Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule and Notices

effective manner. However, an operator who uses segmented maintenance programs may still be required under the rule adopted here to open and make available for inspection additional areas of the airplane to fulfill the requirements of the AASA. As explained in this preamble, we believe that opening additional areas may be necessary to ensure adequate inspections. However, we are sensitive to the additional cost that operators may incur when opening the aircraft more than originally planned. Therefore, commenters are invited to revisit this issue. If an inspection regime can be developed that would provide an equivalent level of safety by limiting the amount of the aircraft opened at any one time, the FAA will consider revising the rule. The FAA appreciates the significant contributions industry and the public has played in developing this significant and controversial rulemaking action. The comments have helped considerably to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes. The FAA has summarized in the preamble the comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking along with the FAA’s decision on each comment. Individual comments can be viewed in the docket (FAA–1999–5401) VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72727 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations established for this rulemaking action. We invite you to provide additional comment on the interim final rule. We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. This final rule may be amended in light of comments received. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps: (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation (DOT)’s electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/ search). (2) On the search page, type in the last four digits of the docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ‘‘search.’’ (3) On the next page, which contains the docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the document number for the item you wish to view. You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the FAA’s Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm or the Government Printing Office’s Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ aces/aces140.html. You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/ sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at 9–AWA– SBREFA@faa.gov. Background Statutory Requirements In October 1991, Congress enacted title IV of Public Law 102–143, the ‘‘Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991’’ (AASA), (subsequently codified as section 44717 of title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.)) to address aging aircraft concerns that arose from an accident involving a Boeing 737 in April 1988. That airplane experienced explosive decompression as a result of structural failure, after being subjected to a high number of pressurization cycles. Section 402 of the AASA instructed the Administrator to ‘‘initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of issuing a rule to assure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.’’ Section 402 also required ‘‘the Administrator to make such inspections and conduct such reviews of maintenance and other records of each aircraft used by an air carrier to provide air transportation as may be necessary to determine that such is in a safe condition and is properly maintained for operation in air transportation.’’ The AASA specified that these inspections and records reviews should be carried out ‘‘as part of each heavy maintenance check (HMC) of the aircraft conducted on or after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in service.’’ The statute also specified that an air carrier must be able to demonstrate as part of the inspection ‘‘that maintenance of the aircraft’s structure, skin, and other age-sensitive parts and components have been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.’’ The AASA further instructed the Administrator to issue a rule requiring that an air carrier make its aircraft available for inspection as may be necessary to comply with the rule. History The FAA’s efforts to address the safety of older airplanes is known collectively as the ‘‘Aging Airplane Program.’’ That program addresses transport category airplanes, commuter category airplanes, engines, maintenance, and research. Through the program, the FAA determined that the Airbus A300; Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, and 747; British Aerospace (BAe) BAC 1–11; Fokker F–28; Lockheed L–1011; and McDonnell Douglas DC–8, DC–9/ MD–80, and DC–10 airplanes were approaching design-life goals established by each airplane’s type certificate holder. To permit the continued safe operation of these airplanes the FAA adopted a policy of mandated structural modifications and inspections through a series of airworthiness directives (ADs) that address specific design deficiencies that could lead to airplane structural damage. Type certificate holders also established recommended Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCPs) for a number of aging transport category airplanes. Corrosion can progressively degrade an airplane’s strength until its structure can no longer sustain its designed load. These CPCPs serve as a supplement to existing maintenance requirements. Additionally, the FAA (1) evaluated methodologies to assess airplane structural repairs, (2) revised Supplemental Structural Inspection Documents (SSIDs), and (3) evaluated the revised Structural Maintenance Program General Guidelines Document, for older airplanes. On April 2, 1999, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Aging Airplane Safety’’ (64 FR 16298, notice No. 99–02). The comment period for notice No. 99–02 closed on August 2, 1999; however, the FAA reopened the comment period (64 FR 45090) and that comment period closed on October 18, 1999. The FAA issued this NPRM primarily to expand the use of damage-tolerance-based supplemental structural inspection programs (SSIPs) to a larger proportion of the airplanes used in air transportation and mandate the inspections and records reviews required by the AASA. Related Activity Based on the comments received to that NPRM and the related proposed advisory circulars simultaneously made available for comment, the FAA decided not to publish Advisory Circular (AC) 91–MA, ‘‘Continued Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Damage- Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures. However, draft AC 120–XX ‘‘Aging Airplanes Records Reviews and Inspections,’’ now retitled ‘‘Aging Airplane Inspections and Records Reviews’’ and revised to reflect the final rule, is being made available for additional comment. This revised draft AC will provide guidance pertaining to aging airplane inspections and records reviews to be accomplished to satisfy the requirements of the final rule ‘‘Aging Airplane Safety’’. The FAA has issued concurrently with this final rule a notice of availability for draft AC 120– XX seeking substantive comments. Additionally, the FAA considers that draft AC 91–56B, ‘‘Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes,’’ and draft AC 91–60A, ‘‘The Continued Airworthiness of Older Airplanes,’’ are appropriate to the requirements of this final rule. The FAA therefore also has issued concurrently with this final rule notices of availability for proposed AC 91–56B and AC 91–60A. The public will be VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72728 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations afforded the opportunity to comment on the revisions contained in these proposed ACs. The FAA revised AC 91–56A, ‘‘Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,’’ to AC 91–56B, ‘‘Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Airplanes.’’ This revised AC will provide guidance for operators of the airplanes affected by this final rule on how to incorporate an FAA-approved Aging Aircraft Program into their FAA- approved maintenance or inspection program. Traditionally, AC 91–56 and AC 91– 56A have provided guidance to operators of large transport category airplanes on how to develop a damage- tolerance-based SSIP, which was contained in appendix 1 to the AC. The FAA determined that the guidance provided in appendix 1 to AC 91–56A is applicable to small transport category airplanes as well as to large transport category airplanes. AC 91–56B Advisory Circular 91–56 and AC 91– 56A only considered the effects of repairs and modifications approved by the type certificate holder, and the effects of repairs and modifications performed by operators on individual airplanes. Appendix 1 to AC 91–56B has been expanded to take into consideration the effect of all major repairs, major alterations, and modifications approved by the type certificate holder. In addition, proposed appendix 1 to AC 91–56B includes an expanded discussion on repairs, alterations, and modifications to take into consideration all major repairs and operator-approved alterations and modifications on individual airplanes. AC 91–56B also gives a brief description of the current Mandatory Modifications Program, CPCP, and Repair Assessment Program. The AC also states that the ‘‘Evaluation for Widespread Fatigue Damage’’ will be the subject of a future rulemaking activity. AC 91–60A Like AC 91–56A, AC 91–60 provides guidance for operators of the airplanes affected by this final rule on how to develop a service-history-based maintenance or inspection program. AC 91–60 has been updated in AC 91–60A to reflect current maintenance and inspection practices and to be consistent with the acceptable methods of compliance for this final rule. Other Guidance The FAA also will develop additional guidance and training material for FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs), and representatives of the Administrator authorized to conduct the inspections and records reviews specified in this rule prior to the conduct of those inspections and reviews. Significant Changes Based on the comments received the FAA made several significant changes to the proposed rule language in notice No. 99–02. The revised rule language is part of this final rule. The FAA extended the repeat inspection and records review interval from 5 years to 7 years to allow operators to align inspection and records review intervals more closely with scheduled HMC intervals. Also, while notice No. 99–02 specified that inspections should be established for affected airplanes using damage tolerance techniques, this final rule adds an exception for multiengine airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats and operated under part 129 and part 135 scheduled operations. The requirement to keep flight cycles has been removed. Those airplanes can have a service-history- based SSIP instead of a damage- tolerance-based SSIP. In addition, the FAA extended the 3- year requirement for initial inspections on airplanes over 24 years old to 4 years. This will provide the FAA with additional time to develop guidance and training material for designees and FAA inspectors. Finally, the FAA has decided not to apply this final rule to airplanes operated by a certificate holder between any point within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska. Discussion of Comments A total of 63 commenters submitted 247 comments to Docket No. FAA– 1999–5401. Commenters generally opposed the proposal; they submitted 131 comments against the proposed rule and 16 comments in support of the changes. In addition, 100 comments either included supplementary information or did not clearly argue for or against the proposed rule. A discussion of comments submitted, organized by issue, follows. Statutory Requirements Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. requires the following actions: • The Administrator must ‘‘prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.’’ • The Administrator must ‘‘make inspections, and review the maintenance and other records, of each aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation.’’ These inspections and reviews ‘‘shall be carried out as part of each HMC of the aircraft conducted after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in service.’’ • Each air carrier must ‘‘demonstrate to the Administrator, as part of the inspection, that maintenance of the aircraft’s age-sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.’’ • Each air carrier must make its aircraft, as well as any records about the aircraft that the Administrator may require to carry out the review, available for inspection as necessary to comply with the rule issued by the Administrator. • The regulations must establish procedures to be followed for carrying out such an inspection. Applicable Airplane Types Comments: Some commenters indicate the NPRM addresses more airplane types than the AASA intended to address. Because the AASA specifies inspections and reviews must be carried out as part of each HMC of an airplane and light airplanes do not undergo HMCs, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) asserts the AASA was not intended to address light airplanes. The NATA further contends the proposal disregards the unique inspection programs of light airplanes, and claims the FAA has not found deficiencies in those programs. Also according to the NATA, the FAA has not proven through inspections, maintenance reviews, or research that light airplanes are unsafe. Accordingly, the NATA states that the FAA is not justified in requiring small businesses that operate light airplanes to invest large sums of money in developing and implementing an inspection program intended for larger airplanes. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) agrees with the NATA’s position. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA does not specifically address types of aircraft. It applies to ‘‘each aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation.’’ This includes all air carriers, including smaller operators who conduct commuter operations, regardless of the size of the airplane. However, in response to commenters’ concerns, the FAA is revising the provisions of the rule pertaining to the imposition of requirements for supplemental inspection programs. The VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72729 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations final rule permits relief from the requirement for all affected airplanes to have damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their aircraft maintenance and inspection programs. All multiengine airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats may have service- history-based SSIPs instead of damage- tolerance-based inspections and procedures. These regulations will be implemented in 2010. Service-history- based SSIPs are estimated to cost significantly less than damage- tolerance-based SSIPs to develop and implement. In addition, airplanes operating between any point within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska are exempt from the requirements of this final rule. U.S. Military Airplanes Comments: Many commenters question which types of airplanes or operations would be affected by the proposal. One commenter asks whether the proposal would apply to U.S. Air Force commercial derivative airplanes (that is, Boeing 737 airplanes operated by the U.S. Air Force). The commenter notes the Air Force requires Boeing to comply with FAA directives and rules on those derivative airplanes. Another commenter asks whether the proposal would apply to Boeing 757 executive airplanes (military C–32 program). FAA Response: This final rule only applies to specified airplanes operating under parts 121, 129, and 135. Aircraft that are not U.S.-registered and operated by the U.S. military are not required to comply with the provisions of this rule. However, any U.S.-registered aircraft operating under part 121, 129, or 135 is subject to the requirements of the rule, regardless of the status of its operator. Imported Older Airplanes Comments: One commenter questions how the proposal would affect requirements for imported airplanes older than 14 years. The commenter notes 44 countries have safety standards for imported airplanes and the United States is not among those countries. According to the commenter, the 100- hour inspection (appendix D to 14 CFR part 43) is the closest the United States comes to having such a requirement, but most DARs and many FAA regions ignore this requirement. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The proposal was intended to bring airplanes under the Aging Airplane Program after the effective date of the rule. Therefore, with respect to the requirements of this rule, an imported airplane brought into operation under part 121, 129, or 135 will not differ from an airplane used domestically under 14 CFR part 91 and brought into operation under parts 121, 129, or 135; each airplane will have to be brought under the appropriate maintenance or inspection program and undergo the applicable aging airplane inspections and records reviews prior to being operated under those parts. Additionally, any airplane, domestic or imported, that does not have a supplemental inspection program that meets the requirements of this rule will not be eligible for air carrier operations after the dates specified in this rule. Applicable Operations Comments: The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) opposes the proposal and states it should be withdrawn. According to the AACA, the NPRM could lead to the end of scheduled turbopropeller commuter airline growth in Alaska and force a return to the use of out-of-production, piston-powered, single-engine airplane operations in rural Alaska. The AACA contends this proposal would force air carriers that have reached the financial and operational thresholds of using larger, turbine-powered equipment to pay a ‘‘compliance penalty’’ to operate that equipment. Additionally, the AACA contends many of Alaska’s rural communities would experience decreased air service and increased costs of living, and be forced to accept travel in smaller airplanes known to have six times more accidents than twin-engine airplanes used currently. The AACA notes the FAA has implemented numerous significant regulatory changes during the past 15 years (for example, the ‘‘Commuter Rule’’), but the aviation safety record in Alaska has not changed significantly, despite the high costs. According to the AACA, some additional safety measures are necessary. However, the AACA states measures in Alaska should include (1) restoring the previous high levels of service from Flight Service Stations; (2) improving aviation weather reporting, forecasting, information distribution, and air-to-ground communications facilities; and (3) developing additional navigational aids and approach procedures to allow instrument flight rules flight and airport runway, ramp, and apron improvements. As an alternative to the proposal, the AACA states it would develop an FAA- approved program to accommodate the additional safety intent of the rule, addressing safety as well as the operational limitations unique to Alaska. The program would provide guidance, through development of a customized and comprehensive training program for regularly scheduled maintenance and inspection procedures. To ensure compliance with this initiative, the program would include an independent audit element and be made available to all members of the AACA, as a function of the AACA Safety and Resource Center. The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) noted that ‘‘this NPRM, over the next ten years has the potential to effectively economically shut down multiple aircraft operators in Alaska.’’ The ADOT&PF further stated that the number of aircraft impacted is nearly 100 percent of the twin-engine aircraft fleet servicing Alaska aviation needs. These comments were echoed by a number of Alaska operators that stated that implementation of the NPRM would result in the ‘‘termination’’ of their operations and that ‘‘the nature of the rural transportation infrastructure in Alaska requires relief from these requirements.’’ According to the NATA, the proposal would substantially affect interstate commerce in many areas, including Nevada, Arizona, New England, and the southeastern United States. Also, the NATA asserts this proposal may cripple the majority of the State of Alaska’s transportation network. FAA Response: The FAA has received numerous comments noting the possible effect of the proposal on intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA notes however that the proposal would not apply to aircraft operated by a certificate holder in on-demand or cargo-only operations conducted under part 135. This exclusion remains in the final rule. The FAA also recognizes that the AASA does not specifically mandate the supplemental inspections proposed in notice 99–02 and set forth in this rule. However, the FAA clearly is within its authority to require such inspection programs under its broad mandate to promote safety as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44701. The FAA also notes that Congress, both in the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–264) and in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106–181), required the Administrator ‘‘in amending title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska * * * to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and * * * establish such regulatory distinctions the Administrator considers appropriate.’’ VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72730 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Section 40113 of 49 U.S.C. was amended to effectuate this provision. In view of the clear Congressional mandate for the FAA to consider the unique role of aviation in providing transportation within the State of Alaska and the possible loss of critical air services to rural communities within the State, the FAA has revised the proposal. The final rule will not apply to aircraft operated by certificate holders between any point within the State of Alaska and any other point within the State of Alaska. Regulatory Activity Since 1991 and Recordkeeping Comments: One commenter states that the proposal seems to disregard all regulatory activity since 1991 that addresses aging airplanes, as well as existing recordkeeping requirements to show compliance with such aging airplane activity. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA has taken into account relevant regulatory activity since 1991 in the development of this rule, such as CPCPs, structural modification programs, the repair assessment rule, and SSIPs. In spite of these regulatory activities, we continue to believe the additional inspections and records reviews are warranted to ensure age- sensitive parts and components are maintained. Inspections and Records Reviews Comments: Some commenters state the proposal does not meet the intent of the AASA. According to the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), FAA requirements exceed AASA requirements in the proposal by requiring an unsegmented simultaneous review of each affected airplane and its records. The ATA also notes the AASA does not require the FAA to establish how often airplane inspections and records reviews must be conducted. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) agrees with the ATA and further asserts that the AASA is not intended to disrupt an air carrier’s maintenance program, but the FAA proposal certainly would force air carriers to change their programs at considerable cost. FAA Response: To minimize cost, operators who have segmented maintenance programs, progressive inspection programs, or approved aircraft inspection programs (AAIPs) should work with their principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or DAR to agree on which inspection examines the largest portion of the airplane. The operator can make the airplane available to the FAA during that inspection to ensure the inspection and records review required by this rule is complied with in a comprehensive, efficient, and cost effective manner. However, the operator using a segmented maintenance program, progressive inspection program, or AAIP must recognize that the PMI or DAR conducting the inspection may require additional areas of the airplane to be open and available for inspection at the discretion of the FAA. As mentioned previously, the FAA has changed the inspection and records review interval from 5 years to 7 years to allow operators to align their aircraft inspection and records review intervals more closely with scheduled HMC intervals. Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspection Techniques Comments: The General Aviation Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA) contends that the AASA does not direct the FAA to specify damage tolerance analysis and inspection techniques as the only acceptable method for ensuring the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structural designs certificated before such techniques were available. The GAMA states there are other methods that have been developed in conjunction with the FAA and industry that are based on structural fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and field experience correlation, where applicable. FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the AASA does not specifically require the FAA to mandate the use of damage- tolerance-based inspection techniques. However, 49 U.S.C. 44717 states that the Administrator ‘‘shall prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft’’ and that the Administrator shall make the necessary inspections ‘‘that the Administrator decides may be necessary to enable the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition.’’ The FAA recognizes that there was a collaborative effort based on the use of structural fatigue analysis, fatigue tests, and field experience correlation to develop appropriate inspections and procedures to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft. The FAA, however, has determined that except for those multiengine airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats operated under part 129 or used in scheduled operations under part 135, these inspections and procedures should be established using damage-tolerance-based techniques. Those multiengine airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats can use inspection programs that include service-history- based inspections and procedures instead of damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures. Requirements Beyond the Scope of the AASA Comments: The ATA states the proposal goes beyond inspections and records reviews by supplementing airplane type design and requiring that airplanes meet certification requirements developed quite recently. According to the ATA, if necessary, the proposal should be framed as an AD, and ‘‘manufacturers’’ should be required to adapt their maintenance programs. According to the ATA, ‘‘manufacturers’’ are in a better position than operators to have the design data and service history required to modify their programs. FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the rule, in certain aspects, exceeds the AASA’s mandate to conduct inspections and records reviews. The AASA requires an initial inspection as part of each HMC of the aircraft conducted after the beginning of an airplane’s 14th year in service, and thereafter at each HMC. It does not establish specific inspection intervals based on calendar time nor does it mandate the requirement for an operator to include specific supplemental inspection procedures in an aircraft’s maintenance program. Yet, as stated in the preamble to the NPRM and in keeping with the AASA’s mandate to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft, the FAA considered options for setting repeat inspection intervals. The FAA reviewed the variables used in establishing the parameters used by operators to carry out scheduled maintenance requirements such as flight hours, calendar time, or a combination of both. The FAA also considered the phasing and segmenting of HMCs and found that the intervals varied from 1 to 27 years. Therefore, the FAA chose to establish a fixed repeat inspection interval. The FAA realizes that the repeat inspections established in this final rule may not be consistent with current operator maintenance schedules. However, the FAA notes that the ATA itself, in memorandum 96–AE–014, dated March 11, 1996, recommended that ‘‘a ‘C’ check compliance period (18 months) or ‘D’ check period (5 years) be adopted for all rules unless it can be shown that a shorter time interval is required for safety reasons.’’ The FAA, in keeping with the AASA’s mandate, established a repeat inspection interval as part of this final rule. The FAA does not agree that ADs should be used to implement the new requirements. The FAA is not issuing VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72731 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations this rule to address an unsafe condition. This rule is to ensure the continuing structural airworthiness of air carrier aircraft as they continue in service. Also, this rule will allow operators the flexibility to adjust their maintenance or inspection program based on service history and design review. Furthermore, applying the AASA requirements to all airplanes, regardless of operation, would go significantly beyond the mandate of the act, which requires the Administrator to issue a rule requiring an inspection and records review of each aircraft used in air transportation for compliance with aging aircraft requirements. Using operational rules (parts 121, 129, and 135) to mandate inspections, supplemental inspections, and records reviews is compatible with what the FAA has done with other maintenance and inspection programs, such as those specified in the final rule entitled, ‘‘Repair Assessments for Pressurized Fuselages,’’ which was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24108). It also corresponds more closely to the intent Congress specified in the applicability of the AASA. Inspections Summary of Proposal/Issue: The purpose of the proposal was to verify that each operator can demonstrate it has accomplished all required maintenance tasks, including the damage-tolerance-based SSIPs proposed in the NPRM. The AASA specifies that the inspections and records reviews be carried out as part of each airplane’s HMC after the 14th year in service. The NPRM divides airplanes into three categories for these inspections to ensure the oldest airplanes are inspected first. The NPRM also proposes that all aging airplane inspections and records reviews be repeated at specified intervals. However, the proposal includes a provision for extending the thresholds and intervals to accommodate unforeseen scheduling conflicts. The NPRM also requires operators to notify the FAA within a specific time period before an airplane is available for an inspection and records review. Existing Maintenance Programs Make the Rule Redundant Comments: Most commenters believe the requirement to accomplish inspections and records reviews is redundant. One operator asserts ‘‘every air carrier’’ already has a continuous airworthiness program and an FAA- approved maintenance program, which include corrosion prevention, corrosion control, and damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. Also, that operator believes ‘‘every’’ carrier also must have a Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) and must analyze structural defects for their approved maintenance reliability programs for principal structural elements. The commenter notes the regulation and oversight of maintenance programs is a daily FAA requirement. The ATA notes FAA Certificate Management Offices are responsible for overseeing an air carrier’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) and CASS and ensuring an air carrier’s airplanes are operated and maintained according to FAA regulations and the air carrier’s operations specifications. The ATA notes these responsibilities do not begin only after an airplane has been in service for 14 years. Furthermore, the RAA emphasizes that the FAA has complete authority to determine whether an operator has deficiencies in its maintenance program. One commenter states that the FAA should revise the proposal to compensate for existing maintenance programs that address aging airplane concerns. For example, the 14-year in- service threshold should be increased to 20 years to coincide with the Aging System Task Force definition, which established ‘‘20 years since an airplane’s certification’’ as the nominal age threshold. Another commenter states that the FAA should provide special consideration for low-utilization airplanes that may have more than 14 years of total service. A third commenter states the proposed inspections should be associated with the renewal or continued effectiveness of ‘‘an airline’s standard airworthiness certificate’’ and should include all phases of continued airworthiness in addition to aging airplane considerations. However, that commenter questions the reason for a 14-year time period. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), however, supports proposed inspections for airplanes after 14 years in service. FAA Response: The requirements to accomplish inspections and records reviews stem directly from the AASA, which states, in part, that the FAA shall prescribe regulations that ‘‘at a minimum, require the Administrator to make such inspections, and conduct such reviews of maintenance and other records, of each aircraft used by an air carrier to provide air transportation as may be necessary to enable the Administrator to determine that such aircraft is in safe condition and properly maintained for operation in air transportation.’’ In addition, the AASA specifies that inspections and records reviews ‘‘shall be carried out as part of each heavy maintenance check of the aircraft conducted after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in service.’’ Differences Between Current and New Inspections and Records Reviews Comments: Several commenters are uncertain how the proposed inspections and records reviews would differ from those currently conducted by ASIs. The ATA notes that § 121.153(a) currently requires airplanes to be maintained in an airworthy condition, which would include compliance with any mandated aging airplane requirements. Also, some commenters contend this proposal represents a shift of responsibility from air carriers to the FAA in ensuring airplane airworthiness. These commenters state they are uncertain why the FAA desires such a shift. Another commenter recommends that the FAA allow an air carrier’s quality assurance department to conduct the proposed inspections and records reviews when an FAA representative is unavailable. ALPA supports the proposal, which would permit certain representatives of the Administrator to conduct inspections. FAA Response: Section 44717(b)(2) 49 U.S.C. states that the aging aircraft inspections ‘‘shall be carried out as provided under [49 U.S.C.] § 44701(a)(2)(B) and (C) * * *’’ (emphasis added). Section 44701(a) reads as follows: (a) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing * * * (2) Regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for * * * (B) Equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling (of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances); and (C) A qualified private person, instead of an officer or employee of the Administrator, to examine and report on the inspecting, servicing and overhauling. Section 44717(b)(2) was added in 1994 as part of the recodification of the FAA’s enabling legislation. The AASA and the recodified § 44717(a)(1) require the Administrator to make the aging airplane inspections. The rules prescribed by the Administrator under § 44701(a)(2)(B) establish regulations and minimum standards for many different activities by nongovernment persons, including air carrier maintenance organizations and repair stations. Section 44701(a)(2)(C) requires the VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72732 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Administrator to establish regulations and minimum standards for qualified private persons who examine and report on inspecting, servicing, and overhauling. It does not address the delegation of authority to act on behalf of the Administrator nor does it describe persons who act on behalf of the Administrator. A certificate holder and its employees are not employees of the Administrator, nor are they necessarily representatives of the Administrator in accordance with § 44702(d). Congress clearly intended that the Administrator would determine ‘‘whether an aircraft is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation in air transportation.’’ This is evident in § 44717(a)(1), which requires the Administrator to perform the inspections and records reviews. It also is consistent with the legislative history of the AASA. The FAA notes, however, the AASA was never intended to relieve the operator from the responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft as described in current § 121.363, § 129.14 (ICAO Annex 6, chapter 8), or § 135.413. there is no language in § 44717 that implies that operators are to be relieved of compliance with regulations issued under § 44701. Furthermore, the FAA notes that the text of the AASA, and the recodification thereof, instructs the Administrator to establish a program to provide FAA inspectors and engineers with the necessary training to conduct auditing inspections of airplanes operated by air carriers for corrosion and metal fatigue (see § 44717(c)(2)(A)). If it had been the intent of Congress to have private persons make those inspections instead of FAA employees (or perhaps designees), that text would have been changed. The above interpretation is also consistent with the general position that the recodification of the FAA’s enabling act was not intended to change the substantive law. Given the extensiveness of the scope and quantity of airplane inspections required by § 44717(a)(1), the Administrator could still elect to use ‘‘a qualified private person’’ to conduct those inspections and records reviews under a delegation of authority. Hence, the FAA intends to use DARs to help in conducting the inspections and records reviews required by § 44717(a)(1). Such action is consistent with the act and gives meaning to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44717(b)(2) in its context. This interpretation also gives meaning to ‘‘qualified private person’’ in the context of implementing the Aging Airplane Program. Incompatibilities Between Current Practices and the Proposal Comments: One commenter emphasizes that current regulations do not allow a used airplane to be placed on an operator’s certificate until its records have been reviewed by the Administrator. Another commenter notes a complete records review is not possible for some airplanes because the history of those airplanes has not been maintained. Yet another commenter asserts compliance with current FAA- scheduled maintenance program requirements along with FAA verification of records accuracy on a routine interval is a more logical approach than that presented in the proposal. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 44717, 49 U.S.C. states that the FAA— shall prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft and that the Administrator shall make the inspections, and review the maintenance and other records of each aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation that the Administrator decides may be necessary to enable the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition. The statute further specifies that these regulations shall— require an air carrier to demonstrate to the Administrator, as part of the inspection, that maintenance of the airplane’s age-sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety. The alternate courses of action described by commenters, including existing practices, do not relieve the FAA of its obligations under the statute. Burdens of Proposed Inspection Intervals Comments: Many commenters assert the proposal is burdensome to operators and the FAA. The ATA states the proposal for inspections at 5-year intervals is contrary to the intent of the AASA and would require air carriers to redefine their maintenance programs to match the 5-year intervals. According to the ATA, the FAA may be exceeding its mandate if this requirement is implemented. Several commenters support the ATA’s position stating that the FAA should revise the proposal so inspection intervals align with operator maintenance programs. One commenter asserts the first inspection after the rule becomes effective should be required 5 years from the rule’s effective date or during the next HMC, whichever is later, regardless of the age of the airplane. The ATA asserts that the inspection interval requirement would subject carriers to disruptions if the FAA fails to provide the air carrier with timely notice that the aging airplane inspections and records reviews have been completed. The proposal states that the FAA may take an airplane out of service before analyzing the results of an aging airplane inspection and records review. FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the AASA does not establish specific repeat inspection intervals based on calendar time. However, because of the wide variances in HMC intervals and maintenance programs, the FAA chose to establish a fixed repeat interval. The FAA notes that HMC intervals vary greatly among operators. Operators have segmented maintenance programs, progressive inspection programs, or approved aircraft inspection programs that do not easily lend themselves to the use of HMC intervals for the conduct of the mandated inspections and records reviews. Even though the AASA requires an initial inspection as part of each HMC after the beginning of an airplane’s 14th year in service, and thereafter at each HMC, the FAA believes that an inspection interval based on calendar time is consistent with the AASA. A fixed repeat interval is consistent with the intent of the AASA that requires the Administrator to ‘‘assure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.’’ The repeat intervals established in the rule will allow the Administrator to ensure that ‘‘each aircraft used by an air carrier to provide air transportation is in a safe condition and properly maintained for operation in air transportation.’’ As previously noted, the ATA recommended, in memorandum 96–AE– 014, dated March 11, 1996, that ‘‘a ‘C’ check compliance period (18 months) or ‘D’ check period (5 years) be adopted for all rules unless it can be shown that a shorter time interval is required for safety reasons.’’ The FAA, in keeping with the AASA’s mandate, established a repeat inspection interval as part of this final rule that is consistent with this recommendation. The FAA realizes that the repeat inspection intervals established in this final rule may not be consistent with current operator maintenance schedules. Therefore, based on the comments received, the FAA has changed the proposed 5-year repeat interval to a 7-year interval to be more compatible with air carriers’ HMCs. In addition, the FAA extended the 3- year requirement for initial inspections on airplanes over 24 years old to 4 years to provide the FAA with additional time to develop guidance and training VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72733 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations material for designees and FAA inspectors. Ninety-Day Reporting Requirement Comments: The ATA believes the FAA should modify the proposal to allow 90 days for an operator to provide a report to the Administrator on findings and conclusions related to aging airplane effects from an HMC and the maintenance activities in the interval since that HMC. Additionally, the ATA recommends the FAA provide a similar 90-day timeframe during which the FAA would be required to provide an operator with written acknowledgment of such a report and a determination of the FAA’s acceptability. One ATA member suggests that an operator submit a summary report, for like airplanes in the air carrier’s fleet, of findings and conclusions related to aging airplane effects from the HMC and the maintenance activities in the interval since that HMC within 60 days of each 90-day period. According to this ATA member, quarterly summary reports can depict trends more easily than individual airplane check reports. FAA Response: The FAA agrees that submission of a 90-day inspection and records review report would be a beneficial practice. This should be agreed to between each operator and its PMI. However, because this would add a burden to operators and was not required by the AASA, such a report will not be added to the final rule but will be an acceptable option to assist operators in demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this rule. Accomplishment of Records Reviews and Inspections Comments: One commenter asserts the proposal could result in enormous costs to operators if ASIs or DARs fail to make inspections and reviews in a timely manner. Also, the RAA states that the proposal that an air carrier cannot operate its airplanes until inspections and records reviews are completed is excessive. The RAA is particularly concerned about such a case in which the lack of personnel to conduct an inspection and records review causes grounding of an airplane. Other commenters question the FAA’s ability to conduct or train representatives to perform the proposed inspections and reviews. One commenter states that the FAA should consider an alternative to the inspections and records reviews that would have an ASI or DAR at an air carrier’s facility each night a carrier conducts a scheduled segmented inspection. FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the commenter’s concerns. To ensure rapid implementation of the inspections and records reviews, this final rule includes provisions to allow for DARs to perform those required inspections and reviews. The FAA anticipates that there will be an increased demand for DARs as a result. In the short run, this may create problems with the availability of DARs, given their current supply and the time it takes for an individual to become a DAR. Over time, it will be possible for qualified individuals to become DARs and fill the demand. Additionally, the FAA will not require operators of affected aircraft to immediately comply with the inspections and records reviews after the effective date of the rule. Significant multi-year implementation periods have been provided in the rule to ensure sufficient trained personnel will be available to accomplish the inspections and reviews without disruption to certificate holders’ operations. As a result, the industry’s needs will be met and operators will be able to comply with the requirements of the AASA in a timely manner. Also, operators should be aware that while this final rule imposes restrictions on airplanes operating under parts 121, 129, and 135 until the required inspections and records reviews have been accomplished, it does not affect any part 91 operations conducted by part 121, 129, and 135 air carriers, such as training or positioning flights. Regarding the comment on the effects of the rule and the FAA’s workload, the FAA is committed to train a group of inspectors and DARs to perform the inspections and records reviews required by this final rule. The FAA will also monitor the performance of those inspectors and DARs. Each operator should plan each inspection and records review and schedule it with the appropriate ASI or DAR. The ASI/DAR inspection and records review should normally follow the inspection by maintenance personnel. However, if an unforeseen scheduling conflict occurs, the final rule permits a 90-day extension to accomplish the inspection and records review. An unforeseen scheduling conflict may arise, for example, if an operator finds that the hangar space dedicated for the incoming aircraft is not available because of additional work required on the aircraft currently in the hangar. The Administrator may approve an extension of up to 90 days, provided the operator presents to the PMI written justification for the scheduling conflict. Also, the FAA will accept electronic, facsimile, or other forms of notification. The request for an extension should provide the PMI ample opportunity to respond to the operator’s request. Single Airplane Versus Fleets Comments: Several operators note the proposal would require review of airplanes on an individual basis rather than as a fleet. These operators strongly oppose the proposal, indicating the process would be too expensive, time- consuming, and unlikely to increase airplane safety. According to these operators, most audit programs sample the fleet and require additional review only when problems are discovered. One commenter recommends that the FAA implement a fleet sampling program beginning with the oldest airplanes in a fleet type, with inspections every 5 years on a different airplane within that fleet. Another commenter recommends the FAA allow air carriers to complete these remaining airplane inspections and records reviews. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA states that each airplane that has exceeded its 14th year in service should have an inspection and records review to determine the adequacy and timeliness of the maintenance of the aircraft’s age-sensitive parts and components. Therefore, fleet audit programs do not meet the Congressional mandate and are not suitable. The FAA again notes that the proposed 5-year interval has been changed to a 7-year interval to be more compatible with the air carriers’ HMCs. However, with respect to air carriers completing inspections and records reviews, the AASA states specifically that the Administrator must accomplish the required inspections and records reviews. The FAA recognizes that operators will incur additional expenses as a result of this rule. The FAA has therefore worked to minimize the cost. Affected airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats have been allowed to have incorporated into their inspection program service- history-based SSIPs instead of damage- tolerance-based SSIPs. Additionally, provisions that allow for delayed compliance until 2010 of certain airplanes with damage-tolerance-based and service-history-based inspection programs have also been included in the rule. Limiting Inspection Scope Comments: The ATA recommends requiring only that portion of an airplane scheduled for detailed maintenance and repair at an HMC after VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72734 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the 14th year of service be made available along with corresponding records. According to the ATA, this revision of the proposal would allow the air carrier to demonstrate the adequacy and timeliness of its continuous maintenance and surveillance programs and other aging airplane programs without having to examine every part, component, or record of an airplane. FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. As stated in the NPRM— Although it is the FAA’s intent to carry out records reviews and inspections to the extent that the aircraft structure is accessible during the HMC maintenance visit, the FAA may require additional access to determine that the maintenance of the airplane’s age- sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely. The FAA expects the air carrier to identify the most comprehensive HMC within the interval identified in the rule as the time for the conduct of the inspections and records reviews. The intent of the final rule is that aging airplane inspection and records reviews should be concurrent with the HMC maintenance being accomplished on each airplane and the FAA has revised the rule to facilitate this action. Access to Airplane Structure Comments: Many commenters express concern about allowing an ASI or DAR access to areas of inspected airplanes that may not be opened during HMCs to determine whether the airplanes meet the requirements of the NPRM. These commenters question what criteria would be used to determine whether such additional access is required. The ATA contends if additional access is required, it should be negotiated in advance with the air carrier or mandated under existing authority without signaling ASIs or DARs that they should be opening additional areas at all HMCs. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. It is not the FAA’s intent to disrupt operators’ scheduled maintenance in such a way that it would impact their schedules. However, each airplane subject to the final rule cannot be returned to service until the Administrator or a designee has completed its inspection and records review and notifies the operator accordingly. The FAA agrees that it would behoove the operator to schedule these inspections with the ASI or DAR well in advance of scheduled maintenance visits; however, the FAA does not intend to limit its access to those areas inspected under the provisions of the operator’s appropriate maintenance or inspection program. Although it is the FAA’s intent to carry out the inspections and records reviews to the extent that the airplane structure is accessible during the maintenance visit, at the discretion of the ASI or DAR, the FAA may require additional access to confirm that the maintenance of the airplane’s age- sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely as required by the AASA. Acceptable Records Comments: The ATA states that conflicts would undoubtedly arise when an airplane is inspected and the records for that airplane are located elsewhere. The ATA asserts an air carrier should not be required to move the airplane or its records in such cases. Several commenters agree with the ATA’s position. According to the ATA, the FAA should allow for the use of electronic or other copies of records. Also, the ATA states that the FAA should allow for the use of a summary of maintenance actions in place of original airplane records, to focus on aging effects rather than recordkeeping compliance. The Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIAA), opposes the potential need to maintain a duplicate set of records. The AIAA further contends that reliance on automated records is inadequate, even though it may help ensure consistency in format. FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that these are legitimate issues related to airplane records. The FAA recognizes that airplanes subject to this rule are maintained at FAA- approved repair stations throughout the world. It would place an undue burden on the air carrier or operator to provide original maintenance records that are kept at their main base. Therefore, the FAA will accept a status summary of maintenance actions in lieu of original airplane records provided the status summary meets the requirements of the rule. Also, the FAA will accept electronic, facsimile, or other copies of airplane records as long as the information is accurate and complete. These details should be coordinated individually with each ASI or DAR. Sixty-Day Notification Requirement Comments: Several commenters object to the requirement that an air carrier must notify the Administrator 60 days before an airplane and its records are available for review. According to one commenter, although the current proposal increases the advanced notification requirement from 30 days (as set forth in the Aging Airplane Safety NPRM published October 5, 1993 (58 FR 51944)) to 60 days, it does not respond to the original complaints by several commenters that normal surveillance of an operator’s fleet would provide the FAA with ample time to find out the details of a carrier’s heavy maintenance schedule. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. In 1993, the FAA proposed in its Aging Airplane Safety NPRM a 30-day time period to notify the Administrator before an airplane and its records would be available for review. In notice no. 99– 02, the FAA extended this time period to 60 days. The FAA believes that this notification is necessary because notification obtained through normal surveillance of an operator’s fleet may be insufficient to ensure the FAA has sufficient time to schedule its resources and minimize the impact on the air carrier. Ninety-Day Extensions Comments: One ATA member states the proposed 90-day extension provisions should be open-ended to take into account unforeseen scheduling conflicts of an airplane and possible delays resulting from FAA resource constraints. However, the ATA generally supports the extension provision. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees and contends that 90 days is a sufficient time period for an operator to resolve an unforeseen scheduling conflict. Operators must therefore plan to account for this requirement. An unforeseen scheduling conflict may arise, for example, if an operator finds that the hangar space dedicated for the incoming aircraft is not available because of additional work required on the aircraft currently in the hangar. The Administrator may approve an extension of up to 90 days, provided the operator presents to the PMI written justification for the scheduling conflict. Also, the FAA will accept electronic, facsimile, or other forms of notification. The request for an extension should provide the PMI ample opportunity to respond to the operator’s request. The 90-day extension provision is adopted as proposed. Cargo-Modified Airplanes Comments: According to comments, the FAA should create a separate category of inspections for cargo- modified airplanes to require shorter intervals between their baseline inspection programs, unless the FAA takes into account enough precautions during the supplemental type certificate (STC) substantiation process. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The final rule is applicable to those VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72735 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations airplanes modified by cargo conversion STCs. The inspections mandated by the AASA should not be a substitute for routine maintenance. If maintenance is necessary at shorter intervals, the documentation of that maintenance will be a part of the records review. Definitions Comments: Commenters state that the FAA should define the term ‘‘age- sensitive parts.’’ According to the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), other documents, such as AC 25.571–1C, ‘‘Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Structure,’’ and AC 91– MA, ‘‘Continued Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Damage- Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures,’’ and many aging initiatives do not define clearly the affected structural parts and the various sources of deterioration. In addition, commenters suggest that the FAA should define more clearly the difference between a ‘‘minor’’ and a ‘‘major’’ repair or structural alteration, for reporting purposes. FAA Response: The FAA interprets ‘‘age-sensitive parts and components’’ to mean, for the purpose of this rule, those parts and components of the primary structure of an airplane that are susceptible to fatigue or corrosion. Minor and major repairs, and structural alterations, are already defined in 14 CFR. Additional definitions would be beyond the scope of the AASA and are not addressed in this final rule. Recordkeeping Requirements Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA proposes in §§ 121.368(d), 129.33(c), 135.422(d) and 135.422a(d) to require a certificate holder to make certain specific airplane records available to the Administrator for review. These records must contain the following information: • Total years in service of the airplane; • Total flight hours of the airframe; • Total flight cycles of the airframe (not required by § 135.422a(d)); • Date of the last inspection and records review; • Current status of the life-limited parts of the airframe; • Time since the last overhaul of all structural components required to be overhauled on a specific time basis; • Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the airplane is maintained; • Current status (including the method of compliance) of ADs, the CPCP, and other inspections and procedures required; • A list of major structural alternations; and • A report of major structural repairs and the current inspection status of those repairs. Current Recordkeeping Requirements Comments: Commenters note most of this information already is required to be maintained by operators under current regulations. The AIAA states proposed § 121.368(d) duplicates the requirements of current § 121.380. The AIAA further asserts that § 121.380 is more comprehensive than proposed § 121.368(d), particularly regarding ADs. Because most operators of large transport airplanes have developed elaborate maintenance recordkeeping requirements based on § 121.380, the AIAA recommends the FAA revise proposed § 121.368(d) to allow compliance with § 121.380 as an alternative. FAA Response: Airplane records for air carriers operating under part 121 must be maintained under § 121.380. Proposed § 121.368(d) requires retention of certain records that are not part of current § 121.380 or § 121.707, such as airframe flight cycles, total years in service of the airplane, damage- tolerance inspections, and date of last inspection records review. However, there is no restriction on operators using records maintained under current § 121.380 to comply with part of the requirements of § 121.368. Part 129 Recordkeeping Requirements Comments: One commenter states the FAA has never established definitive records and documentation requirements and that part 129 operators use documents developed by ‘‘listings companies’’ and airplane owners. The commenter also notes there is no coordination of guidelines among the various FAA regions, and between ASIs and FAA headquarters. Additionally, the commenter notes most ‘‘offshore’’ operators maintain more complete and detailed records systems than U.S. operators; according to the commenter, a main area of weakness is centered around parts and assemblies that have been overhauled by U.S.-based repair stations, which often fail to deliver proper records with parts. FAA Response: The FAA has established definitive recordkeeping requirements for persons operating aircraft under part 129. As a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United States requires each commercial operator of a U.S.- registered aircraft to maintain that aircraft in accordance with ICAO Annex 6, part I. Current § 129.14 requires each air carrier and foreign person operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage to ensure each aircraft is maintained in accordance with a program approved by the Administrator. The FAA approves maintenance programs under § 129.14 that, at a minimum, comply with ICAO Annex 6, part I. Section 129.33 requires records beyond those required by programs under current § 129.14. Annex 6, part I, Standard 8.8, Records, contains recordkeeping requirements, as follows: (1) 8.8.1. An operator shall ensure that the following records are kept: (a) In respect of the entire aeroplane: the total time in service; (b) In respect of the major components of the aeroplane: (1) The total time in service; (2) The date of the last overhaul; (3) The date of the last inspection; (c) In respect of those instruments and equipment, the serviceability and operating life of which are determined by their time in service; (1) Such records of the time in service as are necessary to determine their serviceability or to compute their operating life; (2) The date of the last inspection. (2) 8.8.1.1. These records shall be kept for a period of 90 days after the end of the operating life of the unit to which they refer. Flight Cycles, Landings, and Total Years in Service Comments: Commenters state that current regulations do not require certificate holders to log flight cycles or landings; therefore, the FAA should specify that tracking this information is a new requirement. Also, the FAA should define ‘‘flight cycle’’ in 14 CFR 1.1 and develop guidelines for establishing a baseline number of airframe flight cycles if an operator has not been maintaining this information. In addition, commenters suggest that the FAA publish guidelines to be used in cases where a true determination of total years of service for an airplane is not possible. FAA Response: Under parts 121 and 129, operators track flight cycles to determine the current status of life- limited parts for each airframe, engine, propeller, and appliance. However, the FAA has revised the part 135 inspection and records review rules for airplanes initially certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats by eliminating the requirement to track total flight cycles on the airframe. The FAA has made this change to the rule because the inspection programs for these aircraft VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72736 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations may include service-history-based SSIPs instead of only damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures. In addition, operators should be able to determine the total number of years in service of an airplane subject to the rule. If the operator cannot determine the total number of years in service of an airplane, the FAA will rely on the date of manufacture of the airplane in question. Designated Airworthiness Representatives Summary of Proposal/Issue: Because of the many airplanes that will have to be inspected over a short period of time and the anticipated growth of the aging fleet, the FAA proposed permitting DARs to accomplish the inspections and records reviews required by the rule. Proposed § 183.33(a) expands the authority of DARs to permit them to make findings necessary to determine the continuing effectiveness of airworthiness certificates by conducting the inspections and records reviews required by §§ 121.368, 129.33, 135.422, and 135.422a. General Comments: Commenters generally oppose this provision. Several commenters, including the RAA, indicate the FAA is exceeding the intent of the AASA by delegating inspection authority and responsibility from the FAA to DARs. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AASA requires the inspections and records reviews to be performed by the Administrator. There is, however, no statutory prohibition on the Administrator delegating the responsibilities specified under the AASA. A DAR is a designee of the FAA and a representative of the Administrator and, therefore, is qualified to accomplish the inspections and records reviews required by this final rule. Qualifications of DARs Comments: Several commenters assert that delegating to DARs the responsibility of performing inspections and records reviews is a mistake, because DARs are not qualified to conduct the proposed inspections and records reviews. One commenter notes familiarity with the section of 14 CFR pertinent to records documentation and states that there has never been a requirement for a ‘‘DAR certificate.’’ In addition, several commenters contend a PMI assigned to an operator or an operator’s own quality control inspectors may be more qualified to conduct the proposed inspections and records reviews than either an ASI or a DAR not familiar with the operator. The RAA asserts requiring an ASI or DAR to conduct the inspections and records reviews is unprecedented and impractical, and would confuse the FAA’s oversight responsibilities with that of an air carrier’s responsibility for the airworthiness of its airplanes. Another commenter states the FAA should specifically and individually test and establish the capabilities of all DARs who are authorized to perform the inspections and reviews as stated in the proposal. Additionally, one commenter recommends that the FAA permit operator designees or Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs), in addition to DARs, to conduct the inspections and records reviews. Finally, one commenter states that under such a system, air carriers should make available to the FAA any and all records and findings necessary for the FAA to evaluate an airplane. FAA Response: While the AASA allows properly qualified persons to act on behalf of the FAA to conduct inspections and records reviews, the FAA acknowledges that many DARs currently may not be properly trained or qualified to conduct the required inspections and records reviews. The FAA will develop a training program and guidance material to enable DARs to properly accomplish the requirements of this rule. For this reason, initial inspections and records reviews are not required to be completed until a number of years after the effective date of the rule. After the FAA develops the training program and guidance material, ASIs and DARs will be trained and qualified to conduct the inspections and records reviews required by this rule. Regarding the commenter’s reference to air carrier quality control inspectors, they are not representatives of the FAA and, therefore, would not be eligible to conduct the required inspections and records reviews under the AASA. However, an operator could facilitate the application of a member of its staff to become a DAR. There is an established procedure on how DARs are appointed, and the FAA does not foresee using a test to make this assessment. The FAA is unsure what the commenter means by the term ‘‘operator designees.’’ However, DARs are the only designees allowed to conduct records reviews. Performing such reviews is not within the scope of a DER’s delegation. In response to the commenter’s assertion that there has never been a requirement for a ‘‘DAR certificate,’’ the FAA notes that a DAR is issued a Certificate of Authority and a Certificate of Designation in accordance with 14 CFR 183.13. Lack of FAA Resources Comments: Many commenters question the FAA’s assumptions about its ability to conduct inspections and records reviews. The ATA states its members are concerned that the ASI force, even augmented by DARs, would be insufficient to support the proposed inspections and reviews. According to ATA members, airlines currently find it difficult to hire qualified aircraft maintenance employees and predict a shortage in the near future of qualified ASIs and DARs. These members believe this situation would result in inexperienced ASIs and DARs conducting the inspections and reviews, and further delays in returning airplanes to service. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA believes that there will be enough ASIs and DARs to accomplish needed inspections and records reviews and has therefore adopted a rule that permits the initial inspections and records reviews to be completed a number of years after the effective date of the rule. As previously stated, the FAA will train a group of inspectors and DARs to perform the inspections and records reviews required by this final rule and subsequently monitor the performance of those inspectors and DARs. Supplemental Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures Summary of Proposal/Issue: Supplemental damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures refer to an ‘‘inspection program that specifies the procedures, thresholds, and repeat intervals that have been developed using damage tolerance principles.’’ Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures are developed by a type certificate holder or operator based on an engineering evaluation of likely sites where damage could occur, considering expected stress levels, material characteristics, and projected crack growth rates. The damage-tolerance- based inspections and procedures specified in the proposal can be developed using one of the following methods: • Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that comply with the damage tolerance provisions for metallic structure listed in 14 CFR 23.573, amendment 23–45, or subsequent amendments; • Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that comply with 14 CFR 25.571, amendment 25–45, or subsequent amendments; VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72737 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations • Advisory Circular (AC) 91–56, ‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,’’ or AC 91–56A, ‘‘Continuing Structural Integrity Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes’’; or • Any other method the Administrator finds complies with the principles of damage tolerance. Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures may be approved through an amended type certificate or STC process for airplanes certificated under a type certificate and associated amendments dated before those that require damage tolerance as part of airplane type design. Damage-tolerance- based inspections and procedures for certain older airplanes also may be approved by a Letter of Approval issued by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or office of the Small Airplane Directorate or Transport Airplane Directorate having cognizance over the type certificate for the affected airplane. Also, for some airplanes, the FAA has approved major structural modifications under an STC. The original type certificate holder may not have sufficient technical data pertinent to these modifications to assist the airplane operator in conducting a damage tolerance assessment of the modification. In these situations, the FAA expects the operator to work with the STC holder to develop damage- tolerance-based inspections and procedures for that modification. If necessary, as an alternative, an operator may conduct its own damage tolerance assessments using competent engineering personnel, inspection findings from the current maintenance program, the airplane’s design database, and model fleet experience. General Comments: One operator asserts the proposal would result in the grounding of approximately 62 percent of the commuter fleet. FAA Response: The commenter has provided no data to substantiate its claim. Alternatives to Damage Tolerance Comments: An Alaskan operator is not opposed to a SSIP that would be implemented in a cost-effective manner through incorporation into the operator’s AAIP and developed by either the FAA or the ‘‘manufacturer.’’ The commenter states the FAA and ‘‘manufacturers’’ have the competent engineering staff and access to the relevant design information, while the operators do not. The RAA notes the FAA fails to reference in the NPRM any technical basis for rejecting the alternative inspection program for smaller airplanes (submitted by the ARAC Small Transport/Commuter Airplane Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (SAAWG)). According to the RAA, damage tolerance analysis may be the most realistic analysis for certain principal structural elements but not necessarily all principal structural elements. FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the significant efforts of the SAAWG to explore alternative inspection programs for small- and commuter-sized aircraft. Based on the comments received, the FAA has changed the regulation to require damage-tolerance-based SSIPs for affected airplanes initially certificated with 10 or more passenger seats and service-history-based SSIPs for airplanes initially certificated with 9 or fewer passenger seats. Acceptable means of compliance for damage- tolerance-based SSIPs are contained in AC 91–56 and AC 91–56A, and acceptable means of compliance for service-history-based SSIPs are contained in AC 91–60. The FAA is requesting comments on draft AC 91– 56B and AC 91–60A. Once these ACs become final, they too will be considered an acceptable means of compliance with this rule. Nonmandated Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs Comments: The RAA states that proposed provisions to allow certain airplanes (with AD-mandated SSIPs) to operate until December 20, 2010, without damage tolerance programs discriminates against regional airplane operators with equivalent structural inspection programs not mandated by SSIP ADs. FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA allows airplanes initially certificated with 9 or fewer passenger seats to have service-history-based SSIPs that will be valid indefinitely. For those airplanes that were initially certificated with 10 or more passenger seats, the FAA expects damage- tolerance-based SSIPs for these aircraft to be completed within 4 years after the effective date of the rule. However, the FAA is delaying implementation of the requirement for damage-tolerance-based inspections with respect to those airplanes with AD-mandated non- damage-tolerance-based SSIPs until December 20, 2010. Potentially Mandated Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs Comments: The RAA notes there may be airplane fleet types that are in the process of qualifying for an approved SSIP AD program but that may not be included in the final rule because the program was not complete at the time of publication of the NPRM. According to the RAA, several regional/commuter original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) report that they have submitted ‘‘SIPs’’ to the FAA as early as 1990, but the FAA has not adopted the ADs to mandate changes to the affected operators’ maintenance programs. The RAA further asserts most airplanes with SSIPs are considerably older than the regional airplane types cited in the NPRM as having damage- tolerance-based ‘‘maintenance inspection programs.’’ Although the RAA appreciates the value of SSIPs, the RAA notes that the service experience for demonstrating structural integrity of the affected regional/commuter airplane types without SSIPs has been excellent. FAA Response: The commenter did not distinguish between damage- tolerance-based SSIPs and service- history-based SSIPs. Those airplanes that have service-history-based SSIPs implemented through ADs will have until December 20, 2010, before they will have to comply with the damage tolerance requirements of this final rule. Those airplanes that do not have a service-history-based SSIP will have to comply with the damage tolerance requirements within 4 years after the effective date of this final rule. Approval of Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs Comments: Regarding the FAA’s proposal that airplane damage tolerance requirements may be approved through an amended or supplemental type certificate when necessary, one type certificate holder questions whether it is the FAA’s intent to require type certificate holders to submit applications (FAA form 8110–12) for a type certificate amendment. If so, the type certificate holder warns that ACOs may become overwhelmed, which is a workload situation the FAA failed to consider in its cost-benefit analysis. The type certificate holder also questions whether it is the FAA’s intent to modify the type certificate data sheet as a result of incremental changes to type design (as per the definition of an amended type certificate) or as the result of an STC. FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA understands that there are many ways to accomplish approved damage-tolerance-based or service- history-based SSIPs, such as amended type certificates, STCs, letters of approval issued by the FAA, or service bulletins issued by the type certificate VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72738 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations holder and approved by the FAA. However, each operator is ultimately responsible for ensuring each of its airplanes has the appropriate inspection programs for the baseline airplane structure, which is the airplane structure as designed by the original type certificate holder, and each specific major repair, modification, and alteration to the baseline structure. Regarding the comment on FAA workload, the FAA has considered the effects of the rule on the FAA workload and has concluded that the workload will be within acceptable levels during the implementation period. Letter of Approval Comments: The NPRM includes a provision that damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for certain older airplanes also may be approved by a letter of approval issued by the FAA. The type certificate holder questions whether this process is intended to address damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures prepared by someone other than the type certificate holder. Also, the type certificate holder requests the FAA clarify whether the letter would be placed in the airworthiness limitations section of an airplane’s maintenance manual, in the Airplane Flight Manual, in logbooks, or in another procedural manual. FAA Response: Inspection programs other than those developed by the airplane type certificate holder will be approved through a letter of approval by the FAA ACO or office of the Small Airplane Directorate or Transport Airplane Directorate responsible for that airplane’s type certificate. The inspection programs required by this rule are for specific operations under part 121, 129, or 135 only and are to be added to the operator’s maintenance or inspection program. Airplanes not being operated under the conditions specified in this rulemaking are not required to have these inspection programs. Adding such programs to the airworthiness limitations section of an airplane’s maintenance manual is not appropriate because it would require that all operators comply with the program, not just those operators identified in this rulemaking. Structural Assessment of Major Repairs, Alterations, and Modifications Comments: Transport Canada states the proposal is unclear about how an STC holder is required to support its designs as far as a structural assessment is concerned. Transport Canada notes major modifications/alterations (including major repairs) may have resulted in a significant alteration to the design, affecting the usage spectrum associated with the STC. According to the commenter, this may result in an undue burden on the operator who may need to perform a damage-tolerance- based assessment without assistance from the type certificate holder. Transport Canada states it is inappropriate to require a type certificate holder to provide assistance in such cases. Transport Canada recommends the FAA provide procedures to allow an operator to implement a supplemental integrity program for its airplanes when the type certificate holder is not able to do so because of an STC or major repair. FAA Response: This rulemaking states that no operator may operate an airplane after 4 years after the effective date of the rule unless the maintenance or inspection program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based or service-history-based SSIPs, as applicable. This program applies to the baseline structure of the airplane, which is that structure designed by the original type certificate holder, as well as any existing or future major repairs, major alterations, or modifications. The exceptions to the 4-year requirement are listed in §§ 121.370a, 129.16, and 135.168. Modifications to the baseline structure can be accomplished by an STC or by the type certificate holder who has certificated a major type design change. The preamble to the NPRM states that the operators should work with STC holders and type certificate holders to accomplish a damage tolerance assessment of the modified structure, but in the event that the STC holder or type certificate holder is not able or willing to help the operator, then the operator will be responsible for accomplishing the damage tolerance assessment. As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the operator may (1) accomplish the assessment if it has the capability or (2) contract the appropriate persons to accomplish the assessment. The FAA recognizes that this may be a burden on the operator, but the AASA requires the Administrator to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes. The FAA has determined that damage-tolerance-based and service- history-based SSIPs are the best way to achieve that goal. The FAA also has revised AC 91–56A, which provides detailed guidance to type certificate holders and operators regarding the accomplishment of damage tolerance assessments of repaired, altered, or modified structures. Compliance Alternatives Comments: Commenters recommend various alternatives to the proposed regulations on damage-tolerance-based SSIPs. The ATA states incorporation of mandated programs, including ‘‘supplemental structural inspection document programs,’’ CPCPs, repair assessment programs, and compliance with air carrier maintenance programs, provides the means necessary to comply with the proposed rule. Other commenters agree with the ATA’s position. FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part and has revised the rule to permit the use of service-history-based SSIPS for certain aircraft. The programs the commenters describe only satisfy part of the requirements of this final rule. SSIPs only address certain portions of an airplane’s structure while the damage- tolerance-based or service-history-based SSIPs specified by this rule address the entire primary structure of an airplane, including the baseline structure, and major repairs, major alterations, and modifications to baseline structure. The ‘‘Repair Assessment for Pressurized Fuselages’’ final rule (65 FR 24108, April 25, 2000) established new §§ 121.370 and 129.32. These sections require a repair assessment program for many of the airplanes also affected by this final rule. These include the Airbus A300, excluding the –600 series; Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, and 747; BAe BAC 1–11; Fokker F28; and Lockheed L– 1011; and McDonnell Douglas DC–8, DC–9/MD–80, and DC–10. However, §§ 121.370 and 129.32 address only fuselage pressure boundary repairs (fuselage skin, door skin, and bulkhead webs). Meeting the requirements of §§ 121.370 and 129.32 is an acceptable means of compliance with this final rule to the extent that these requirements address repairs to the fuselage pressure boundary for the above-noted airplanes. Operators will have to accomplish additional work to fully comply with this rule. They must establish damage- tolerance-based SSIPs or service-history- based SSIPs, as applicable, for major repairs, major alterations, and modifications to structures not affected by the repair assessment program, such as fuselage frames and longerons, and wing and empennage structures. Alternatives to Damage-Tolerance-Based Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs Comments: One foreign aircraft type certificate holder states that the 3- to 10- year compliance thresholds in the NPRM require further detail regarding VerDate 0ct<31>2002 13:45 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06DER2.SGM 06DER2 72739 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the intended program before they can be implemented. The type certificate holder specifically would like the FAA to further discuss alternate means of complying with this proposed rule. An FAA-approved repair station specializing in the major repair, alteration, and heavy maintenance of deHavilland DHC–6 airplanes also states the required implementation of existing proven type certificate holder inspections and procedures is a more appropriate response to the airworthiness concerns presented by the FAA than the implementation of new, costly programs. Although the commenter admits damage-tolerance- based ‘‘inspections and procedures’’ may prove useful in the successful maintenance of DHC–6 airplanes, the commenter states that current safe-life- based component replacement requirements and inspections have proven successful for over 30 years and should be retained. The GAMA asserts that a regime of replacing components and parts when they reach their design service lives is one way to ensure structural integrity. Other commenters support the GAMA position, noting a damage-tolerance- based SSIP alone is too restrictive. According to the GAMA, these regimes should be appropriate for particular structural configurations and should employ a schedule of supplemental inspections, as necessary. The GAMA states reliance on frequent, repetitive inspection under a damage-tolerance- based approach would allow for greater human error. Additionally, the GAMA disagrees with the FAA’s implied requirement that ‘‘manufacturers’’ must be responsible for developing or assisting operators in the development of damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures. Also, the GAMA notes several ‘‘manufacturers’’ already have developed and made available appropriate structural integrity inspection programs. Transport Canada agrees with the GAMA position and states a structural integrity inspection program must include mandatory component replacement (safe life), as well as a mandatory inspection program with a CPCP to ensure the fatigue inspections and part replacement remains valid. According to Transport Canada, including a component replacement (safe life) program is important for the following reasons: • A safe life program may be required to avoid the risks associated with structural degradation caused by a form of widespread fatigue damage known as multiple site damage (MSD). According to Transport Canada, failure to detect MSD exposes an airframe to a risk of sudden crack coalescence, possibly leading to total structural failure without adequate warning. To ensure structural integrity, Transport Canada asserts a structure that is at risk for MSD must be replaced or repaired at the appropriate interval. According to Transport Canada, an inspection program may not alleviate the risk that there may be cracks too small to be detected reliably. Transport Canada lists several methodologies, including fracture mechanics (crack-growth) techniques and tear-down techniques, that could be used to determine the appropriate component/part replacement (safe life) interval. • For aging airplanes, particularly in the small commuter class (for example, CAR 3 aircraft, 14 CFR part 23 aircraft, and SFAR 41 aircraft), component design was not influenced by damage tolerance inspection principles. As such, it may be impractical, in an airworthiness sense, to apply the damage tolerance requirements in a retroactive manner. Transport Canada notes the designers of these airplanes may not have considered the inspectability of their designs and may have designed components to be replaced to ensure structural integrity. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (CASA) supports damage- tolerance-based inspections and procedures and recommends changing the phrase ‘‘ * * * unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures’’ to ‘‘ * * * unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes inspections or other procedures developed in accordance with §§ 23.571 to 23.574, or § 25.571, as applicable’’ for the following reasons: • Consistency with the design rules— While operational rules may match current design rules