certificated with limited consideration being given
to metal fatigue.
This Proposal
This proposed rule responds to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44717,
which requires 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 that the
Administrator decides may be necessary to enable the Administrator to
decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition and maintained
properly for operation in air transportation.''
As a result of requirements stipulated in 49 U.S.C. 44717, the FAA
proposes to prohibit the operation of certain airplanes in scheduled
service unless the Administrator or the Administrator's designee has
determined that maintenance of the aircraft's age-sensitive parts and
components has been adequate and timely. All airplanes operating under
part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operating under
part 129, and all multiengine airplanes conducting scheduled operations
under part 135 would be affected.
Air carriers would be required to make each airplane and certain
records related to the maintenance of age-sensitive components of the
airplane available to the Administrator. Also, each affected airplane
would be prohibited from operating unless damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures are included in the
[[Page 16300]]
maintenance or inspection program used on each airplane in accordance
with a specified schedule. Damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures would be required on all affected airplanes no later than
December 20, 2010.
The airplanes affected by this proposed rule transport a
significant proportion of those passengers carried in scheduled
passenger service and are the most prevalent airplanes operated in such
service.
This notice does not propose requirements for rotorcraft or single-
engine airplanes, nor does it propose requirements for on-demand
passenger- or cargo-carrying operations under 14 CFR part 135. The
scope of this proposal includes the preponderance of aircraft the
Congress intended to cover under the AASA. Furthermore, the FAA
anticipates that the resource-intensive implementation of the proposed
aircraft and records inspection provisions may be difficult to
administer initially, but that FAA (and designee) resources, in the
future, will have the capacity to oversee additional fleets of
aircraft.
Thus, in a future notice, the FAA will propose aging aircraft
requirements necessary to cover the operation of all the other aircraft
used by air carriers to provide air transportation. For the purpose of
developing those proposals, the FAA may consider the information (e.g.,
documents in public docket) it develops for the rule proposed in this
notice. It is possible that those future proposals could be similar to
the requirements proposed in this notice; however, because of the
differences in the designs, operations, and maintenance of those
aircraft, differences between this notice and the future proposals are
likely.
Congress also instructed the Administrator to encourage governments
of foreign countries and relevant international organizations to
develop programs addressing aging aircraft concerns. Most foreign air
carriers and foreign persons engaged in common-carriage operations have
maintenance program requirements adopted by their governments. The FAA
issues the airworthiness certificates for U.S.-registered airplanes. By
including part 129 in this proposed rule, foreign air carriers and
foreign persons operating U.S.-registered multiengine aircraft within
or outside the United States would be required to include damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their maintenance
programs and be subject to aging aircraft records reviews and
inspections. This action forms a portion of the FAA's response to the
AASA by helping to ensure the continued airworthiness of aging U.S.-
registered airplanes operated worldwide.
This proposal also would revise current 14 CFR 183.33(a) to expand
the authority of the Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR). The
DAR would be authorized to conduct the proposed records reviews and
inspections on behalf of the Administrator. When this proposal becomes
a final rule, the FAA intends to recommend that the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)
consider making similar changes to their recommended practices and
requirement.
Inspections
The FAA intends to verify that each operator has records to show
that they have accomplished all required maintenance tasks, as well as
the damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that would be
required by this proposal. The FAA would validate that these records
are correct for each affected airplane during the records review and
inspection required by this proposed rule.
Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. specifies that the records reviews and
inspections be carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance
check after the 14th year in service. For airplanes that have already
completed 14 years in service, the proposal would require the first
records review and inspection within 3 to 5 years of the effective date
of the rule. This proposal would generally require the first records
review and inspection to be accomplished no later than 5 years after
the 14th year in service.
The FAA realizes that the first inspection required 5 years after
the 14th year in service may not be consistent with current operator
maintenance schedules. As a result, the records reviews and inspections
carried out by the Administrator or the Administrator's designee may
significantly affect these maintenance schedules, because the reviews
and inspections may not coincide with current maintenance schedules.
In formulating this proposal, the FAA considered options for
setting repeat intervals. Among those considered were the heavy
maintenance check interval, heavy maintenance visit interval, or the
``letter check'' (e.g., ``C'', ``D'', or ``E'') interval or other
equivalent check interval an operator may use. The FAA reviewed
variabilities in 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 heavy maintenance checks and found that the intervals
varied from 1 to 27 years.
In Air Transport Association of America (ATA) memorandum number 96-
AE-014, dated March 11, 1996, the Airworthiness Concern Coordination
Task Force 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.'' A
copy of this memorandum has been placed in the docket.
Individual operator maintenance or inspection check intervals have
been adjusted over the years based on service experience and the
operational environment of the aircraft. The adjustment, for the most
part, has been toward increasing the time between subsequent check
intervals. Consequently, maintenance check intervals vary among
operators. To comply with the AASA, the 5-year repetitive interval
after the initial inspection, not withstanding the escalations, best
helps accomplish the safety goal of the AASA.
The FAA has determined that the best approach is to specify a fixed
repeat interval when the Administrator will carry out records reviews
and inspections of the affected airplanes. The FAA has chosen the 5-
year repeat interval to meet its obligations, as established in 49
U.S.C. 44717.
To reduce the burden on the operator, the record reviews and
inspections could take place at any time before the deadlines specified
in the proposal. This allows the inspections to coincide with an
airplane's normally scheduled maintenance visit when structural
components are accessible for inspection. However, if an operator's
maintenance interval exceeds 5 years, the operator will be obligated
sooner than the end of the interval to make the airplane available to
the Administrator or the Administrator's designee for the records
review and inspection required by this proposal. For many smaller
airplanes, the maintenance visit intervals are less than 5 years. In
those cases, the repetitive intervals of the aging airplane records
reviews and inspections would not exceed 5 years.
Conducting the inspections during normally scheduled maintenance
visits will allow maximum use of the FAA's resources while minimizing
the disruption to the operator. It also ensures that a significant
portion of the airplane is accessible to the Administrator or the
Administrator's designee and allows, to the extent
[[Page 16301]]
possible, a visible determination of compliance with aging aircraft
requirements. 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 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 proposed rule specifies that airplanes already at their 25th
year in service must be inspected within 3 years after the effective
date of the rule. This earlier compliance time for the older airplanes
will ensure that the oldest airplanes are inspected first and will
distribute the workload for the initial inspections. The FAA estimates
that 1,550 airplanes affected by this proposed rule would exceed 24
years in service by 1998. The estimated number of airplanes that will
be 15 years old by 1998 is 2,850. Therefore, the proposed rule provides
for approximately 1,500 airplanes to be inspected within the first 3
years following the effective date of the rule, followed by an
approximately equal amount to be inspected in the subsequent 2 years.
The proposed rule also would require the operator to notify the FAA
60 days before the aircraft is available for the aging airplane records
review and inspection. This would ensure that the Administrator or the
Administrator's designee would be able to make the plans necessary to
accomplish the aging airplane records review and inspection.
Records Review
For the Administrator to fulfill his or her obligation under 49
U.S.C. 44717, this proposal would require that certain records be made
available by the operator. Operators are already required by existing
regulations to maintain these records and reports. Although the
proposal would require status lists and reports of specific maintenance
actions, if needed, the FAA has the authority under exiting regulations
to request all supporting documentation for the lists.
This proposal would establish a new requirement for ``total years
in service.'' The FAA has determined that this new requirement is
essential for the Administrator and the operator to determine the
compliance time for the initial and repetitive inspections. To meet
this requirement, the operator would retain records validating when the
initial certificate of airworthiness was issued for each airplane.
In addition, the FAA is aware that an airframe's flight cycles are
not currently being collected by operators of small airplanes under
part 135. This proposal would require that the operator make certain
records and reports available to the FAA during the proposed aging
airplane records review inspection.
Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures
A damage-tolerance-based inspection and procedure refers to ``an
inspection program that specifies procedures, thresholds, and repeat
intervals that have been developed using damage-tolerance principles.''
Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures are developed by a
manufacturer 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. Damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures identify inspection sites,
specify inspection techniques; define thresholds for the initial
inspection; and prescribe repeat inspection intervals. Test data and
service experience are used to support the analysis.
The most important information used to develop a damage-tolerance-
based inspection and procedure is derived analytically or by test, and
the inspections are intended to anticipate locations where fatigue
cracking might occur. Therefore, it is inappropriate to change damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures solely on service experience
without a significant engineering evaluation to confirm that there are
no areas subject to fatigue cracking other than those revealed by the
service experience. The engineering evaluation should include
considering the detailed design data of the airplane, which is under
the control of the manufacturer. For this reason, all damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures should be developed under the
technical direction of the type certificate holder for that airplane,
with support from the operators when appropriate. However, the FAA
would consider damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures
submitted by any applicant for approval if they are based on tests and
service-supported damage-tolerance evaluations for that airplane model.
The damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures specified in
this proposal can be developed using one of the following methods:
(1) Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that comply
with Sec. 25.571, Amendment 25-45 (43 FR 46238), or that comply with a
subsequent amendment thereto;
(2) 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 (58 FR 42163), or that comply with a
subsequent amendment thereto;
(3) AC 91-56 ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large
Transport Category Airplanes'' dated May 6, 1981;
(4) Draft AC 91-MA ``Continued Airworthiness of Older Small
Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Supplemental
Inspection Programs.'' A notice of availability for this AC is
published concurrently with this proposal; or
(5) Any other method that the Administrator finds complies with the
principles of damage tolerance.
Although this proposed rule specifies dates by which damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures would be required, the
thresholds for these inspections may occur much later. While the
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures would need to be
developed within the regulatory timeframe proposed, the times when the
inspections would be completed would depend on the damage-tolerance
assessment.
For newly certificated airplanes, damage-tolerance-based
inspections necessary to prevent catastrophic failure must be included
in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness required by 23.1529 or 25.1529.
Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for airplanes
certificated before the amendments that require damage tolerance as
part of airplane type design may be approved through an amended or
supplemental type certificate. Such a certificate would identify the
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures as an airworthiness
limitation on the airplane.
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 cognizant of the type certificate.
The Letter of Approval would place an operational requirement for the
operator's affected airplanes.
For some airplanes, the FAA has approved major structural
modifications under a supplemental type certificate (STC). The original
airplane manufacturer may not have sufficient technical data pertinent
to these modifications to assist the airplane operators in conducting a
damage-tolerance assessment of the modification. In these situations,
the FAA expects the operator to work with the STC holder and the
original airplane
[[Page 16302]]
manufacturer to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures for that modification. In some instances, the operator may
not be able to work with the STC holder or manufacturer. These
operators may elect to conduct their own damage-tolerance assessments.
If an operator elects to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures in this fashion, competent engineering personnel, as well as
inspection findings from the current maintenance or inspection program,
should be used in conjunction with the airplane's design data base and
model fleet experience. These data should be developed by the original
manufacturer, and the STC holder should provide the basis for the
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures; however, the
operator also can develop its own data. FAA-approved major structural
repairs should be analyzed in the same manner as modifications
accomplished under an STC. Such procedures ensure that damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures address each airplane
affected by this proposal, including any modifications or repairs made
to the basic airframe.
The FAA is aware that for some currently operating airplanes it may
be difficult to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures. For example, the manufacturer may have gone out of
business; technical data may not be adequate; the technical knowledge
base may no longer be readily available; or the development of a
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures may not be
economically viable. If any of these conditions exist and appropriate
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures cannot be developed
those airplanes would not be eligible for operation under part 121,
129, or 135 after the dates specified in the proposal.
Non-damage-tolerance-based SIPs based on AC 91-60 have been
mandated by ADs on the following airplanes: Douglas DC-3 and DC-6;
Convair 240, 340, 440, 580, and 600 series; Lockheed Electra; and the
Fokker F-27. Although inspections and procedures based on AC No. 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. Some inspection programs
developed in accordance with AC No. 91-60 do not qualify as damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures because they are either
based solely on service experience or they may combine partial damage-
tolerance assessments with service experience. For these reasons, the
proposed rule would not allow continued use of inspection programs
based on AC No. 91-60 alone. Instead, it proposes to require damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures to supplement or replace
existing inspection programs based on AC No. 91-60 no later than
December 20, 2010.
Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR)
Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. allows the Administrator to delegate the
aging aircraft records reviews and inspections to properly qualified
private persons as provided under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(B) and (C). The
FAA normally delegates similar authority to individuals under 49 U.S.C.
44702(d). Those delegations are contained in part 183. Because of the
large number of airplanes (over 3,000) that would have to be inspected
in a short period of time (5 years) and an anticipated growth of the
aging fleet, the FAA proposes to permit such records reviews and
inspections to be accomplished by a DAR authorized under part 183.
This proposal would revise current Sec. 183.33 to permit DARs to
conduct the reviews and inspections necessary to determine the
continued effectiveness of airworthiness certificates, including the
proposed reviews and inspections. The FAA would issue guidelines to its
aviation safety inspectors and DARs on how to monitor and conduct
records reviews and inspections in compliance with this proposed rule.
Proposed Appendixes
The proposed appendixes list the FAA-established design-life goals
of several airplane types that are commonly used in scheduled service
to assist in implementing this proposal.
For airplane models listed in the proposed appendix to part 121 and
for airplane models initially certificated to carry 10 or more
passengers located in the proposed appendix to part 129 and the
proposed appendix to part 135, the proposal could effectively delay the
implementation date of damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures for these aircraft from 4 years after the effective date of
the rule to the time the aircraft reaches its design-life goal.
However, for airplane models initially certificated to carry nine
or fewer passengers listed in the proposed appendixes to part 129 and
part 135, the proposal requires damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures sooner than December 20, 2010.
The airplane models with 10 or more passenger seats listed in the
proposed appendixes have been certificated with limits on either the
structure or the maintenance program, or they have had subsequent
structural analysis and testing. These limits are considered adequate
to ensure the safety of these airplanes until they reach the listed
design-life goal.
Early small airplane regulations did not consider fatigue until
1956, and then only on pressurized fuselages. With the exception of the
Fairchild Model SA227-TT, the passenger airplanes with nine or fewer
seats included in the proposed appendixes to part 129 and part 135 were
initially certificated in the United States without any consideration
being given to wing or empennage fatigue. However, the airworthiness
authorities of the United Kingdom and Australia required fatigue
evaluation on these airplanes before allowing operation in their
countries. The airplane models listed in the proposed appendixes have
been used consistently in scheduled commuter service in the United
States for the past several years, and many of the highest-time
airplanes have accumulated a number of flight hours approaching or
exceeding the limits set by the airworthiness authorities of these
other countries.
Most airplanes with a capacity for nine or fewer passengers were
not listed in the appendixes because these airplanes are not commonly
used in U.S. commuter operations and tend to have lower fleet times.
Most were designed with sufficiently low stresses to allow them to
operate safely without the need for damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures before December 20, 2010.
However, if at a later date the FAA learns of specific airplanes
with nine or fewer passenger seats commonly being used in commuter
service with flight hours approaching or exceeding the limits set by
the airworthiness authorities of other countries, the FAA will consider
future rulemaking to add those models to the proposed appendixes.
A description of the airplanes in the proposed appendixes and their
associated design-life goals are listed below. The FAA has reviewed the
assessments that resulted in the life limit requirements described
below, and has determined that those requirements appropriately, if not
conservatively, reflect the times in the aircraft's service lives when
significant maintenance must be performed on the critical structures to
maintain the level of safety required for air transportation.
[[Page 16303]]
Beech 99 (All Models)
The Beech 99 is an unpressurized, 17-seat airplane configured for
15 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Beech 99 initially was
certificated in 1968 under part 23, Amendment No. 3, and is listed on
type certificate data sheet (TCDS) A14CE. Special conditions were
imposed on the Beech 99 to require fatigue validation testing of the
wing and carry-through structure. In 1990, Beech Aircraft Company
issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 2297 to require replacement of
the entire outboard wing and the entire wing center section after
46,000 hours. This retirement time is based on full-scale fatigue
testing.
Beech 1900 (All Models)
The Beech 1900, 1900C, and 1900D are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes
configured for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The 1900 and 1900C
were initially certificated under Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. 41 in 1983, and the Beech 1900D was initially certificated
in the commuter category in 1991. All models are listed on TCDS A24CE.
All three models have certified life limits of 45,000 hours for the
empennage listed in the Airworthiness Limitations sections of their
maintenance manuals.
Beech 300, 300LW, B300, and B300C
The Beech 300, 300LW, B300, and B300C are 15-seat airplanes
configured for 13 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Beech 300 and
300LW were initially certificated under SFAR No. 41 in 1988, and the
Beech B300 and B300C were initially certificated in the commuter
category in 1989. All models are listed on TCDS A24CE. All four models
have certified 30,000-hour life limits for the empennage listed in the
Airworthiness Limitations sections of their maintenance manuals.
BAe Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201
The BAe Jetstream 3101 and 3201 are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes
configured for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Jetstream 3101
was initially certificated under SFAR No. 41 in 1982 and is listed on
TCDS A21EU. The Jetstream 3201 was initially certificated in the
commuter category in 1988 and is listed on TCDS A56EU. Both airplanes
have certified life limits of 30,000 landings for the wing and
empennage listed in the Airworthiness Limitations sections of their
maintenance manuals. For flights of 1 hour in length, this equates to a
30,000-hour limit.
Cessna 402
The Cessna 402 is a small, unpressurized, 10-seat airplane
configured for 8 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Cessna 402 was
initially certificated in 1956, the Cessna 402A and 402B in 1969, and
the Cessna 402C in 1978. They are listed on TCDS A7CE and were
certificated in the United States without fatigue requirements. The
402, 402A, and 402B are subjected to AD No. 79-10-15, which mandates a
400-hour repetitive inspection for fatigue cracks on critical
components of the wing structure. The proposed appendixes list a
design-life goal of 12,000 hours for these aircraft, based on recent
Cessna Aircraft Company calculations. The appendix lists a design-life
goal of 7,700 hours for the Cessna 402C, based on fatigue limits set on
the wing structure by the Airworthiness Authorities of Australia and
the United Kingdom.
De Havilland DHC-6 (all models)
The de Havilland DHC-6 is an unpressurized, 24-seat airplane
configured for 22 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The DHC-6 was
initially certificated in 1966 under Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 3,
Amendment No. 8, and in 1969 under SFAR No. 23, and is listed on TCDS
A9EA. Transport Canada, designated as the airworthiness authority of
the country of design by ICAO for the continued airworthiness of the
DHC-6, issued an AD that is mandatory in Canada and imposes service
life limits on the airplanes listed in the de Havilland Structural
Components Service Life Limits Manual, PSM 1-6-11, Revision 4, dated
May 31, 1996. This Canadian AD, issued in September 1996, mandates the
retirement of the airplane at 66,000 hours.
Dornier DO-228 (all models)
The Dornier DO-228 is an unpressurized, 21-seat airplane configured
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The DO-228-100 and DO-228-200
were initially certificated in 1984, the DO-228-101 and DO-228-201 in
1985, and the DO-228-202 in 1986 under part 23, Amendment No. 23, and
SFAR No. 41C. The DO-228-212 was certificated in the commuter category
in 1990. All are listed on TCDS A16EU. The Airplane Maintenance Manual
for the DO-228-100/-101 and DO-228-200/-201/-202/-212 includes
Airworthiness Limitation section 05-05-00, which specifies mandatory
airplane replacement times. The DO-228-100 and DO-228-200 have a
fatigue life of 42,800 hours; the DO-228-101 and DO-228-201 have a
fatigue life of 32,800 hours; and the DO-228-202 has a fatigue life of
29,600 hours. The fatigue life for the DO-228-212 is 26,400 hours for
all serial numbers except 155, and serial numbers 191 and higher; and
42,800 hours for serial number 155 and serial numbers 191 and higher.
Embraer EMB-110
The Embraer EMB-110 is a pressurized, 21-seat airplane configured
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The EMB-110 was initially
certificated under SFAR No. 41A in 1978 and is listed on TCDS A21SO.
The EMB-110 was initially certificated with a 30,000-hour life limit on
the wing and carry-through structure. This limit is listed in Note 3 of
TCDS A21SO.
Fairchild Metro SA227
The Fairchild Metro SA227 series includes the SA227-AT, -TT, -AC, -
BC, -PC, -CC, and -DD airplanes. The SA227-AT is a 16-seat airplane
configured for 14 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was initially
certificated under SFAR No. 41C in 1981. The SA227-TT is an 11-seat
airplane configured for 9 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was
initially certificated under SFAR No. 41B in 1981. Both models are
listed on TCDS A5SW and have 35,000-hour certified life limits on their
empennages.
The SA227-AC, -BC, and -PC are pressurized, 22-seat airplanes
configured for 20 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. They were
initially certificated under SFAR No. 41C in 1981, 1989, and 1985,
respectively. All three models are listed on TCDS A8SW and have a
35,000-hour certified empennage life.
The SA227-CC and -DC are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes configured
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. They were initially
certificated in the commuter category of part 23 in 1990. Both models
are listed on TCDS A18SW and have 35,000-hour certified empennage life
limits.
Fairchild Metro SA226-TC
The SA226-TC is a pressurized, 22-seat airplane configured for 20
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was initially certificated under
part 23, Amendment No. 6, in 1970, and later certificated under SFAR
No. 41C in 1982. It is listed on TCDS A8SW and has a 35,000-hour
certified empennage life limit.
[[Page 16304]]
Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A MK III (all models)
The Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A MK III Trislander is an
unpressurized, 18-seat airplane configured for 16 passenger seats and 2
pilot seats. The BN-2A MK III was initially certificated in 1971 under
part 23, Amendment No. 8, and is listed on TCDS A29EU. The wing is
limited to 23,900 hours at initial certification, assuming one landing
per flight hour. For shorter flights, the wing is limited to 20,480
hours. This notice proposes the more conservative number.
Piper Navajo and PA-31 Series
The Piper Navajo and PA-31 series airplanes are 7- to 11-seat
airplanes with seating configurations of 5 to 9 passenger seats and 2
pilot seats. Those airplanes listed in the appendixes are capable of
carrying six or more passenger seats and have been used in commuter
service in significant numbers for several years. There are pressurized
and unpressurized versions and models powered by piston or by
turbopropeller engines. The unpressurized versions are listed on TCDS
A20SO, and the pressurized versions are listed on TCDS A8EA. The
unpressurized versions were certificated in the United States under
older regulations that did not require fatigue substantiation, and the
pressurized versions have no fatigue certification of the wing
structure and no fatigue limits on the pressurized cabin.
The Civil Airworthiness Authorities (CAA) of Australia and the
United Kingdom required fatigue substantiation of these airplanes as a
condition for their initial certification. The design-life goals listed
in the appendixes represent limits certified by the Australian CAA. The
limits for unpressurized models are based on the fatigue limits of the
wing spar lower cap, and the limits for the pressurized models are
based on the pressurized cabin.
Short Brothers SD3-30
The Short Brothers SD3-30 is a 32-seat airplane configured for 30
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in the
United States in 1976 under part 25, Amendment No. 30. The manufacturer
has limited the maintenance program to 57,600-flight hours contingent
on the successful completion of a mid-life inspection at 28,800 hours,
as defined in the airplane maintenance manual.
Short Brothers SD3-60
The Short Brothers SD3-60 is a 41-seat airplane configured for 39
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in the
United States in 1982 under a United Kingdom certification basis that
is equivalent to part 25, Amendment No. 34. The manufacturer has
limited the maintenance program to 28,800 hours, as defined in the
airplane maintenance manual.
Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa
The Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa is a 32-seat airplane configured for
30 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in
the United States in 1990 under a United Kingdom certification basis
and to the additional validation requirements of part 25, Amendment No.
35. The manufacturer has limited the maintenance program to 40,000
hours, as defined in the airplane maintenance manual.
Related Activity
Concurrent with this proposal, the FAA is issuing two Notices of
Availability of ACs. The first, AC No. 91-MA, ``Continued Airworthiness
of Older Small Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of
Supplemental Inspection Programs,'' provides an acceptable means, but
not the only means, to comply with the proposed damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures. The second, AC No. 120-XX, ``Aging Airplane
Records Reviews and Inspections,'' provides guidance regarding how an
operator complies with this proposal.
There are other initiatives being considered by the FAA to address
Aging Aircraft issues. The FAA has received a recommendation from the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on rulemaking in the area
of repair assessment of pressurized fuselages. The proposal would
require a repair assessment for the pressurized fuselages of Airbus
A300; Boeing 707/720, 727, 737, and 747; Douglas DC-8, DC-9/MD-80, and
DC-10; British Aerospace BAC 1-11; Fokker F-28; and Lockheed L10-11
airplanes. The recommendation currently is being reviewed within the
FAA, and publication of an NPRM is anticipated in the near future.
In addition, the FAA has found that some operators do not have a
programmatic approach in place to appropriately address airplane
corrosion. A rulemaking effort is being considered that would require
development and implementation of a corrosion prevention and control
program for all airplanes used in air transportation. The FAA
anticipates publication of rulemaking on this subject in 1998.
On December 20, 1995, the FAA issued the final rule, ``Commuter
Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements'' (60
FR 65832), also known as the ``Commuter Rule,'' to address commuter air
operations in the United States. That rulemaking requires that all
airplanes used in scheduled passenger service capable of carrying 10 or
more passengers meet specific performance requirements by December 20,
2010. For some older airplanes, significant modifications would be
necessary to meet those new requirements. That rulemaking provided an
extended compliance date to give operators time to decide whether to
retrofit those airplanes or phase them out of scheduled service.
Because development of damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures may be difficult for some airplanes currently operating in
scheduled service, the FAA is proposing December 20, 2010, as a
compliance date for this rulemaking.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 119.3
This section would be revised to include the definition of ``years
in service.''
Section 121.368
Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for
operation in air transportation.
Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a certificate holder from
operating an airplane after a date specified in the section unless the
Administrator has completed the aging aircraft records review and
inspection.
Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a
certificate holder must ensure its airplanes are inspected. Aging
airplanes are divided into three categories for these inspections to
ensure that the oldest aircraft are inspected first. For those
airplanes that will have exceeded 24 years in service, the first
records review and inspection would be required no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the proposed rule. For those airplanes
exceeding 14 but not 24 years in service at the time the proposed rule
becomes effective, the first records review and inspection would be
required no later than 5 years after the effective date of the proposed
rule. Finally, airplanes that will exceed 14 years in service
subsequent to the proposed rule's effective date would be required to
[[Page 16305]]
undergo the first records review and inspection no later than 5 years
after their 14th year in service. All aging airplane records reviews
and inspections specified in this section would need to be repeated at
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve
90-day extensions on the thresholds and repeat intervals of aging
aircraft records reviews and inspections to accommodate unforeseen
scheduling conflicts.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require a certificate holder to make
an affected airplane and certain associated records available for
review and inspection.
Proposed paragraph (e) would require a certificate holder to notify
the Administrator at least 60 days before the airplane and its
associated records would be made available for review and inspection.
Section 121.370a
Proposed paragraph (a) would require certificate holders to ensure
that, subject to certain limited exceptions, the maintenance programs
for airplanes operating under part 121 include damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures within 4 years after the effective date of
the rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) would permit operators of airplanes listed
in appendix M to part 121 to operate these airplanes without non-
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their maintenance
programs until reaching a design-life goal specified in the appendix,
or 4 years after the effective date of the rule, whichever occurs
later. However, no aircraft may operate without damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures after December 20, 2010.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit operators of airplanes that
have non-damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures already
mandated by ADs to continue to operate those airplanes until December
20, 2010. After that date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures as part of their maintenance programs
to be eligible to operate those airplanes under part 121.
Part 121, Appendix N
This appendix lists the airplanes and the design-life goals that
are referenced in proposed Sec. 121.370a.
Section 129.1
Paragraph (a) would update the reference to section 402 of the
repealed and recodified FAA Act of 1958.
Paragraph (b) would clarify that proposed Secs. 129.16 and 129.20
also apply to operations of U.S.-registered aircraft operated solely
outside the United States.
Section 129.16
This proposed section is similar to proposed Sec. 121.370a.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require foreign air carriers or
foreign persons who operate U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes that
were initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats to
include damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their
maintenance programs within 4 years of the effective date of the
proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require foreign air carriers or
foreign persons who operate U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes that
were initially type certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats to
include damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their
maintenance programs before December 20, 2010.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit foreign air carriers or foreign
persons to operate U.S.-registered airplanes of the type listed in
appendix B to part 129 without damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures in their maintenance programs until reaching a design-life
goal specified in the appendix, or 4 years after the effective date of
the proposed rule, whichever occurs later. However, no airplane may be
operated without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures
after December 20, 2010.
Proposed paragraph (d) would permit foreign air carriers or foreign
persons to operate U.S.-registered airplanes that have non-damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures already mandated by ADs to
continue to operate those airplanes until December 20, 2010. After that
date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures as part of their maintenance programs to be eligible to
operate those airplanes under part 129.
Section 129.33
This proposed section is similar to proposed Sec. 121.368.
Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for
operation in air transportation.
Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a foreign air carrier or
foreign person from operating a U.S.-registered airplane after a date
specified in the section unless the Administrator has completed the
aging aircraft records review and inspection.
Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a
foreign air carrier or foreign person must ensure its U.S.-registered
multiengine airplanes are inspected. Aging airplanes are divided into
three categories for these inspections to ensure that the oldest
airplanes are inspected first. For those airplanes that will have
exceeded 24 years in service, the first records review and inspection
would be required no later than 3 years after the effective date of the
proposed rule. For those airplanes exceeding 14 but not 24 years in
service at the time the proposed rule becomes effective, the first
records review and inspection would be required no later than 5 years
after the effective date of the proposed rule. Finally, airplanes that
will exceed 14 years in service subsequent to the proposed rule's
effective date would be required to undergo the first records review
and inspection no later than 5 years after the 14th year in service.
All aging airplanes records reviews and inspections specified in this
section would need to be repeated at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve
90-day extensions on the thresholds and repeat intervals of aging
airplane records review and inspection to accommodate unforeseen
scheduling conflicts.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require a foreign air carrier or
foreign person to make an affected airplane and certain associated
records available for review and inspection.
Proposed paragraph (e) would require a foreign air carrier or
foreign person to notify the Administrator at least 60 days before the
airplane and its associated records would be made available for review
and inspection.
Part 129, Appendix B
This appendix would list the airplanes and the design-life goals
that are referenced in proposed Sec. 129.16.
Section 135.168
This proposed section is similar to proposed Secs. 121.370a and
129.16.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require operators of multiengine
airplanes operating in scheduled service that were initially type
certificated with 10 or more passenger seats to include damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their inspection programs
within 4 years of the effective date of the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require operators of multiengine
airplanes in
[[Page 16306]]
scheduled service that were initially type certificated with nine or
fewer passenger seats to include damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures in their inspection programs before December 20, 2010.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit operators of airplanes listed
in appendix F to part 135 to operate these airplanes in scheduled
service without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in
their inspection programs until reaching a design-life goal specified
in the appendix, or 4 years after the effective date of the proposed
rule, whichever occurs later. However, no airplane may be operated
without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures after
December 20, 2010.
Proposed paragraph (d) would permit operators of airplanes that
have non-damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures already
mandated by ADs to continue to operate those airplanes until December
20, 2010. After that date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures as part of their inspection programs
to be eligible to operate those airplanes under part 135.
Section 135.422
The proposed section is similar to proposed Secs. 121.368 and
129.20.
Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for
operation in air transportation.
Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a certificate holder from
operating a multiengine airplane in scheduled operations after a date
specified in the section unless the Administrator has completed the
aging airplane records reviews and inspections.
Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a
certificate holder must ensure its airplanes are inspected. Aging
airplanes are divided into three categories for these inspections to
ensure that the oldest aircraft are inspected first. For those
airplanes that will have exceeded 24 years in service, the first
records review and inspection would be required no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the proposed rule. For those airplanes
exceeding 14 but not 24 years in service at the time the proposed rule
becomes effective, the first records review and inspection would be
required no later than 5 years after the effective date of the proposed
rule. Finally, airplanes that will exceed 14 years in service
subsequent to the proposed rule's effective date would be required to
undergo the first records review and inspection no later than 5 years
after their 14th year in service. All aging airplane records reviews
and inspections specified in this section would need to be repeated at
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve
90-day extensions on the threshold and repeat intervals of the aging
airplane records reviews and inspections to accommodate unforeseen
scheduling conflicts.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require a certificate holder to make
an affected airplane and certain associated records available for
review and inspection.
Proposed paragraph (e) would require a certificate holder to notify
the Administrator at least 60 days before the airplane and its
associated records would be made available for review and inspection.
Part 135, Appendix G
This appendix lists the airplanes and the design-life goals that
are referenced in proposed Sec. 135.168.
Section 183.33
Paragraph (a) would expand the authority of DARs to permit them to
make findings necessary to determine the continuing effectiveness of
airworthiness certificates by conducting the record reviews and
inspections required by proposed Secs. 121.368, 129.20, and 135.422.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains information collections that are subject to
review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13). This title, description, and respondent description of the annual
burden are shown below.
Title: Aging Aircraft Safety.
Description: The FAA proposes to require all airplanes operated
under part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operated
under part 129, and all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled
operations under part 135 to undergo records reviews and inspections by
the Administrator after their 14th year in service to ensure that the
maintenance of these airplanes' age-sensitive parts and components has
been adequate and timely. The FAA also proposes to permit certain
representatives of the Administrator to conduct these inspections. The
proposed rule also would prohibit operation of these airplanes after
specified deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures are included in the maintenance or inspection program.
This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the
AASA of 1991. It would ensure the continuing airworthiness of the
preponderance of aging airplanes operating in air transportation by:
(1) Mandating aging aircraft records reviews and inspections for all of
the airplanes described above, and (2) applying modern damage-tolerance
analyses and inspection techniques to older airplane structures that
were certificated before such techniques were available.
Description of Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit
organizations.
This proposal would constitute a recordkeeping burden for part 135
operators. Airframe flight cycles are not currently required to be
collected by operators of small aircraft under part 135. This proposal
would require the operator to record and maintain flight cycle
information on their aircraft. This information is necessary to allow
the FAA and the operator to accurately assess the fatigue condition of
the airplane. Under part 135, a total of 209 airplanes would be
affected. It is estimated that the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements would take 30 minutes per airplane, per month, at an
estimated cost of $20.00 per hour. The estimate of the total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden would be $25,080.00.
The agency solicits public comment on the information collection
requirements to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the
information collection requirement by August 2, 1999, and should direct
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden
associated with
[[Page 16307]]
this proposal has been submitted to OMB for review. The FAA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public of the
approval numbers and expiration date.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to
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. Finally, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
assessments, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: (1) Would
generate benefits justifying its costs and is not ``significant'' as
defined in Executive Order 12866; (2) would be ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures; (3) would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) would not
restrain international trade. These analyses, available in the docket,
are summarized below.
Description of Costs
The proposed rule would generate primary costs to those scheduled
operators of multiengine airplanes not currently subject to mandatory
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures. Additional costs may
be incurred by manufacturers who participate in the development of
these procedures for the affected airplane models. In addition to the
costs for development and implementation of new inspections and
procedures, the rule would also impose costs related to the additional
FAA physical inspections and records reviews mandated by the Congress
to assure the continued airworthiness of aging airplanes. These costs
would be incurred by both categories of operators of aging airplanes:
(1) Those who currently have damage-tolerance based inspections and
procedures, and (2) those who would be required to develop such
procedures under the proposed rule. Finally, the FAA itself would incur
costs in conducting these inspections and records reviews, and in
reviewing and approving the operator's inspections and procedures.
It should be noted that the attributed costs of this proposal do
not include the expense of making repairs that may be found necessary
during either the operator's damage tolerance based inspections or the
oversight inspections conducted by the FAA. While the agency recognizes
that such repairs may constitute a significant expense, the costs of
such repairs is not attributed to this proposed rule because existing
FAA regulations require that repairs be made as necessary to assure the
airworthiness of the airplane.
It is also noted that this evaluation focuses on existing airplanes
and does not directly address the costs that the proposed rule would
eventually (15 years after production) impose on new production
airplanes, primarily because such costs (particularly their present
value) would constitute an insignificant proportion of the costs
represented in this study.
Development and Implementation Costs
The development and implementation costs of the inspections and
procedures are calculated from a 1996 data collection of the fleet that
would be affected. Approximately 1,190 airplanes were identified as
being potentially subject to the requirements for development and
implementation of the procedures and inspections under the proposed
rule. The airplanes were then aggregated into 55 make-model groups
consistent with the airplane groupings that would be covered under each
individual inspection procedure document. Cost factors, ranging from .3
to 1.0, were then assigned to each airplane model group. These factors
represent estimates of the proportion of full development costs that
would be incurred for each airplane model group; recognizing that full
program development costs for some models would be reduced either due
to similarities between certain models or because some models already
had a non-damage-tolerance based supplemental inspection program.
Applying these cost factors produced the cost equivalence of 47 full
SIP development efforts for the 55 models.
The methodology used to estimate the likely costs of the proposal
first computed the costs that would be incurred: (1) If it were
economically viable for every affected airplane in the database to meet
the requirements of the proposed rule, and (2) if every existing,
affected airplane continued to operate throughout the study period
(year 2018). Following these calculations, the evaluation then
estimates: (1) The number of airplanes and models where compliance
would not, in fact, be economically viable, (2) the costs that would,
instead, be incurred as a result of that inability, and (3) the costs
that would not be incurred due to the retirement of airplanes from
scheduled service during the study period for reasons unrelated to the
proposed rule.
Data were collected and aggregated concerning the average airplane
weight in each airplane-model group, the average and maximum ages of
the airplanes, the average numbers of seats, the counts of airplanes,
whether or not there was a design life goal based on an imposed life
limit of a major structural component, and whether each model grouping
was already in compliance with a non-damage-tolerance based program as
defined in Sec. 91.60. These data are used as controls or factors in
the calculations that follow.
Under the proposal, the affected airplanes (15 years or older)
would be generally subject to a mandated inspection program within 4
years after the effective date of the rule (the year 2002.) However, in
an effort to reduce the economic impact, the proposal would delay the
required compliance dates for those airplane models that meet any of
several conditions. Compliance would be delayed for airplanes with 9 or
fewer passenger seats until the year 2010. Airplanes that have an FAA
defined design life goal would not be required to have a damage-
tolerance based inspection and procedures program until they had
reached their design life goal, or until the year 2010, whichever
occurs first. Similarly, compliance could be delayed up until the year
2010 for those models required by airworthiness directive to be
maintained under a non-damage-tolerance based program. Based on these
criteria, along with airplane age, the expected date of compliance for
each group model fleet was projected.
Based on engineering estimates, the cost methodology employs a
functional estimate (dependent on the size of the airplane) of the time
needed to develop the program for each model. This function produces a
range between 10,311 and 25,776 hours necessary to develop the program
for each model group. Approximately 841,000 engineering hours would be
required to produce inspections and procedures for all affected models.
Based on an assumed, fully burdened engineering rate of $95 per hour
1, the SIP development cost estimates for the various model
groups range between $980,000 and $2.45 million per model group. The
total development cost, assuming full development for every
[[Page 16308]]
model group sums to $79.9 million. These costs were then reduced by the
factors described above to account for related model efficiencies and
for models with partially compliant programs in place. The application
of these factors reduced the range of costs to a level between $310,000
and $2.45 million per group, with a total potential development cost
estimate of $67.8 million. Again, at this point in the methodology, the
estimates assume that the inspections and procedures would actually be
developed for all affected models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rate for contract services was estimated by FAA field
engineers, and it is believed to be higher than the cost that most
parties will actually incur. The contract rate was used in order to
be responsive to small entities that may have to rely on outside
resources to develop their program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some airplane models, the FAA expects that the development work
would uncover the need for model-specific structural modifications,
either to make certain areas of the airplane inspectable or to replace
structural elements that are determined to be uninspectable and subject
to critical fatigue damage. Absent the engineering development work
itself, estimates of the extent and magnitude of these modifications
are inexact. As such, the FAA has employed a cost estimate that it
considers to be on the high side of feasible costs.
Similar to the development costs, the evaluation assumes a
functional estimate of the likely structural modification costs for
each airplane based on the size of the airplane. Separate functions
were employed for airplanes certificated under Part 25 and for those
airplanes certificated under either Part 23 or CAR, based on the logic
that the older and smaller airplanes were more likely to require
modifications for inspectability. The cost estimates of the likely
modifications range from $10,200 to $168,800 per affected airplane
depending on airplane size and certification basis. (It should be noted
that these costs are per airplane, whereas the inspection and procedure
development costs are per model group.)
In the absence of more specific information, the evaluation assumes
that one-half 2 of all affected models would require
structural modifications as a result of the findings from the
inspections and procedures development. The unit modification cost
estimates from above were multiplied by the numbers of airplanes in
each model group and then by one-half. These products were then summed
across all models to yield a total potential modification cost of $65.0
million for the affected fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The estimate of ``one-half of all affected models'' is based
upon expert judgment. The FAA requests public comment and supporting
background regarding this estimate .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third major cost component of the development and
implementation requirement involves conducting the actual inspections
identified in the program for each model. For each model group, the
evaluation assumes that the program directed inspections would begin
when the fleet leader for that group reached 20 years of age or at the
date the inspections and procedures were due, whichever occurred later.
Under this logic, program directed inspections would begin anywhere
between the years 2002 and 2014, depending on the characteristics of
the individual airplane model group.
Again, based on engineering estimates, the cost methodology employs
a functional model (dependent on the size of the airplane) of the
expected number of critical locations that would need to be inspected
on each airplane. It was assumed that each location would require four
hours of inspection and that the burdened (including overhead) labor
rate for that work would cost $55 per hour. These estimates produce a
likely inspection cost ranging between $6,000 and $30,000 per airplane
per inspection. Similar to the estimates of modification costs, these
costs cannot be precisely estimated in the absence of the actual
inspection and procedures development work for each model, and as such,
the FAA has used what it considers to be high-end estimates.
In addition to the actual inspection work itself, the evaluation
considers the incremental airplane downtime that would be necessitated
by the additional work caused under this proposal. The evaluation
assumes that each 40 hours of work caused by this proposal would
require one additional day of airplane downtime.3 The
economic cost of downtime was computed under the assumption that the
average productive return on capital is equal to 7 percent of the value
of that capital per year. Downtime costs were calculated as the product
of the number of additional downtime days, divided by 365 days per
year, times the average estimated value of the airplane at the year the
program would be required, times 7 percent. This produced a unit
downtime cost per airplane, per inspection ranging between $63 and
$7,181 depending on the age and size of the airplane involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The rate of incremental downtime per unit of required
additional work varies widely depending on the resources that are
available at different maintenance facilities, the different types
and sizes of airplanes involved, and the concomitant maintenance
that is being performed on the airplane during the same maintenance
period. Essentially, the amount of downtime is a question of how
much parallel work can be conducted on the airplane at one time.
This calculation is an attempt to be responsive to industry by not
assuming that incremental work could always be done during the time
that other maintenance was being performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers of inspections that could be expected throughout the
study period (year 2018) were computed based on the factors: (1) The
number of years between the year the program would be due and the year
2018, (2) the annual number of hours that each airplane would fly
(ranging between 858 and 1154 hours per year 4, depending on
airplane size), and (3) an assumed inspection interval of every 4,000
hours. Finally the unit labor and downtime costs related to the
operator inspections were multiplied by the numbers of airplanes in
each model and by the expected numbers of inspections for that model
during the study period. These products were then summed to represent
the total potential operator inspection cost of the proposal: $33.5
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The annual flight hours were based on a regression of
aircraft by number of seats and flight hours from page IX-22 of the
1995 FAA Aviation Forecasts. To avoid the appearances of excess
precision and to account for the operating differences between
transport category and small commuter airplanes, the results were
aggregated into two broad categories: airplanes with 9 seats or
less, and airplanes with 10 seats or more. The assumed inspection
interval of 4,000 hours was estimated by FAA field engineering
staff, based on their projections of what would be found to be
necessary when the supplemental inspection programs are developed.
This number is an aggregated simplification since, especially for
larger airplanes, it is expected that different areas of an airplane
will have different inspection intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the next step, the three major component costs of the
development and implementation requirement were summed. The $67.8
million for developing the inspections and procedures, the $65.0
million for structural modifications, and the $33.5 million for
operator inspections produced a total potential cost of $166.3 million.
At this point, however, the evaluation methodology recognizes that the
potential unit costs of the proposal would not be realized for all
models. For some airplane models, the potential unit costs of the
proposal could constitute significant proportions of, or actually
exceed, the economic values of the airplanes involved.
For each airplane model group, the potential costs of compliance
were compared to the estimated economic value of that group in the year
the inspections and procedures would be due. In cases where the
potential compliance cost would exceed 50 percent of the group value,
the methodology assumes that the
[[Page 16309]]
inspections and procedures would not be developed and implemented, and
the related compliance costs would not be incurred. Instead, the
affected 34 models would be retired or transferred out of scheduled
service, and the attributed costs of the proposal for these models
would be a 50 percent reduction in their economic value. Failure to
comply with the rule would not ground an airplane and eliminate its
value, but instead, would preclude its being used in scheduled
passenger service. The airplane could still be used for cargo or on-
demand service under part 135. This methodology produces a potential
cost of $109.1 million for those models where compliance would be
economically feasible, and an attributed $33.6 million in reduced value
for the models that could not reasonably comply. Total potential costs
under this assumption equal $142.7 million.
As noted at the beginning of this section, the $142.7 million
estimate was computed under the scenario whereby, external to the
effects of the proposed rule, all of the affected 1,190 airplanes that
exist today would continue to fly through the end of the study period,
year 2018. In fact, some significant proportion of these costs would
never be incurred due to normal rotation and retirement of the affected
airplanes. The replacement cycle for the airplanes subject to this
proposal varies widely within the industry. For some mainstream
scheduled commuter carriers, it is common practice that airplanes are
routinely replaced due to economic practicalities at a stage where few
if any of the costs of this proposal would be incurred. Conversely, the
economics of some smaller or niche carriers are such that airplanes may
continue to fly for 40 years or more. In the absence of more specific
projections, the evaluation incorporates the consensus of FAA field
engineers associated with this proposal that at least one-third of the
potential $142.7 million costs would not be incurred, leaving a
projected cost of $95.1 million. The FAA solicits comments on this
particular estimate.
Two relatively minor additions are necessary to compute the full
expected cost of developing and implementing the inspections and
procedures. First, the new inspections and procedures for each airplane
model would have to be incorporated into the existing maintenance
program of each affected operator. Based on the projected models where
full compliance would be feasible, the FAA estimates that there would
be 91 unique model/operator combinations whereby the additional
inspections and procedures would have to be incorporated. The analysis
assumes that this would require 80 hours of work per model/operator
combination at a labor rate of $55 per hour, producing an incorporation
cost of $440,400. Added to the $95.1 million cost above, this produces
a total operator-manufacturer cost of $95.5 million.
As an additional perspective, the total present value cost of the
$80,910,897 to all operators is equivalent to a twenty-year, annualized
cost stream of $7,637,416, at 7 percent per year.
Similarly, the FAA would incur costs to review and approve: (1) The
inspections and procedures for each model, and (2) their incorporation
into the existing maintenance programs for each model/operator
combination. The costs to review the inspections and procedures
documents are estimated at $184,800, consisting of 160 hours of review
at $55 per hour for each of the 21 programs to be developed. The costs
for review of incorporating these procedures are projected at $200,200,
consisting of 40 hours of review at $55 per hour for each of the 91
expected model/operator combinations. Adding these two figures produces
a projected cost of $385,000 to the FAA for reviews related to the
development and implementation of the inspections and procedures.
Costs of FAA and/or DAR Inspections
The proposed rule would also necessitate that the FAA inspect all
airplanes that are, or due to this proposal would be, subject to a
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures requirement to
determine their compliance with the subject programs. These inspections
could begin at the start of an airplane's 15th year and would repeat at
intervals not to exceed 5 years. Three categories of costs are
associated with this provision: (1) The direct costs of the inspectors,
(2) the personnel costs incurred by the operator to prepare for the
inspections, and (3) the incremental airplane downtime caused by the
inspections.
Using the dataset described in the previous section, the FAA
estimates that there are 2,850 airplanes age 15 and older that are
either currently subject to inspections and procedures requirement as a
result of airworthiness directive or would be as a result of the
proposed rule. For the purposes of calculation, the evaluation assumes
that this number would remain essentially steady over the study period.
Higher or lower forecasts of aging airplane fleet size would have a
direct relationship to the cost estimates presented here.
The number of person hours required per inspection was estimated as
a function of airplane size, ranging linearly from 24 person hours for
an airplane of 50,000 pounds or less, up to a maximum of 120 person
hours for airplanes of 200,000 pounds or more. In addition, it was
assumed that for every individual hour of actual on-site inspection, an
additional one-half hour of ancillary or overhead activity would be
required. At a labor rate of $55 per hour, the direct inspector costs
would range between $1,980 and $9,900 per airplane, per inspection,
depending on airplane size. These unit costs were multiplied by the
count of airplanes in each weight category and were summed to produce a
total inspector cost of $18.7 million for the fleet of affected
airplanes age 15 and over. Since each airplane must be inspected every
five years, the average annual cost would be one-fifth of that total,
or $3.7 million.
The proposed rule would specifically empower designated
airworthiness representatives (DAR's) to conduct the records reviews
and maintenance inspections required under this proposal. Operators who
choose to engage a DAR for the necessary reviews and inspections would
directly bear the costs of that work. Conversely, operators who choose
to rely on FAA inspectors may lose a degree of control over scheduling
and availability but would not bear the direct costs of the
inspections. In the absence of more specific information, this analysis
assumes that one-half of the work would be accomplished by DAR's, and
as such, the burden of this expense would be evenly divided between the
operators and the FAA.
The second component of these costs concerns the time spent by
operator personnel in their preparations to make the aircraft and its
associated records available for inspection and review. The evaluation
assumes that operator personnel would expend one-fourth as much time
preparing for the inspections as the inspectors would to conduct them
(ranging from 6 to 30 hours per airplane inspection, depending on
airplane size). Again assuming a burdened labor rate of $55 per hour,
the projected cost of operator personnel would total $3.1 million for
all affected airplanes over five years, or $624,000 per year.
The third cost component consists of the incremental airplane
downtime necessitated by the additional inspections. Depending on
airplane size, the estimated additional downtime is projected to range
between approximately .7 and 1.6 days per airplane inspection. Parallel
to the downtime cost estimations calculated
[[Page 16310]]
above for the operator inspections and procedures (7 percent annual
value of capital), the analysis projects an economic valuation for
these costs ranging from $118 to $2,671 per airplane, per inspection.
Multiplying these unit costs by the numbers of airplanes in each size
category produces a $3.7 million expense for the affected fleet every
five years and an annual expense of $744,000.
The combined cost of the three components for FAA and DAR
inspections would total $3,238,218 per year for the operators of
affected airplanes, and $1,870,902 per year for the FAA (based on the
above assumption that one-half of the inspections would be conducted by
DAR's and borne by the operators). Over the 20 year study period, these
costs would total $64.8 million ($32.1 million present value) for
operators, and $37.4 million ($18.5 million present value) for the FAA.
Combined Costs
The table below summarizes both the standard and present value
costs of the proposal. The table shows a combined proposal cost of $198
million with a present value of $99 million.
Summary of Projected NPRM Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For For FAA/DAR
Straight costs development inspection and Total
and implement review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To operators of airplanes that need program..................... $95,524,573 $4,383,547 $99,908,120
Airplanes with program in place................................. 0 60,380,819 60,380,819
-----------------------------------------------
Operator subtotal........................................... 95,524,573 64,764,366 160,288,939
To the FAA...................................................... 385,000 37,418,040 37,803,040
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 95,909,573 102,182,406 198,091,979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SIP For FAA/DAR
Present value costs development inspection and Total
and implement review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To operators of airplanes that need program..................... $48,849,466 $2,170,064 $51,019,530
Airplanes with program in place................................. 0 29,891,367 29,891,367
-----------------------------------------------
Operator subtotal........................................... 48,849,466 32,061,431 80,910,897
To the FAA...................................................... 188,856 18,523,703 18,712,559
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 49,038,322 50,585,134 99,623,455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Benefits
The structural properties of materials change as a result of the
prolonged and/or repeated application of stress on that material.
Fatigue is the term used to describe this inevitable weakening. After
some duration of cyclic stress, the material will fail under the
applied load because of fatigue. In critical structural elements, this
can result in a catastrophic failure of the airplane.
One manifestation of fatigue in materials is cracking. It is not
practical to detect fatigue cracks below a certain size. It is
possible, however, to initiate inspections at a point in time, and to
repeat those inspections at an interval, whereby a crack that can be
detected will be detected and repaired before it can grow to a size
where the residual strength of the structure is jeopardized.
FAA regulations addressing fatigue have evolved over time. Prior to
1956, airplanes were originally certificated without any specific
consideration being given to metal fatigue. Later, airplanes were
designed to meet fail-safe criteria with regard to fatigue
requirements. ``Fail-safe'' means that the structure has been evaluated
to assure that catastrophic failure of the airplane is not probable
after fatigue failure or obvious partial failure of a single, principle
structural element. Other airplanes were certificated with design-life
limits on the entire airplane or some major structural component (e.g.,
wing, empennage, fuselage) under the ``safe-life'' concept whereby the
structure has been evaluated to be able to withstand the repeated loads
at the variable magnitudes expected during its service life without
detectable cracks. Other airplanes have a form of supplemental
inspection procedures specifically aimed at detecting metal fatigue or
corrosion but which are derived from service history and the analysis
of fleet leader experience rather than damage-tolerance based
engineering analysis.
All of the airplanes that would be required to eventually implement
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures under this proposal
fall into one of the categories described above. And even where some
fatigue related evaluation and assurance was made at the time the
airplane was designed and built, those assurances were never intended
to be valid after the airplane exceeded the maximum number of flight
hours assumed by the designer. Left unchecked, it is not a question of
whether the repeated loadings on aircraft will produce a major
structural failure, but rather, when. More than 29 percent of the
airplanes under this proposal are already 20 years old or older; 14
percent are over 30 years old; and 7 percent of the airplanes are over
40 years old. Under existing procedures, the FAA cannot assure the
continuing airworthiness of these airplanes, and that constitutes an
unacceptable risk to air transportation.
The FAA has extensively deliberated on how to mitigate this risk
and respond to the Congressional mandate. Technical experts and
academic leaders were consulted, and the costs and benefits have been
evaluated for numerous alternative approaches. The FAA believes that
the damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures in this proposal
are the best approach to assure the continued safety of the subject
fleet while striking the most cost effective balance of fully
responding to the law, minimizing overall costs, and minimizing the
impact on small entities.
The purpose of this proposal is to assure the continued structural
airworthiness of air carrier aircraft as they continue in service. In
this context,
[[Page 16311]]
the rule does not increase intended safety; instead, it maintains the
level of safety established at the time each model's type design was
approved by the FAA. In the absence of this or a similar proposal, the
FAA would be unable to determine critical aspects of air transportation
safety as the affected airplanes age. Absent the ability to make this
determination, the agency would be forced to require these aircraft to
be retired at some arbitrary age.
There are, then, two principal benefits of the proposal. The first
is that the FAA and the industry would be able to monitor the
airworthiness of the affected aircraft as they age, and either take
timely corrective action to maintain their continued airworthiness or
retire them from service before they become unairworthy. The second
benefit is that the aircraft would be able to stay in service longer
because their continued airworthiness would be monitored, rather than
the aircraft being retired at an arbitrary age.
There are clear safety benefits of this proposal, but it is not
possible to reasonably estimate the numbers of accidents that the
proposed rule would prevent, primarily because the FAA would take
preventive action before an accident pattern due to age emerged.
It is possible, however, to provide a sense of scale by estimating
the years of extended service the proposal would have to provide the
affected fleet of aircraft to make benefits exceed the related costs.
For example, the cost calculations project that it would be
economically viable for 927 airplanes to comply with the damage-
tolerance based inspection and procedures requirements of the proposal.
At the respective times that these requirements would be due, the
affected airplanes would have a cumulative estimated value of $649
million 5, with a present value of $321 million. By
comparison, the present value cost of compliance for all of the
airplanes subject to the proposed requirement is $51 million. If it is
assumed that the average annual value of capital is 7 percent of its
worth, then extending the useful life of the subject fleet by one year
would be worth 7 percent of $321 million, or $22.5 million (again,
present value). Accordingly, the projected costs of this provision
would be recovered in 2.27 years of extended useful life ($51 million
cost divided by $22.5 million annual benefit = 2.27 years). Note that
the assumed timing of the ``counter case'' retirement of the affected
models would, in turn, change the period necessary to recover the
costs. If it is assumed that, in the absence of this proposed rule, no
retirement action would have been taken until 5 years after the
proposed rule would require SIP development, then the respective value
of the subject fleet at that time would be lower ($188 million--present
value), causing the annual value of extended useful life to be lower
($13.1 million), and finally requiring more time (3.9 years) to recover
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The cumulative value of $649 million represents the resale
value of the subject airplanes. This number was calculated using a
regression model that projects the future value of an airplane as a
function of its size and age at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The FAA is unable to quantify the expected benefits of the proposal
on the basis of historical accident rates that would be reduced.
However, the proposed actions are necessary to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes and the FAA finds that the benefits of
the proposed rule would justify its costs.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
As more fully described in paragraph 2, below, this proposal is
required by statute. The agency is considering actions specified in
this proposed rule to prevent aviation accidents resulting from
structural failure caused by deterioration associated with the aging
process.
FAA regulations addressing structural design have evolved over
time. Prior to 1956, airplanes were certificated considering the
strength of the structure only. No specific consideration was given to
metal fatigue. Since 1956, the FAA has incrementally changed its
regulations to address fatigue; initially requiring fail-safe or safe-
life designs, and currently requiring damage tolerance designs on new
transport and commuter airplanes. Damage tolerance represents the most
modern approach to continued structural integrity.
Fail-safe means that the structure has been evaluated to assure
that catastrophic failure of the airplane is not probable after fatigue
failure or obvious partial failure of a single principle structural
element. Fail safe designs usually consist of redundant (multiple load
path) structures that have no set design life limits.
Safe-life means that the structure has been evaluated to be able to
withstand the repeated loads at the variable magnitudes expected during
its service life without the development of critical cracks. Safe life
designs usually consist of single load path structure that have an
established retirement life on one or more major structural components
(e.g., wing, empennage, fuselage).
Certain airplanes rely on supplemental inspection procedures
specifically aimed at detecting metal fatigue or corrosion, but which
are derived from service history and the analysis of fleet leader
experience rather than damage-tolerance based engineering analysis.
All of the airplanes that would be required to eventually implement
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures under this proposal,
fall into one of the categories described above. This includes aircraft
where fatigue related evaluations and assurances were made at the time
when the airplane was designed and built. Those assurances were never
intended to be valid after the airplane exceeded the maximum number of
flight hours assumed by the designer. More than 29 percent of the
airplanes under this proposal are already 20 years old or older; 14
percent are over 30 years old; and 7 percent of the airplanes are over
40 years old. Under existing regulations, the continuing airworthiness
of these airplanes cannot be assured, and that constitutes an
unacceptable risk to air transportation.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in air transportation: (1)
By applying modern damage-tolerance analysis and inspection techniques
to older airplane structures that were certificated before such
techniques were available, and (2) through mandatory aging-aircraft
records reviews and inspections to be performed by the FAA.
This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. In October of 1991, Congress enacted
Title IV of Public Law 102-143, the ``Aging Aircraft Safety Act of
1991,'' to address aging aircraft concerns. The act was subsequently
recodified as 49 U.S.C. 44717.
Section 44717 of Title 49 instructs the Administrator to
``prescribe regulations
[[Page 16312]]
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 purpose of these inspections would be
to ``enable the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe
condition and maintained properly for operation in air
transportation.'' The law specifies that these inspections and reviews
must be carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance check
conducted ``after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in
service.'' It also states that the 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.''
Section 44717 further states that the rule issued by the
Administrator must require an air carrier to 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. It also states that the Administrator must establish
procedures to be followed for carrying out such an inspection.
3. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes or Types of Small Entities That 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 proposal would require that certain records be made
available by the operator. Most of the records that would be required
under this proposal are currently required by other regulations. The
proposed rule would constitute a minor additional recordkeeping burden
for part 135 operators, many of which are small. Airframe flight cycles
are not currently required to be collected by operators of small
aircraft under part 135. This proposal would require operators to
record and maintain flight cycle information on their aircraft. This
information is necessary to allow the FAA and the operator to
accurately assess the fatigue condition of the airplane.
Under part 135, a total of 209 airplanes would be affected. The FAA
estimates that the reporting and recordkeeping requirements would take
someone with basic clerk skills 30 minutes per airplane, per month, at
a cost rate of $20.00 per hour. These factors translate into an annual
recordkeeping cost of $120 per airplane. The projected total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden for all part 135 operators would be
$25,080.
4. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rule
The FAA is unaware of any federal rules that would duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
5. A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
The proposed rule would apply to the operators of all airplanes
operated under 14 CFR part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine
airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129, and all multiengine airplanes
used in scheduled operations under 14 CFR part 135. Standard industrial
classification coding does not precisely coincide with the subsets of
operators who could be affected by the proposed rule. Nevertheless, the
following distributions of employment size and estimated receipts for
all scheduled air transportation firms (SIC Code 4512) are
representative of the operators who would be affected by the proposed
rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Employment category Number receipts
of firms ($1,000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4........................................... 153 $193,166
5-9........................................... 57 145,131
10-19......................................... 56 198,105
20-99......................................... 107 1,347,711
100-499....................................... 74 3,137,624
500+.......................................... 73 112,163,942
-------------------------
Totals.................................... 520 117,185,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on existing operator/airplane distributions, the FAA
estimates that the proposed rule could eventually affect 226 operators
of the subject airplanes. The agency has also estimated the numbers of
subject airplanes that each operator uses and has categorized the
operators by fleet size. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note that the airplanes included here are only those subject
to the proposed rule. It is possible that these operators may
operate additional airplanes in services not included in the rule;
e.g., on-demand, commuter cargo, or single engine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of
Subject airplanes operated operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10...................................................... 137
11 to 20..................................................... 34
21 to 30..................................................... 16
31 to 40..................................................... 10
41 to 50..................................................... 7
50 Plus...................................................... 22
----------
Total...................................................... 226
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Regulatory Flexibility Cost Analysis
The proposed rule contains two major cost provisions: (1) the
development and implementation of new damage-tolerance based
inspections and procedures, primarily for smaller airplanes, and (2)
the additional FAA physical inspections and records reviews mandated by
Congress to assure the continued airworthiness of all aging airplanes.
The table below summarizes the derivation of the expected annualized
costs per airplane for both provisions based on the categories of
airplanes that would be affected.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This analysis, like the full regulatory evaluation, assigns
all of the costs to develop the damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures to the operators. It is likely that some of these
costs may be borne by the manufacturers of current, major models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table shows that the present value of the estimated cost of the
proposal to develop and implement damage-tolerance based inspections
and procedures is $48.8 million. Applying this value to the 1,190
affected airplanes produces an average present value cost
[[Page 16313]]
per airplane of $41,050. As detailed above in the cost methodology
section of the regulatory evaluation, the actual costs for any
particular airplane may vary from this average cost.
In addition to the total cost per airplane, it is also useful to
consider the annualized equivalent of this cost; that is to say, the
annual future payments that would be necessary to equal the present
value cost of $41,050. Such payments are a function of: (1) The assumed
interest rate, and (2) the time period over which the costs would be
borne. This analysis applies a 7 percent interest rate. As for the time
period, the proposed rule would require that the supplemental
inspection programs be developed between the years 2002 and 2010,
depending on the characteristics of the individual airplane. For
illustration purposes, this analysis assumes that, on average, the
program development costs would be borne over a period of ten years.
Based on these two assumptions, the ten-year annualized cost of program
development and implementation is estimated at $5,845 per airplane.
In addition to the costs to develop the damage-tolerance based
inspection procedures, those airplanes over 15 years old would also be
subject to the costs associated with the proposed requirement for
additional FAA inspections and record reviews. Parallel to the
methodology described above, the operators of these airplanes would
incur an additional present value cost of $3,827 per airplane, and an
annualized cost of $361 per airplane (over the entire 20-year study
period.) 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present
Present value value Annualized
cost Airplanes average Years cost per
cost airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Models That Need Inspec's and
Procedures:
Develop and implement costs.......... $48,849,466 1,190 $41,050 10 $5,844.60
FAA/DAR inspection costs............. 2,170,064 567 3,827 20 361.24
For Models That Have Inspec's and
Procedures:
FAA/DAR inspection costs............. 29,891,367 2,283 13,093 20 1,235.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the costs of additional FAA inspections and records
reviews would also be borne by the operators of those airplanes over 15
years old which already have damage-tolerance based inspections and
procedures. The estimated present value of these costs is $29.9
million, distributed over 2,283 airplanes. These factors produce a
present value estimated cost per airplane of $13,093, and a 20-year
annualized cost of $1,236. The average inspection cost for these
airplanes is significantly higher than for those airplanes that would
need to have damage-tolerance based inspection programs developed
because the airplanes with such programs in place are generally much
larger.
Using the three separate cost-per-airplane factors described above,
a crosstabulation was performed to determine the counts of airplanes
that each existing operator employs by cost impact category; that is to
say: (1) Whether the airplane currently has or would have to have an
inspection program developed, and additionally (2) whether or not the
airplane is over 15 years old. While the analysis cannot predict which
operators will actually be flying which specific airplanes 10 or 15
years into the future, the methodology described here shows the
distributional effects of these costs on the fleet as it is now
composed. If the future fleet contains more airplanes over 15 years
old, higher costs would be incurred.
The unit annualized costs per airplane for each provision were
applied to the dataset of operators and counts of airplanes in each
category. The costs were then accumulated to estimate the average
annualized impact on each operator. The following table summarizes
these computations. Costs are categorized by size of operator, as
defined by the current number of subject airplanes operated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum Average
Number of airplanes operated Count of annualized annualized annualized
operators cost cost cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10................................................. 137 $0 $61,697 $13,149
11 to 20................................................ 34 0 117,550 45,159
21 to 30................................................ 16 0 185,091 76,273
31 to 40................................................ 10 48,924 201,967 160,378
41 to 50................................................ 7 29,223 146.115 74,498
50 plus................................................. 22 0 412,030 149,953
-------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................. 226 0 412,030 44,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each category of operators, the table presents the projected
minimum, maximum, and average annualized cost per operator. Minimum
costs per operator range as low as zero in those cases: (1) where all
of an operator's airplanes are models that already have a damage-
tolerance based inspection program, and (2) where none of the
operator's airplanes is over 14 years old.
As an additional perspective, the annualized equivalent of the
$80,910,897 projected total present value cost to all operators is
$7,637,416 (at 7% over 20 years.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The costs to develop and implement a damage-tolerance-based
program are largely front-loaded. By comparison, the costs of the
additional FAA inspections and records reviews would continue
relatively evenly over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, it is noted that the cost figures above are based on
averages. The actual cost impacts as well as the timing and duration of
those costs could vary significantly across individual operators. As
explained elsewhere in this notice, the FAA recognizes that the
development of damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures may be
technically or economically
[[Page 16314]]
impracticable for some airplane models.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This cost discussion is meant to be responsive to the needs
of small business and to the Small Business Administration.
Currently the FAA is trying to establish standards for ``significant
cost''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Description of Alternatives
The FAA has considered several alternative approaches to this
proposed rulemaking and has attempted to minimize the potential
economic impact of the proposal, especially the impact on the operation
of aircraft most likely to be used by small entities, while meeting the
agency's primary responsibility for aviation safety and its particular
obligation under 49 U.S.C. 44717 to ensure the continuing airworthiness
of aging aircraft. The primary alternatives of the proposal can be
categorized along three broad questions:
Which aircraft and which aircraft operations should be
included in this proposal?
What compliance timetable should be prescribed in meeting
the proposed requirements?
And, how rigorous should the requirements be?
A. Aircraft Included in the Proposal
As proposed, this rule would apply to all airplanes operated under
part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operated under part
129, and all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled operations under
part 135. This proposed rule would not cover helicopters, single engine
airplanes operated under part 135 or part 129, airplanes used in cargo
operations under part 135, or airplanes used in unscheduled (on-demand)
operations under part 135. Section 44717 of Title 49 applies to ``each
aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation.'' As such,
the statute makes no exception for aircraft used by small entity air
carriers to provide air transportation. Because this proposal does not
include all aircraft described in the statute, the FAA is considering
future rulemaking to address the remaining aircraft.
The aircraft and operations omitted from this proposal are not
exclusively operated by small entities, but the FAA recognizes that
they are more likely to be operated by small entities than, for
example, large transport category airplanes in scheduled service. It
should be recognized, however, that the problem addressed by Section
44717, the safety of aging aircraft, does not depend on whether the
entity operating the aircraft is large or small.
B. Compliance Timetable
In general, the proposed rule would require that damage-tolerance
based inspections and procedures be developed and implemented within
four years of the effective date of the rule. The FAA recognizes that
additional compliance time can reduce the burden on small and large
entities, and the agency has made every effort to extend the compliance
period in those cases where it would be reasonable to do so.
Accordingly, compliance under this proposal could be delayed for
airplane models with 9 or fewer passenger seats until the year 2010.
Airplanes that have an FAA defined design life goal would not be
required to have damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures
until they had reached their design life goal, or until the year 2010,
whichever occurs first. Similarly, compliance could be delayed up until
the year 2010 for those models currently required by airworthiness
directive to be maintained under a non damage-tolerance based
inspection program.
C. Rigor of Requirements
As noted in Subsection 1, above, FAA regulations addressing
structural design have evolved over time. Non damage-tolerance based
supplemental inspection programs, based on Advisory Circular 91-60,
have been mandated by airworthiness directives for several existing
models. Those inspections and procedures address known service
experience problems, but they do not anticipate the possibility of
future fatigue cracks that could be predicted through the use of
damage-tolerance based principles. Evidence to date suggests that when
all critical structures are included, damage-tolerance based
inspections and procedures provide the best approach to address
aircraft fatigue. As such, this proposal would require that all of the
airplanes subject to this rule, including those with existing service
based procedures, meet this higher level of assessment and inspection
by the year 2010. Obviously, the non damage-tolerance based program
would induce lower costs but with a concomitant reduction in safety
assurance.
In attempting to strike a permissible balance, it is important to
note that this proposed rule would not mandate the most rigorous level
of inspection procedures and analysis presently available. The FAA has
published a proposed rule for future certifications of transport
category airplanes (part 25) that would require the use of ``initial
flaw'' consideration in the damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of
structure for those airplanes. Under that proposal, the inspection
thresholds for certain critical structure would have to be established
based on crack growth analyses or tests assuming that the structure
contains an initial flaw of the maximum probable size that could exist
as a result of either manufacturing or service induced damage. The FAA
holds that ``initial flaw'' consideration is an appropriate regulatory
requirement for newly certificated transport category airplanes. By
comparison, the existing aging airplanes under this proposed rule would
be better served by addressing ``initial flaw'' procedures in advisory
circular material, thereby maximizing the flexibility of operators to
consider the best equivalent means of compliance for their particular
airplane models.
8. Compliance Assistance
In its efforts to assist small entities and other affected parties
in complying with the proposed rule, the FAA is publishing an advisory
circular, ``Continued Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and
Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Supplemental Inspection
Programs.'' A notice of availability for this circular will be
published concurrently with the proposed rule. This circular will
detail acceptable means of compliance with the proposed rule.
In addition, the FAA has undertaken a research program to develop a
simplified damage-tolerance based methodology, directly applicable to
commuter sized airplanes. The results of this work will be available in
the public domain and could be used by small manufacturers or
designated engineering representatives (DERs) to aid their development
of the inspections needed to comply with the proposed rule. Again,
however, the benefits of a simplified damage-tolerance based
methodology for smaller airplanes would be realized by both small and
large air carriers.
The estimated cost to the government to develop the generic
methodology is $4 million. To date, approximately $2.2 million has been
spent and work is expected to be completed in fiscal year 2000. By
funding the development of a generic damage tolerance methodology
applicable to the entire commuter fleet, the FAA intends to reduce the
costs to small entities and other operators subject to the proposed
rule. It should be noted that the cost estimates in the economic
analysis above reflect the full costs of implementing the proposed rule
and do not account for the possible reductions in costs that could be
afforded by this research.
[[Page 16315]]
Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign
countries and the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The provisions of this proposed rule would not constitute a barrier
to international trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services
to foreign countries and the import of foreign goods and services into
the United States.
International Compatibility
When this proposal becomes a final rule, the FAA intends to
recommend that the ICAO and the JAA consider making similar changes to
their recommended practices and requirements.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment
Based on these estimates, the FAA does not consider the effects of
this proposed rule sufficient to trigger the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or to be a ``major'' rulemaking for the
purposes of the Congressional review requirements under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The FAA requests comments
on its cost estimates with respect to those statutes.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in 14 CFR
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 to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she
considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to all
airplanes under part 121 and many airplanes under part 135, it could,
if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore,
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in
Alaska.
Federalism Implications
The regulations proposed herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
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.
14 CFR Part 183
Aircraft, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183 of
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 119, 121, 129, 135,
and 183) 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. Section 119.3 is amended 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 airplane
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. Section 121.368 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.368 Aging airplane records reviews and inspections.
(a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and
requirements necessary for the certificate holder to 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. The Administrator reviews these
records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide whether an
airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation in
air transportation.
(b) No certificate holder may operate an airplane under this part
after the dates specified herein unless the Administrator has notified
the certificate holder that the Administrator has completed the aging
airplane record reviews and inspections.
(1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective
date of the rule] and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service but not
24 years in service on [the effective date of the rule], no later than
[5 years after the effective date of the rule] and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 5 years.
(c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The certificate holder must make available to the Administrator
each airplane for which a records review and inspection is required
under this section, in a condition for inspection specified by the
Administrator, together with the following records:
(1) Total years in service;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
[[Page 16316]]
(4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that
are 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.
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for those repairs.
(e) Each certificate holder must notify the Administrator at least
60 days before the date on which the airplane and airplane records will
be available for review and inspection.
5. Section 121.370 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.370a Supplemental inspections.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate
holder may operate an airplane under this part after [4 years after the
effective date of the rule] unless the maintenance program for that
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(b) A certificate holder may operate an airplane listed in appendix
M to this part as follows:
(1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal listed in appendix M to this part before [4 years after the
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that
airplane until [4 years after the effective date of the rule]; after
that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the maintenance
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures.
(2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal listed in appendix M to this part on or after [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.
After that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the
maintenance program for that airplane includes the damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures.
(c) A certificate holder may operate an airplane for which an
airworthiness directive requires the maintenance program to include
non-damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspections and procedures
until December 20, 2010; 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.
6. Appendix N to part 121 is added to read as follows:
Appendix N to Part 121--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Design-
Airplane type Number of certificate life goal
seats data sheet (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 30,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201....... 19+2 A56EU 30,000
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
--DHC-6.................... 22+2 A9EA 33,000
Dornier 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 19+2 A16EU 26,400
SN 155 & 191 and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 19+2 A16EU 42,800
and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica (Embraer):
Embraer EMB-110............ 19+2 A21SO 30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
--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 Ltd.:
--SD3-30................... 39+2 A41EU 57,600
--SD3-60................... 39+2 A41EU 28,800
--SD3-Sherpa............... 39+2 A41EU 40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16317]]
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. Section 129.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 129.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
prescribes rules governing the operation within the United States of
each foreign air carrier holding a permit issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Board or the Department of Transportation under 49 U.S.C.
41301 through 41306 (formerly section 402 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1372), as amended), or other appropriate
economic or exemption authority issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board
or the Department of Transportation.
(b) Sections 129.14, 129.16, and 129.20 also apply to U.S.-
registered aircraft operated solely outside the United States in common
carriage by a foreign person or foreign air carrier. For the purpose of
this part, a foreign person is any person, not a citizen of the United
States, who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage
solely outside the United States.
9. Section 129.16 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 129.16 Supplemental inspections for U.S.-registered aircraft.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no foreign air
carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered multiengine
airplane initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats
under this part after [4 years after the effective date of this rule]
unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no foreign air
carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered multiengine
airplane initially type certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats
under this part after December 20, 2010, unless the maintenance program
for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and
procedures.
(c) A foreign air carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-
registered airplane listed in appendix B to this part as follows:
(1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal listed in appendix B to this part before [4 years after the
effective date of the rule], the foreign air carrier or foreign person
may operate that airplane until [4 years after the effective date of
the rule]; after that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the
maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures.
(2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal listed in appendix B to this part on or after [4 years after the
effective date of the rule], the foreign air carrier or foreign person
may operate that airplane until the date the time-in-service of the
airplane reaches the design-life goal or until December 20, 2010,
whichever occurs sooner. After that date, the airplane may not be
operated unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(d) A foreign air carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-
registered airplane for which an airworthiness directive requires the
maintenance program to include non-damage-tolerance-based supplemental
inspections and procedures until December 20, 2010. 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.
10. Section 129.33 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 129.33 Aging airplane records reviews and inspections for U.S.-
registered aircraft.
(a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and
requirements necessary for a foreign air carrier or foreign person to
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. The Administrator
reviews these records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for
operation in air transportation.
(b) After the dates specified herein, no foreign air carrier or
foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered airplane under this part
unless the Administrator has notified the foreign air carrier or
foreign person that the Administrator has completed the aging airplane
record reviews and inspections.
(1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective
date of the rule], and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service, but not
24 years in service, on [the effective date of the rule], no later than
[5 years after the effective date of the rule], and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 5 years.
(c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The foreign air carrier or foreign person must make available
to the Administrator each U.S.-registered airplane for which a records
review and inspection is required under this section, in a condition
for inspection specified by the Administrator, together with the
following records:
(1) Total years in service;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
(4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that
are 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. 121.370 of this
chapter.
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for these repairs.
(e) 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 available for inspection and review.
11. Appendix B to part 129 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 16318]]
Appendix B to Part 129--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Design-
Airplane type Number of certificate life goal
seats data sheet (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 30,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201....... 19+2 A56EU 30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
--Cessna 402 Series (all 8+2 A7CE 12,000
models except 402C).
--Cessna 402C.............. 8+2 A7CE 7,000
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
--DHC-6.................... 22+2 A9EA 33,000
Dornier 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 19+2 A16EU 26,400
SN 155 & 191 and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 19+2 A16EU 42,800
and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica (Embraer):
Embraer EMB-110............ 19+2 A21SO 30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
--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 Co.:
--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 7+2 A8EA 12,000
Cheyenne II.
--PA 31-350 Chieftain and 9+2 A20SO 13,000
(T-1020).
--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 9+2 A8EA 17,400
tip tanks.
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip 9+2 A8EA 13,800
tanks.
Short Brothers Ltd.:
--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
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. Section 135.168 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.168 Supplemental inspections.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate
holder may operate a multiengine airplane initially type certificated
with 10 or more passenger seats in scheduled operations under this part
after [4 years after the effective date of this rule], unless the
inspection program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based
inspections and procedures.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate
holder may operate a multiengine airplane initially type certificated
with nine or fewer passenger seats in scheduled operation under this
part after December 20, 2010, unless the inspection program for that
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
(c) A certificate holder may operate an airplane listed in appendix
F to this part as follows:
(1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal listed in appendix F to this part before [4 years after the
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that
airplane until [4 years after the effective date of the rule]; after
that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the inspection
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures.
(2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life
goal
[[Page 16319]]
listed in appendix F to this part on or after [4 years after the
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that
airplane until the date the time-in-service of the airplane reaches the
design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner.
After that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the inspection
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures.
(d) A certificate holder may operate an airplane for which an
airworthiness directive requires the inspection program to include non-
damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspections and procedures until
December 20, 2010; after that date, the holder may not operate the
airplane unless the inspection program for that airplane includes
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
14. Section 135.422 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.422 Aging airplane records reviews and inspections.
(a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and
requirements necessary for the certificate holder operating a
multiengine airplane in scheduled operations to 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. The Administrator reviews these
records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide whether an
airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation in
air transportation.
(b) After the dates specified herein, no certificate holder may
operate a multiengine airplane under this part in scheduled operation
unless the Administrator has notified the certificate holder that the
Administrator has completed the aging airplane records reviews and
inspections.
(1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective
date of the rule], and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service, but not
24 years in service, on [the effective date of the rule], no later than
[5 years after the effective date of the rule], and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
(3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 5 years.
(c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The certificate holder must make available to the Administrator
each airplane for which a records review and inspection is required
under this section, in a condition for inspection specified by the
Administrator, together with the following records:
(1) Total years in service;
(2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
(3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
(4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this
section;
(5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
(6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that
are 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.
(9) A list of major structural alterations; and
(10) A report of major structural repairs and the current
inspection status for these repairs.
(e) Each certificate holder must notify the Administrator at least
60 days before the date on which the airplane and airplane records will
be available for inspection and review.
15. Appendix G to part 135 is added to read as follows:
Appendix G to Part 135--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Design-
Airplane type Number of certificate life goal
seats data sheet (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 30,000
--BAe Jetstream 3201....... 19+2 A56EU 30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
--Cessna 402 Series (all 8+2 A7CE 12,000
models except 402C).
--Cessna 402C.............. 8+2 A7CE 7,700
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
--DHC-6.................... 22+2 A9EA 33,000
Dornier 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 19+2 A16EU 26,400
SN 155 & 191 and up).
--Dornier 228-212 (SN 155 19+2 A16EU 42,800
and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica (Embraer):
Embraer EMB-110............ 19+2 A21SO 30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
--SA226-TC................. 20+2 A8SW 35,000
[[Page 16320]]
--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 Co.:
--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 7+2 A8EA 12,000
Cheyenne II.
--PA 31-350 Chieftain and 9+2 A20SO 13,000
(T-1020).
--PA 31-325 Navajo CR...... 9+2 A20SO 11,000
--PA 31T2 Cheyenne II XL... 9+2 A20SO 11,400
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) without 9+2 A8EA 17,400
tip tanks.
--PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip 9+2 A8EA 13,800
tanks.
Short Brothers Ltd.: .............
--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
16. 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.
17. Section 183.33 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 183.33 Designated Airworthiness Representative
* * * * *
(a) Perform examination, inspection, and testing services necessary
to the issuance of, and to determine the continuing effectiveness of
certificates, including issuing certificates, as authorized by the
Director, Flight Standards Service, in the area of maintenance, or as
authorized by the Director, Aircraft Certification Service, in the
areas of manufacturing and engineering.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 1999.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-7443 Filed 4-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P