6056 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Issued on January 24, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01711 Filed 1–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 125, 135, 137, and 145 

[Docket No.: FAA–2024–0025; Notice No. 

24–08] 

RIN 2120–AL20 

Inspection Programs for Single-Engine 

Turbine-Powered Airplanes and 

Unmanned Aircraft; and Miscellaneous 

Maintenance-Related Updates 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action would revise 

certain aircraft maintenance inspection 

rules for small, corporate-sized, and 

unmanned aircraft. The proposed 

changes include additional inspection 

program options for owners of singleengine turbine-powered airplanes and 

unmanned aircraft, relaxed mechanical 

reliability reporting requirements for 

certain aircraft, and several changes to 

clarify and simplify various 

maintenance-related regulations. These 

proposed amendments would relieve 

aircraft owners, operators, maintenance 

providers, and the FAA. The proposed 

amendments would provide greater 

flexibility for aircraft maintenance, 

standardized reporting requirements, 

and provide clarification of various 

maintenance-related regulations. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

April 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2024–0025 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Bryan B. Davis, Airmen 

& Special Projects Branch, AFS–320, 

Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight 

Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–1675; email 

Bryan.Davis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

B. Background 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Inspection Programs for Single-Engine 

Turbine-Powered Airplanes and 

Unmanned Aircraft (§ 91.409) 

B. Scope of Covered Aircraft (§ 91.409(e)) 

C. Clarifications of Inspection Program 

Options (§ 91.409(f)) 

D. Conforming and Clarifying Changes to 

Subpart E of Part 91 

E. Other Miscellaneous Inspection Program 

and Maintenance Program Updates 

F. Clarification of Part 145 Requirements 

on Documents and Data and Contract 

Maintenance 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

B. Statement of Need for Regulatory Action 

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. International Compatibility 

I. Environmental Analysis 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

D. Executive Order 13609, International 

Cooperation 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

C. Confidential Business Information 

D. Electronic Access and Filing 

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The FAA proposes to revise certain 

rules for small, corporate-sized, and 

unmanned aircraft maintenance 

inspections. The most substantial 

change would be the increase in 

inspection program options for owners 

and operators of single-engine turbinepowered airplanes and unmanned 

aircraft. Currently, when operating 

under the rules in part 91 of title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), owners and operators of these 

aircraft must comply with annual or 

100-hour inspection requirements or 

adopt progressive inspection programs 

in lieu of those requirements. For singleengine turbine-powered airplanes, this 

proposed rule would expand inspection 

options to include, among others, an 

inspection program recommended by 

the manufacturer or an inspection 

program established by the registered 

owner or operator and approved by the 

Administrator. For unmanned aircraft, 

including unmanned aircraft operating 

under 14 CFR part 135 that are 

authorized to use the inspection rules in 

part 91, this proposal would enable the 

selection of either an inspection 

program recommended by the 

manufacturer or a program established 

by the registered owner or operator and 

approved by the Administrator. The 

FAA believes this change would 

enhance safety and would provide 

unmanned and single-engine turbinepowered aircraft owners and operators 

with greater flexibility with aircraft 

maintenance. 

Additionally, for aircraft operating 

under part 91, subpart K, fractional 

ownership rules, the FAA proposes to 

lengthen the reporting interval for 

aircraft mechanical reliability reports 

from 72 to 96 hours and to allow 

electronic report submissions. This 

would align the reporting interval 

requirement with those found in other 

regulations (e.g., 14 CFR 121.703, 

135.415, and 145.221). 

Finally, the FAA proposes several 

changes to clarify and simplify various 

maintenance-related regulations in areas 

that have confusing or ambiguous 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6057 

1Textron Aviation Inc. Petition for Rulemaking 

for 14 CFR 91.409, September 15, 2016, Public 

Docket No. FAA–2016–9166, available at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

language, to include maintenance and 

inspection requirements for part 91 and 

125 operators and document retention. 

It also proposes to clarify part 145 

regulations pertaining to repair station 

maintenance documentation and 

contract maintenance. 

B. Background 

Subpart E of 14 CFR part 91 

prescribes general rules governing the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations of United States (U.S.)- 

registered civil aircraft operating within 

or outside of the United States. For 

aircraft operated under, or otherwise 

subject to, part 91, subpart E, § 91.409 

contains the requirements for aircraft 

inspections, including requirements for 

annual inspections and 100-hour 

inspections. Section 91.409(c) provides 

exceptions to those inspection 

requirements; aircraft with special flight 

permits, experimental certificates, lightsport category, or provisional 

airworthiness certificates, and aircraft 

for which progressive inspection 

programs have been adopted are not 

required to meet the annual and 100- 

hour inspection requirements. 

Paragraph (c)(3) excludes the types of 

airplanes identified in § 91.409(e). 

These types of airplanes—large 

airplanes (to which part 125 is not 

applicable), turbojet multiengine 

airplanes, and turbopropeller-powered 

multiengine airplanes—must be 

inspected in accordance with one of the 

inspection program options specified in 

§ 91.409(f) in lieu of the annual or 100- 

hour inspection. These options include: 

(1) a continuous airworthiness 

inspection program under a part 121 or 

135 operator’s Continuous 

Airworthiness Maintenance Program 

(CAMP); (2) an approved aircraft 

inspection program under part 135; (3) 

a current inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer; or 

(4) any other inspection program 

established by the owner or operator 

and approved by the FAA. 

Certain rotorcraft may, but are not 

required to, use one of these inspection 

program options. See § 91.409(c)(4) and 

(e). In 1989, the FAA amended § 91.409 

[54 FR 34284, Aug. 18, 1989] to allow 

turbine-powered rotorcraft (both singleand multiengine) owners and operators 

to choose between performing an 

annual, a progressive, or an inspection 

program under § 91.409(f). 

In 2016, an aircraft manufacturer 

petitioned the FAA for rulemaking to 

include single-engine turbine-powered 

airplanes within the scope of § 91.409(e) 

and (f).1 Single-engine turbine-powered 

airplanes are not currently permitted to 

use one of the inspection options in 

§ 91.409(f) as an alternative to the 

annual or 100-hour inspection. Since 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

were rare at the time the options were 

introduced for turbine-powered 

rotorcraft, they were not included in 

that rule. Today, there are over 4,500 

registered single-engine turbinepowered airplanes. 

Additionally, unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) commercial utilization 

and National Airspace System 

integration has increased since 2016. 

While 14 CFR part 107 addresses small 

UAS operations, the FAA has also 

granted exemptions and waivers from 

certain part 91 and part 135 rules to 

permit UAS operations under those 

parts. Under these exemptions (in the 

conditions and limitations), the FAA 

has generally required that unmanned 

aircraft be inspected in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s inspection 

instructions or for those instructions to 

be incorporated into the operator’s 

approved maintenance or inspection 

program. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is issued under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, part 

A, subpart III, section 447, section 

44701(a)(2)(A) and (B) and (a)(5), and 

section 44707. Under section 

44701(a)(2)(A) and (B), the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards in the interest 

of safety for inspecting, servicing, and 

overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, and appliances, and 

equipment and facilities for, and the 

timing of and manner of, the inspecting, 

servicing, and overhauling the FAA 

finds necessary for safety and 

commerce. Section 44701(a)(5) 

authorizes the FAA to prescribe 

regulations and minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce and 

national security. Under section 44707, 

the FAA may examine and rate repair 

stations. Specifically, under section 

44707(2), the FAA is charged with 

inspecting and rating repair stations on 

the adequacy and suitability of the 

equipment, facilities, and materials for, 

and methods of, repair and overhaul, 

and the competency of the individuals 

doing the work or giving instruction in 

the work. The regulations proposed are 

within the scope of that authority. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Inspection Programs for SingleEngine Turbine-Powered Airplanes and 

Unmanned Aircraft (§ 91.409) 

Currently, § 91.409(e) prohibits the 

operation of a large airplane, turbojet 

multiengine airplane, turbopropellerpowered multiengine airplane, or 

turbine-powered rotorcraft unless the 

replacement times for life-limited parts 

specified in the aircraft specifications, 

type data sheets, or other documents 

approved by the Administrator are 

complied with and the airplane or 

turbine-powered rotorcraft is inspected 

in accordance with an inspection 

program selected under § 91.409(f), 

except that the owner or operator of a 

turbine-powered rotorcraft may elect to 

use the inspection provisions of 

§ 91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d) instead. We 

propose to expand § 91.409(e) to apply 

to single-engine turbine-powered 

airplanes and unmanned aircraft. 

Unmanned aircraft would be required to 

be inspected in accordance with an 

inspection program selected under 

§ 91.409(f). Owners and operators of 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

would be able to select a § 91.409(f) 

inspection program or use the 

inspection provisions of § 91.409(a), (b), 

(c), or (d). 

This change would provide singleengine turbine-powered airplane owners 

and operators more options for 

inspecting their aircraft. It would give 

those owners and operators the same 

choice of inspection program options 

currently available to owners and 

operators of turbine-powered rotorcraft. 

Providing these additional options 

would harmonize the requirements for 

similarly-sized turbine-powered 

airplanes and rotorcraft. Owners and 

operators would retain the ability to use 

their existing annual inspection 

program if they do not want to select 

any of the newly available options. 

Currently, if operating under part 91, 

single-engine turbine-powered airplane 

owners and operators only have several 

inspection options: an annual, a 100- 

hour, or adopt a progressive inspection 

program. This proposed rule would 

expand inspection options to include 

the types of inspection programs 

authorized under § 91.409(f). This 

includes, among others, a manufacturerVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Jan 30, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM 31JAP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6058 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2See note 1 at *2. 

3 49 U.S.C. 44807 provides the Secretary of 

Transportation with authority to determine whether 

a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, 

or a certificate under sec. 44703 or 44704 is 

required for certain unmanned aircraft system 

(UAS) operations. Section 44807(b) instructs the 

Secretary to base their determination on which 

types of unmanned aircraft do not create a hazard 

to users of the National Airspace System or the 

public. In making this determination, the Secretary 

must consider the unmanned aircraft’s size, weight, 

speed, operational capability, and other aspects of 

the proposed operation. On October 1, 2021, the 

Secretary delegated this authority to the FAA 

Administrator. Unmanned aircraft exemptions have 

been subsequently issued with conditions & 

limitations that require the operator to follow the 

manufacturer’s maintenance instructions, service 

bulletins, inspections, etc. 

4Section 44807 exemption grants contain a 

Conditions & Limitations section, which must be 

followed. The exemptions contain language such as: 

‘‘The Operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s 

operating limitations, maintenance instructions, 

service bulletins, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life-limit requirements for the UAS 

and UAS components. Each UAS operated under 

this exemption must comply with all 

manufacturers’ safety bulletins. Maintenance must 

be performed by individuals who have been trained 

by the Operator in proper techniques and 

procedures for these UAS. All maintenance must be 

recorded in the UAS records including a brief 

description of the work performed, date of 

completion, and the name of the person performing 

the work.’’ See Exemption No. 21079, Docket No. 

FAA–2023–1483, August 29, 2023. See also 

Exemption Nos.: 21079, Docket No. FAA–2023– 

1483, Aug. 29, 2023; 11204, Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0886, Oct. 23, 2014; 12145, Docket No. FAA–2015– 

1464, July 24, 2015; 21034, Docket No. FAA–2023– 

1303, Aug. 30, 2023, etc. 

5See Appendix D to part 43 (Scope and Detail of 

Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To 

Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections). 

Many of the 100-hour inspection requirements do 

not apply to the majority of unmanned aircraft. For 

example, paragraph (c) contains inspection criteria 

for the cabin and cockpit group, which unmanned 

aircraft do not possess. Similarly, paragraph (d) 

pertains to reciprocated engines and their 

associated components (oil, fuel, and hydraulic 

hoses, engine cylinders, etc.), which the majority of 

unmanned aircraft do not have because they 

possess electric propulsion systems. 

recommended inspection program, or an 

inspection program established by the 

registered owner, or operator, and 

approved by the Administrator. 

The FAA believes this change 

increases regulatory flexibility and will 

allow owners and operators the ability 

to select the program that works best for 

them. In 1989, the FAA amended 

§ 91.409(e) to allow more inspection 

options for turbine-powered rotorcraft, 

which enabled operators to schedule 

inspections in a manner that has 

allowed a higher level of rotorcraft 

utilization. At that time, in the early 

1980s, the number of single-engine 

turbine-powered airplanes was small 

compared to turbine-powered rotorcraft, 

which estimated approximately 3,000 

aircraft during that time. Today, there 

are over 4,500 registered single-engine 

turbine-powered airplanes. The FAA 

does not believe there are any safety 

reasons why single-engine turbinepowered airplanes should not be 

afforded the same regulatory flexibilities 

as turbine-powered rotorcraft regarding 

part 91 inspection options. A turbinepowered rotorcraft’s use of a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

program has been shown to be a safe 

and effective aircraft inspection method 

instead of the annual or 100-hour 

inspection requirements. The FAA 

expects that the same will be true for 

single-engine turbine-powered airplane 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

programs. In its rulemaking petition, 

Textron Aviation, Inc., argued that 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

programs are in the public interest 

because they are geared more 

specifically to the manufacturer’s 

aircraft model and involve less invasive 

scheduled maintenance compared to an 

annual or 100-hour inspection because 

of less frequent component disassembly, 

inspection, and reassembly.2 The FAA 

agrees these inspection programs can 

provide these articulated benefits, when 

applicable, when compared to an 

annual or a 100-hour inspection. 

Additionally, a manufacturerrecommended inspection program can 

contain inspection intervals at more 

appropriate times for each product and 

article based on the design and 

functional history of the same, coupled 

with the manufacturer’s detailed 

technical knowledge of how best to 

maintain them. 

Existing regulations regarding 

maintenance and inspection 

development during the aircraft’s part 

21 certification process contain the 

requirements for how a manufacturerrecommended inspection program shall 

be developed—to include the inspection 

intervals for products and articles. 

Section 21.50 requires that the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness and manufacturer’s 

maintenance manuals must be 

developed in accordance with 14 CFR 

parts 23, 25, 27, 29, etc., as appropriate. 

Within each of these parts, the 

applicable regulation references its 

appendix, which contains specific 

requirements that the maintenance 

inspection program must possess. For 

example, when developing inspection 

interval timing for an aircraft while 

complying with § 21.50, a part 23 

aircraft manufacturer is referred to 

§ 23.1529 (Instructions for continued 

airworthiness), which states an 

applicant must prepare the same and 

further refers the applicant to appendix 

A for part 23. Appendix A, instruction 

A.23.3(b)(1) requires the manufacturer 

to develop maintenance/inspection 

scheduling instructions for all products 

and articles and must include an 

inspection program that includes the 

inspection frequency and extent 

necessary to provide for the aircraft’s 

continued airworthiness. The 

recommended inspection intervals are 

part of the overall Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness that would 

subsequently be submitted to the FAA 

for acceptance. 

During the unmanned aircraft’s 

certification process, whether it 

undergoes a traditional part 21 type 

certification or a 49 U.S.C. 44807 

exemption request,3 the manufacturer 

must submit an aircraft inspection 

program, for FAA approval, that meets 

certain requirements for life-limited part 

replacement times specified in the 

aircraft specifications, type certificate 

data sheets, or ‘‘other documents 

approved by the Administrator (i.e., the 

sec. 44807 exemption and its associated 

Conditions & Limitations).’’ 4 These 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

programs—to include inspection 

intervals for products and articles— 

must include the airframe, engines, 

propellers, rotors, appliances, 

emergency equipment, etc., which are 

ultimately approved by the FAA only 

when they are found to be adequate. 

Regarding unmanned aircraft 

inspection program selection, excluding 

those operated under part 107, it is 

necessary for owners and operators to 

have the ability to select a program that 

is most appropriate for the design and 

configuration of their specific aircraft 

because of the wide variety in aircraft, 

which cannot be done in the existing 

regulations. Currently, part 135 

unmanned aircraft applicants and 

approved operators can only use a 

CAMP, under § 135.411(a)(2), or an 

approved aircraft inspection program, 

under §§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419, 

because other inspection program 

options cannot be selected, as these 

aircraft are not incorporated in the 

regulations. The FAA has not approved 

part 135 unmanned aircraft operators to 

use an annual or a 100-hour inspection 

because the FAA has determined the 

scope and detail criteria 5 contained in 

these two options do not adequately 

cover the component characteristics that 

are typically installed on these aircraft 

(e.g., multiple electric motors, circuit 

boards, batteries, etc.). Additionally, a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

program—that traditional aircraft may 

currently select—is not available to 

unmanned aircraft, despite CAMPs and 

AAIPs being primarily based on a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6059 

6See supra note 7. 

7See, e.g., Legal Interpretation of 14 CFR 

91.409(f)(3), Memorandum Opinion to Manager, 

Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS–300, from 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC–200 

(Dec. 5, 2008); and Legal Interpretation of ’’Current’’ 

as it Applies to Maintenance Manuals and Other 

Documents Referenced in 14 CFR 43.13(a) and 

145.109(d), Memorandum Opinion to Manager, 

AWP–230 and Manager, Sacramento FSDO, from 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC–200 

(Aug. 13, 2010). 

program. Because of these issues, a 

CAMP or an AAIP has been the only 

option for part 135 unmanned aircraft 

operators to select. 

Therefore, the FAA proposes to 

include unmanned aircraft, excluding 

part 107 aircraft, in § 91.409(e), which 

would apply to unmanned aircraft 

operating under, or otherwise required 

to be inspected in accordance with, part 

91. In particular, the FAA intends for 

this proposal to apply to unmanned 

aircraft being operated under part 91 or 

135 and that are required to select a 

maintenance program in accordance 

with § 91.409(f). While an unmanned 

aircraft operator would have the option 

to select a manufacturer-recommended 

inspection program, they could still 

continue to use an AAIP or CAMP. This 

proposal would be applicable to the 

unmanned aircraft inspections and not 

unmanned aircraft systems, as defined 

in 14 CFR 1.1. 

The following discusses our proposal 

to amend certain § 91.409 paragraphs to 

reflect these changes and additional 

proposed revisions to this section to 

enhance clarification. 

B. Scope of Covered Aircraft 

(§ 91.409(e)) 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

propose to expand § 91.409(e) to include 

all turbine-powered aircraft, including 

unmanned aircraft, and separate it into 

§ 91.409(e)(1) and (2) to better organize 

the different regulatory frameworks. 

Currently, paragraph (e) is limited to 

large airplanes (to which part 125 is not 

applicable), turbojet multiengine 

airplanes, turbopropeller-powered 

multiengine airplanes, and turbinepowered rotorcraft. Owners and 

operators of these covered aircraft, 

except for turbine-powered rotorcraft, 

are required to comply with 

replacement times for life-limited parts 

and have their airplanes inspected using 

one of the inspection programs specified 

in paragraph (f) instead of the annual or 

100-hour inspection provisions. Owners 

and operators of turbine-powered 

rotorcraft, in contrast, can use one of the 

inspection program options in 

paragraph (f), or they can elect to use 

the annual, 100-hour, or progressive 

inspection provisions (paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (d), respectively)). 

This proposed rule would add singleengine turbine-powered airplanes to 

§ 91.409(e) and provide these owners 

and operators with the same inspection 

options that are currently available to 

owners and operators of turbinepowered rotorcraft. With the proposed 

addition of single-engine turbinepowered airplanes, § 91.409(e) would 

apply to all turbine-powered airplanes. 

These amendments will enable owners 

and operators of single-engine turbinepowered airplanes to inspect their 

aircraft using one of the inspection 

program options in paragraph (f) or elect 

to use the annual, 100-hour, or 

progressive inspection provisions. 

We also propose to revise § 91.409(e) 

to include unmanned aircraft. 

Unmanned aircraft owners and 

operators subject to the regulation 

would be required to select one of the 

inspection programs in paragraph (f). 

This proposed change would 

incorporate the requirement, in the 

conditions & limitations section, that 

has been required in the existing UAS 

sec. 44807 exemptions 6 for unmanned 

aircraft inspections using the UAS 

manufacturer’s inspection program. 

We propose to separate § 91.409(e) 

into two paragraphs to increase clarity 

and readability, as stated above. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would cover 

all current and proposed aircraft that 

would be required to be inspected in 

accordance with a § 91.409(f) program 

(i.e., large airplanes, multiengine 

turbine-powered airplanes, and 

unmanned aircraft). Regarding large 

airplanes and multiengine turbinepowered airplanes, the proposed rule 

would not make any changes to the 

currently available inspection programs. 

Regarding unmanned aircraft, as 

previously described, the annual, 100- 

hour, and progressive inspection 

options are not viable inspection 

programs because of the significant 

differences between unmanned aircraft 

and traditional manned aircraft for 

which those provisions were designed. 

Unmanned aircraft would be included 

under the new § 91.409(e)(1) because 

they should comply with time-limited 

parts replacement and the better-suited 

inspection programs contained in 

paragraph (f). Proposed paragraph (e)(2) 

would cover all current and proposed 

aircraft that have the option to use the 

inspection options in paragraph (f) in 

lieu of the inspection provisions of 

§ 91.409(a), (b), or (d) (i.e., turbinepowered rotorcraft and single-engine 

turbine-powered airplanes). 

C. Clarifications of Inspection Program 

Options (§ 91.409(f)) 

We intend to make several clarifying 

amendments to the inspection program 

options specified in § 91.409(f) and the 

manner in which these programs are to 

be submitted. 

Paragraph (f)(1) currently specifies the 

first inspection program option 

available. The registered aircraft owner 

or operator under § 91.409(e) may use 

‘‘[a] continuous airworthiness 

inspection program’’ that is part of a 

CAMP currently in use by a part 121 or 

135 operator and operating that make 

and model aircraft under part 121 or 

operating that make and model under 

part 135 and maintaining it under 

§ 135.411(a)(2). The FAA proposes to 

clarify the intent of this section by 

replacing the phrase ‘‘[a] continuous 

airworthiness inspection program’’ 

because it is not defined or referenced 

anywhere else in regulations. Instead, 

the FAA proposes to revise the phrase 

so that the paragraph refers only to ‘‘[a]n 

inspection program’’ that is part of a 

[CAMP]. This change would have no 

substantive effect and is only proposed 

to eliminate confusion by the phrase 

‘‘[a] continuous airworthiness 

inspection program.’’ 

We will also amend paragraph (f)(1) to 

remove the word ‘‘operating’’ from the 

phrase ‘‘air carrier operating certificate.’’ 

This change would leave separate 

references to ‘‘air carrier certificate’’ and 

‘‘operating certificate,’’ a change 

consistent with the separate usage of the 

terms in 14 CFR 119.5. 

Current paragraph (f)(3) provides the 

third inspection program option: ‘‘A 

current inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer.’’ 

The FAA proposes to revise paragraph 

(f)(3) to clarify that ‘‘current inspection 

program’’ means one that is available for 

selection at the time the selection is 

made. That inspection program would 

remain the ‘‘current’’ program to be 

used by that operator for that aircraft 

during subsequent inspections, without 

regard to changes that the manufacturer 

may have made to the recommended 

inspection program since the date of 

selection. This is consistent with an 

FAA legal interpretation on the subject, 

which states, ‘‘to comply with 

§ 91.409(f)(3) an operator need only 

adopt a manufacturer’s inspection 

program that is ‘current’ as of the time 

they adopt it, and that program remains 

‘current’ unless the FAA mandates 

revisions to it in accordance with 

§ 91.415(a).’’ 7

We do not intend for future changes 

to inspection programs issued by 

manufacturers to be binding on an 

owner or operator who had already 

selected a specific program that was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6060 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8See 36 FR 19507, October 7, 1971, and 37 FR 

14758, July 25, 1972. 

current at the time of selection.8

Therefore, to comply with § 91.409(f)(3), 

an owner or operator need only select a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

program that is ‘‘current’’ at the time of 

selection, and that program would 

remain ‘‘current’’ for purposes of 

complying with the regulation—unless 

the FAA mandated a revision with an 

Airworthiness Directive or an 

amendment to an applicable operating 

rule. Although operators would not be 

required to revise their inspection 

programs when a manufacturer issues 

inspection program revisions, operators 

may choose to incorporate these 

revisions if they are applicable. This 

practice would comply with 

§ 91.409(f)(3). In keeping with this 

interpretation and to clarify the 

requirement of paragraph (f)(3), we 

propose to revise the phrase ‘‘current 

inspection program’’ and replace it with 

the following: a program ‘‘that was the 

most current program available at the 

time of selection and identified in the 

aircraft maintenance records.’’ 

Current paragraph (f)(4) provides the 

fourth inspection program option, 

which is the option to select any other 

inspection program established by the 

registered owner or operator ‘‘of that 

airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft’’ 

and approved by the Administrator. The 

FAA proposes to revise § 91.409(f)(4) to 

remove the phrase ‘‘of that airplane or 

turbine-powered rotorcraft’’ and replace 

it with ‘‘for that aircraft’’ for simplicity 

because it would cover all the types of 

aircraft referenced in the proposed 

revisions to paragraph (e) of the section, 

including unmanned aircraft. 

Also, the phrase ‘‘and approved by 

the Administrator’’ would be moved 

from preceding the phrase ‘‘under 

paragraph (g) of this section,’’ to follow 

the phrase ‘‘established by the registered 

owner or operator’’ that appears earlier 

in the sentence. Accordingly, it would 

precede the phrase ‘‘for that aircraft.’’ 

This change would help clarify that the 

inspection program approval is specific 

to the specific aircraft. 

Additionally, in the undesignated, 

concluding text of § 91.409(f), the FAA 

proposes to remove the requirement to 

include the name and address of the 

person responsible for scheduling 

inspections in the selected program. 

This requirement has resulted in 

unnecessary administrative revisions as 

personnel and addresses change. This is 

a burden to both the FAA and industry 

and has little or no safety benefit, as the 

owner and operator of the aircraft are 

ultimately responsible for ensuring all 

the required inspections are 

accomplished. 

D. Conforming and Clarifying Changes 

to Subpart E of Part 91 

1. Applicability Statement (§ 91.401) 

The FAA proposes to amend § 91.401 

(the applicability section for subpart E 

to part 91) to incorporate certain 

applicability provisions that are 

currently found in other sections of 

subpart E. These provisions would be 

better suited in subpart E’s overall 

applicability section. The agency also 

proposes to make other clarifying 

changes to this section. 

Specifically, § 91.401 would be 

revised to incorporate two provisions in 

§ 91.409(c) that exempt certain aircraft 

from inspection requirements. As noted 

above, current § 91.409(c) provides, in 

part, that the requirements for annual 

inspections, airworthiness certification 

inspections, and 100-hour inspections 

(paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 91.409)) do 

not apply to certain aircraft under 

specified circumstances. This includes, 

in pertinent part, the following: 

1. An aircraft that carries a special 

flight permit, a current experimental 

certificate, or a light-sport, or 

provisional airworthiness certificate 

(§ 91.409(c)(1)); and 

2. An aircraft inspected in accordance 

with an approved aircraft inspection 

program under part 125 or 135 and so 

identified by the registration number in 

the operations specifications of the 

certificate holder having the approved 

inspection program (§ 91.409(c)(2)). 

As § 91.409(c) is currently written, it 

excludes these aircraft from the 

inspection requirements in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) only and does not expressly 

exclude them from the alternative 

inspection programs in paragraphs (d) 

and (e). This language may be construed 

incorrectly to suggest that these aircraft 

are subject to the alternative inspection 

programs in paragraphs (d) and (e). It 

was not the FAA’s intent to require that 

those covered aircraft comply with any 

other inspection program in § 91.409. 

The FAA proposes to move the 

exception in § 91.409(c)(1) for aircraft 

that carry a special flight permit into a 

new § 91.401(c)(3). The FAA issues 

special flight permits for specific 

purposes under § 21.197 to aircraft that 

may not at the time meet applicable 

airworthiness standards but remain 

capable of safe flight for the intended 

purpose; therefore, under these 

circumstances, it is inconsistent to 

require compliance with an inspection 

program in subpart E. Accordingly, such 

aircraft should be excluded from the 

inspections required by paragraphs 

§ 91.409(a) and (b), the other inspection 

requirements of that section, and 

§ 91.405 because the special flight 

permit itself, when issued to the 

operator, already assures the aircraft has 

been inspected and found to be in a 

condition for safe flight for the intended 

operation. 

The FAA also proposes to move the 

current § 91.409(c)(2) exceptions to new 

§ 91.401(c)(1) and (2). The current 

§ 91.409(c)(2) provides that paragraphs 

(a) and (b) do not apply to aircraft 

inspected in accordance with an 

approved aircraft inspection program 

under part 125 or 135. The current 

language in § 91.409 could be misread to 

suggest the other § 91.409 inspection 

program requirements apply to those 

aircraft in addition to those of part 125 

or § 135.419, as applicable; this was not 

the FAA’s intent. By moving this 

exception requirement to § 91.401, we 

would clarify that an aircraft inspected 

in accordance with part 125 or an 

approved aircraft inspection program, 

under § 135.419, is not subject to the 

other inspection requirements of 

§ 91.409 or § 91.405. 

Similarly, the FAA proposes to move 

the inspection exception provision for 

aircraft that carry a current experimental 

certificate, a light-sport airworthiness 

certificate, or a provisional 

airworthiness certificate in 

§ 91.409(c)(1) to a new § 91.401(c)(4) 

because § 91.409(c)(1) does not 

expressly exclude these aircraft from the 

alternative inspection programs in 

paragraphs (d) and (e). However, the 

FAA also proposes to clarify that these 

aircraft types must comply with any 

portions of § 91.409 that are specified in 

the operating limitations under § 91.317 

or § 91.319. This would remove 

conflicting requirements that occur 

when the current regulation excepts 

these aircraft from the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b), but the operating 

limitations issued by the FAA for the 

aircraft require compliance with 

specified portions of the regulation. 

2. Compliance With General 

Airworthiness Requirements (§ 91.403) 

We propose to amend § 91.403(c) by 

revising the text and dividing the 

alternative compliance options located 

in that single paragraph into three new 

paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) for clarity. 

The paragraph currently holds the 

requirement that no person may operate 

an aircraft for which a manufacturer’s 

maintenance manual or instructions for 

continued airworthiness has been 

issued that contains an airworthiness 

limitations section unless the person 

has complied with any mandatory 

replacement times, inspection intervals, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6061 

9 53 FR 50190, 50193; December 13, 1988 

(inoperative instruments or equipment final rule 

document for 14 CFR 91.30 and 91.165 (re-codified 

as 14 CFR 91.213 and 91.405, respectively, on 

August 18, 1989)). 

10FAA Legal Interpretation, Peri-Aircraft 

Electronics Association (June 13, 2018). 

and related procedures specified in that 

section or alternative inspection 

intervals and related procedures set 

forth in an operations specification 

approved by the Administrator under 

part 121 or 135 or in accordance with 

an inspection program approved under 

§ 91.409(e). The proposed revision is 

intended to more clearly convey the 

alternative options available to maintain 

compliance with the FAA-approved 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) provided by the 

manufacturer. 

The proposed options follow closely 

those in the current rule but with minor 

changes. The first option in paragraph 

(c)(1) would still mandate compliance 

with the replacement times, inspection 

intervals, and related procedures found 

in the airworthiness limitations section 

of the manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual or ICA. The second option in 

paragraph (c)(2) would provide for 

alternative inspection intervals and 

related procedures set forth in a CAMP 

for parts 121 and 135 operators, which 

would be approved by the FAA and 

authorized by operations specifications 

issued to the operator. In addition to 

including operations under parts 121 

and 135 as provided in the current rule, 

this alternative would include 

operations under subpart K of part 91 if 

the operators are utilizing a CAMP 

under § 91.1411. This is because the 

authorization process for a CAMP under 

part 91, subpart K, would be similar to 

the process for CAMPs under parts 121 

and 135. The FAA may review and 

authorize any potential changes to an 

approved airworthiness limitations 

section during the review process of the 

CAMP. 

The third option in § 91.403(c)(3) 

would be to use any alternative 

inspection intervals and related 

procedures set forth in an inspection 

program identified under § 91.409(f). 

Section 91.409(f) lists the inspection 

programs that the FAA authorizes for 

use. The FAA considers these 

inspection programs to be permissible 

inspection options for these aircraft. 

Currently, the reference in § 91.403(c), 

now proposed as § 91.403(c)(3), referred 

to inspection intervals within 

authorized inspection programs under 

§ 91.409(e). This reference has been 

updated for clarity to § 91.409(f) because 

that paragraph directly lists the 

inspection programs. 

Finally, the FAA proposes to add a 

new paragraph (e) to § 91.403 that 

clarifies that aircraft operating under a 

special flight permit must do so in 

accordance with conditions and 

limitations issued by the Administrator. 

The proposed revision would also state 

that the aircraft must be inspected, at 

least to the extent necessary, to 

determine the aircraft is in a condition 

for safe operation for the intended flight. 

While this is the current practice in the 

issuance of a special flight permit, the 

revision would make that requirement 

explicit. These requirements are 

necessary for safety because the aircraft 

in question would not otherwise meet 

applicable airworthiness requirements. 

3. Clarification of Maintenance Required 

To Correct Discrepancies (§ 91.405) 

The FAA proposes to revise 

§ 91.405(a) to state that, between 

required inspections, the owner or 

operator would be required to evaluate 

and disposition or correct, as 

appropriate, any discrepancies through 

inspection, overhaul, repair, 

preservation, or the replacement of 

parts, in accordance with part 43, or 

appropriately deferred as provided in 

§ 91.213. The paragraph currently 

requires that each owner or operator of 

an aircraft ‘‘[s]hall have that aircraft 

inspected as prescribed in subpart E of 

this part and shall between required 

inspections, except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, have 

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in 

part 43 of this chapter.’’ 

The current text requires only that 

those discrepancies must be ‘‘repaired,’’ 

which does not properly include all 

‘‘maintenance’’ elements, as it is defined 

in 14 CFR 1.1, and discrepancy 

disposition may be done through several 

different types of maintenance actions, 

such as inspection, preservation, or the 

replacement of parts. The FAA also 

proposes to add, in paragraph (a), a 

reference to § 91.213 (Inoperative 

instruments and equipment) as that 

section permits deferral of qualifying 

instruments and equipment under 

specific conditions and limitations. 

The FAA also proposes to revise 

§ 91.405(c), which provides an 

exception to the requirement in 

paragraph (a) to repair discrepancies. 

Paragraph (c) is narrowly tailored to 

only instruments or equipment 

permitted to be inoperative by 

§ 91.213(d)(2), and those must be 

‘‘repaired, replaced, removed, or 

inspected at the next required 

inspection.’’ The FAA proposes to 

change paragraph (c) to clarify that an 

inoperative instrument or item of 

equipment would be required to be 

inspected at each required inspection to 

ensure it will not have an adverse effect 

on the aircraft’s continued safe 

operation. 

We discussed this issue in the 1988 9

rule preamble in response to a 

commenter, who had requested 

clarification on the length of time an 

inoperative instrument or equipment 

item could remain inoperative after 

deactivation or removal. In the FAA’s 

response, we explained that the rule 

required a person to determine whether 

an aircraft with inoperative instruments 

and equipment is in condition for safe 

operation. Additionally, at every 

required inspection thereafter, the 

aircraft owner or operator would need to 

have any inoperative instrument and 

equipment reevaluated to ensure the 

discrepancy would not affect the 

operation of any other installed 

instrument or equipment. Therefore, the 

FAA believed that the rule provided 

adequate safeguards without having to 

impose time limits on the repair or 

replacement of inoperative instruments 

and equipment. The intent of the rule 

was that if the inoperative instrument or 

item of equipment is not repaired, 

replaced, or removed at or before the 

next required inspection, the 

inoperative item must be inspected 

again (i.e., reevaluated) at the required 

inspection to ensure that it will not have 

an adverse effect on the aircraft’s safe 

operation.10 Revised paragraph (c) 

would provide clarification that there is 

no time limitation as to how long the 

inoperative instrument or item of 

equipment could remain inoperative so 

long as it is inspected at each required 

inspection and there is no adverse effect 

on the aircraft’s continued safe 

operation. 

Finally, the FAA proposes to revise 

paragraph (d) to grammatically follow 

the unnumbered introductory text of 

§ 91.405. That text states: ‘‘Each owner 

or operator of an aircraft—.’’ The 

beginning of revised paragraph (d) 

would grammatically follow the 

section’s introductory text by stating: 

‘‘Shall ensure that when inoperative 

instruments or equipment are present, a 

placard marking it ‘Inoperative’ has 

been installed as required by § 43.11 of 

this chapter.’’ The FAA proposes to add 

the phrase ‘‘marking it ‘Inoperative’ ’’ for 

clarity and to be consistent with the 

requirements in §§ 43.11(b) and 

91.213(d)(3)(ii). The following table is 

added for clarity. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6062 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—LIST OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO § 91.405 

Current regulation: Contains the requirements for: Revised in proposed: 

91.405 ....................... Each owner or operator of an aircraft— .............................. N/A. 

91.405(a) ................... Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart 

E of part 91 and shall between required inspections, except as provided in § 91.405(c), have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43.

91.405(a) shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed 

in subpart E of part 91 and shall, between required inspections, except as provided in § 91.405(c), have discrepancies evaluated and dispositioned or corrected, as 

appropriate, through inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, or the replacement of parts, in accordance with 

part 43, or appropriately deferred as provided in 

§ 91.213; 

91.405(b) ................... ............................................................................................... N/A. 

91.405(c) ................... Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2) repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection.91.405(c) shall, at the next required inspection, have any 

inoperative instrument or item of equipment that is permitted to be inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2) and that has 

not been repaired, replaced, or removed, inspected to 

ensure that the inoperative instrument or item of equipment will not have an adverse effect on the continued 

safe operation of the aircraft. 

91.405(d) ................... When listed discrepancies include inoperative instruments 

or equipment, shall ensure that a placard has been installed as required by § 43.11.

91.405(d) shall ensure that when inoperative instruments 

or equipment are present, a placard marking it ‘‘inoperative’’ has been installed as required by § 43.11. 

4. Additional Clarifications of the 

Aircraft Inspection Requirements 

(§ 91.409) 

In addition to the proposal to extend 

the inspection program options in 

§ 91.409(f) to single-engine turbinepowered airplanes and unmanned 

aircraft, we propose other minor 

clarifications to § 91.409. As discussed 

under the proposal to revise § 91.401, 

Applicability, aircraft that carry a 

special flight permit, a current 

experimental certificate, or a light-sport, 

or provisional airworthiness certificate 

as described in § 91.409(c)(1), are 

specifically excluded from the 

inspection requirements of § 91.409(a). 

The same is true for aircraft inspected 

in accordance with an approved aircraft 

inspection program under part 125 or 

135 as described in § 91.409(c)(2). This 

proposal would relocate the exemption 

language of § 91.409(c)(1) and (2) 

placing it under § 91.401(c). This change 

would be part of our proposed 

clarification and streamlining of subpart 

E of part 91. 

We also propose to revise 

§ 91.409(c)(1) through (4), which 

provide an exception to the inspection 

requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b). 

As previously stated, § 91.409(c)(1) and 

(2) would be relocated to § 91.401(c), 

which will leave § 91.409(c)(1) and (2) 

vacant. We propose relocating 

§ 91.409(c)(3), aircraft that are ‘‘subject 

to the requirements of paragraph (d) or 

(e) of this section,’’ into the vacant 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) positions. 

Additionally, we propose to relocate the 

progressive inspection program 

exception to paragraphs (a) and (b) from 

§ 91.409(d) to paragraph (c)(1). We also 

propose to move the exception of large 

airplanes, multiengine turbine-powered 

airplanes, and unmanned aircraft that 

are subject to the proposed 

§ 91.409(e)(1) into the vacant 

§ 91.409(c)(2) position. Furthermore, we 

propose to move § 91.409(c)(4), aircraft 

that are subject to the proposed 

§ 91.409(e)(2) (i.e., turbine-powered 

rotorcraft and single-engine turbinepowered airplanes) into § 91.409(c)(3). 

Existing § 91.409(c)(4) will be deleted 

because these changes leave it vacant. 

Headings have been added for clarity 

and consistency to § 91.409(a), (b), and 

(c). 

Finally, we propose to update the 

language in paragraph (g), which 

establishes the requirement for covered 

operators to submit new or changed 

inspection programs for FAA approval, 

to require simply that the program be 

submitted in a manner acceptable to the 

FAA. The proposed revision would 

provide both the FAA and operators 

more flexibility in the way these types 

of programs are submitted, reviewed, 

and approved. The FAA is also 

proposing conforming amendments to 

paragraphs (g) introductory text and 

(g)(1) to modify language that currently 

specifies ‘‘airplane’’ or ‘‘rotorcraft’’ so 

that it would read ‘‘aircraft,’’ to apply to 

airplanes, rotorcraft, and unmanned 

aircraft. The following table is added for 

clarity. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF REORGANIZED REQUIREMENTS (§ 91.409) 

Current regulation: Contains the requirements for: Reorganized in proposed: 

91.409(c)(1) ............... Inspection requirements that are not applicable to an aircraft that carries a current experimental, light-sport, or 

provisional airworthiness certificate.

Moved to § 91.401(c)(3) and (4). 

91.409(c)(2) ............... Inspection requirements that are not applicable to aircraft 

inspected in accordance with an approved aircraft inspection program under part 125 or 135.

Moved to § 91.401(c)(1) and (2). 

91.409(c)(3) ............... Inspection requirements that are not applicable to aircraft 

subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) or (e).

Moved to § 91.409(c)(1) and (2). 

91.409(c)(4) ............... Inspection requirements that are not applicable to turbinepowered rotorcraft when the operator elects to inspect 

that rotorcraft in accordance with paragraph (e).

Moved to § 91.409(c)(3). Note: Section 91.409(c)(4) would 

be vacant. 

91.409(e) ................... Large Airplanes (not inspected in accordance with part 

125).

Revised and separated into § 91.409(e)(1) and (2). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6063 

5. Language Used in Reference to 

Inspection Programs (§ 91.415(a)) 

We propose to clarify the language in 

§ 91.415(a) by changing the phrase 

‘‘approved aircraft inspection program’’ 

to ‘‘an inspection program approved 

under § 91.409(f)(4) or § 91.1109, or 

§ 125.247(e)(3) of this chapter’’ to 

remain consistent with inspection 

program terminology in other 14 CFR 

sections. The FAA uses the term 

‘‘approved aircraft inspection program,’’ 

or ‘‘AAIP,’’ for a program approved 

under § 135.419, whereas programs 

approved under parts 121 and 135 (10 

or more), and part 91, subpart K, would 

be referred to as ‘‘inspection programs.’’ 

Additionally, we propose to add 

§ 125.247(e)(3) to the list of inspection 

programs to which the Administrator 

can mandate revisions, if the 

Administrator finds that revisions are 

necessary for the continued adequacy of 

the program. This is to align with the 

changes being made to § 125.247(e)(3), 

discussed below. 

E. Other Miscellaneous Inspection 

Program and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

1. Removal of Reference to § 91.409 

(§ 91.501(a)) 

We propose to revise § 91.501(a) to 

remove the information in parenthesis: 

‘‘(Section 91.409 prescribes an 

inspection program for large and for 

turbine-powered (turbojet and 

turboprop) multiengine airplanes and 

turbine-powered rotorcraft of U.S. 

registry when they are operated under 

this part or part 129 or 137.).’’ This 

language is informational only, does not 

convey any regulatory requirement, and 

was only a specific reference to 

inspection requirements in subpart G 

that continue to apply to aircraft 

operated under subpart F. Moreover, the 

introductory sentence of the section 

states that the regulations in this subpart 

are in addition to the requirements 

prescribed in other subparts, which 

includes the requirements in § 91.409. 

2. Mechanical Reliability Reporting 

Requirements (§ 91.1415(d)) 

We propose to revise the reporting 

requirements in § 91.1415(d) to align 

them with the equivalent service 

difficulty reporting requirements found 

in §§ 121.703, 125.409, 135.415, and 

145.221. Section 91.1415 prescribes the 

requirements for occurrence and 

detection reporting for aircraft failures, 

malfunctions, and defects by fractional 

ownership program managers under 

subpart K, who maintain aircraft under 

a CAMP. Paragraph (d) sets forth the 

procedural requirements for report 

submission to the FAA. 

When the FAA revised similar 

reporting requirements in parts 121, 

125, 135, and 145 [70 FR 76979, Dec. 29, 

2005], § 91.1415(d) was not included in 

the change. The proposed change would 

standardize the reporting requirements 

by increasing § 91.1415(d) from 72 to 96 

hours, as it is in the others, to be 

consistent. Accordingly, the FAA 

proposes to change the section heading 

from ‘‘Mechanical reliability reports’’ to 

‘‘Service difficulty reports.’’ 

Additionally, we would require that the 

reports be submitted ‘‘to the FAA offices 

in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,’’ rather 

than specifying the reports be submitted 

directly ‘‘to the Flight Standards office 

that issued the program manager’s 

management specifications.’’ This 

would be accomplished by submitting 

reports to the FAA Service Difficulty 

Reporting online database. 

3. Part 125 Inspection Program and 

Maintenance Requirements 

(§ 125.247(d) and (e)) 

We propose to amend the text in 

§ 125.247(d)(1), which prohibits 

operation of an airplane subject to part 

125 unless the ‘‘installed engines have 

been maintained in accordance with the 

overhaul periods recommended by the 

manufacturer or a program approved by 

the Administrator.’’ Specifically, we 

will remove the phrase ‘‘a program 

approved by the Administrator’’ because 

there is no FAA-approved maintenance 

program required by part 125 that 

includes overhaul periods, nor will we 

establish one. 

Similarly, we would revise paragraph 

(d)(2), which prohibits operation unless 

the ‘‘engine overhaul periods are 

specified in the inspection programs 

required by § 125.247(a)(3),’’ to remove 

the reference to overhaul periods being 

specified in an inspection program. The 

proposed text would state: ‘‘The engine 

overhaul periods, or a reference to 

where they can be found, are specified 

in the certificate holder’s operations 

specifications’’ because inspection 

programs do not include overhaul 

limits; overhaul limits are part of 

maintenance programs, not inspection 

programs. 

Additionally, we would revise the 

introductory paragraph in § 125.247(e) 

from ‘‘Inspection programs which may 

be approved for use under this part 

. . .’’ to ‘‘Inspection programs that may 

be authorized for use under this part 

. . . [.]’’ The inspection programs 

referenced in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 

do not require additional FAA 

acceptance or approval because 

authorization is contained in the 

operating specifications. In conjunction 

with this change, we propose to revise 

paragraph (a)(3) to replace the word 

‘‘approved’’ with ‘‘authorized,’’ so the 

paragraph would conclude with the 

phrase ‘‘inspection program authorized 

by the Administrator under paragraph 

(e).’’ 

Finally, we will revise the text in 

paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (3) to align 

with the proposed changes in § 91.409(f) 

(e.g., in paragraph (e)(1), we would 

remove ‘‘continuous’’ from ‘‘continuous 

inspection program’’ because a 

‘‘continuous inspection program’’ is not 

defined in the regulations, although an 

inspection program may be part of a 

CAMP). Additionally, we will add 

‘‘maintenance’’ after ‘‘airworthiness’’ in 

the phrase ‘‘continuous airworthiness 

program’’ because these programs have 

the same requirements as a CAMP. To 

be consistent with the revision proposed 

for § 91.409(f)(3) to replace the reference 

to ‘‘[a] current inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer’’ 

with ‘‘[a]n inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer that 

was the most current program available 

at the time of selection . . . , ’’ we will 

make the same revision to paragraph 

(e)(2) for the same reasons. This change 

would eliminate confusion over the use 

of the word ‘‘current.’’ 

Also, to be consistent with current 

§ 91.409(f)(4), we will revise paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section to provide that an 

inspection program developed by the 

certificate holder for use under this part 

must be approved by the FAA. Further, 

we will incorporate into this paragraph 

the additional requirement in current 

§ 91.409(f)(4) that the Administrator 

may require revision of the inspection 

program in accordance with the 

provisions of § 91.415. This would 

allow the Administrator to mandate 

changes to the program if it were found 

inadequate. The procedures of § 91.415 

would be followed, and certificate 

holders would have the opportunity to 

file for a petition for reconsideration. 

4. Terminology in the Applicability of 

Part 135, Subpart J (§ 135.411(a)(2)) 

The FAA proposes to clarify that a 

maintenance program referenced in 

§ 135.411(a)(2) is a CAMP. Currently, 

§ 135.411(a)(2) lists only the part 135 

sections under which the operator’s 

aircraft must be maintained, but it does 

not refer to that combination of sections 

as a ‘‘continuous airworthiness 

maintenance program.’’ This term is 

referenced in § 135.429(d)(3) and in 

other regulations, such as § 91.409(f)(1), 

which refers directly to a CAMP for 

aircraft maintained under 

§ 135.411(a)(2). Therefore, we will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6064 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

11Section 145.109(d) prescribes the following 

document list: airworthiness directives, Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness, maintenance 

manuals, overhaul manuals, standard practice 

manuals, service bulletins, and other applicable 

data acceptable to or approved by the FAA. 

12 Legal Interpretation of ‘‘Current’’ as it Applies 

to Maintenance Manuals and Other Documents 

Referenced in 14 CFR 43.13(a) and 145.109(d), 

Memorandum Opinion to Manager, AWP–230 and 

Manager, Sacramento FSDO, from Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations, AGC–200 (Aug. 13, 2010). 

change ‘‘maintained under a 

maintenance program . . .’’ in 

paragraph (a)(2) to ‘‘under a continuous 

airworthiness maintenance program 

. . .’’ for consistency with other 

regulatory requirements. 

5. Part 137 Inspection Requirements for 

Operations Over Congested Areas 

(§ 137.53(c)) 

The FAA proposes to revise 

§ 137.53(c) by removing the text in 

paragraph (c)(1) of the section. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) currently provides an 

aircraft inspection requirement that 

must be met before the aircraft may be 

operated over a congested area. It 

requires that, except for the larger 

aircraft addressed by paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii), the aircraft must have had, 

within the preceding 100 hours of time 

in service, a 100-hour or annual 

inspection or have been inspected under 

a progressive inspection system. The 

FAA proposes to move this inspection 

requirement to § 91.409, the inspections 

regulation. Specifically, the 100-hour or 

annual inspection requirement would 

be re-located to § 91.409(b) to be 

included with the other 100-hour or 

annual inspection requirements for 

aircraft operated for hire or flight 

instruction. The option for the aircraft to 

be inspected under a progressive 

inspection system would be included 

under the § 91.409(c)(1) exception 

annual and 100-hour requirements in 

§ 91.409. 

Section 137.53(c)(1)(ii) specifies the 

inspection program requirements for ‘‘a 

large or turbine-powered multiengine 

civil airplane . . .’’ if it will be operated 

over congested areas under part 137. It 

directs that such aircraft be inspected in 

accordance with the applicable 

inspection program requirements of 

§ 91.409. Large or turbine-powered 

multiengine civil airplanes are already 

required to be inspected in accordance 

with § 91.409, specifically paragraph (e), 

regardless of whether the aircraft is 

operated over congested areas under 

part 137. We propose to remove 

§ 137.53(c)(1)(ii) in its entirety so only 

the § 91.409(e) inspection requirements 

will apply to remove redundancy and to 

eliminate possible confusion. 

F. Clarification of Part 145 

Requirements on Documents and Data 

and Contract Maintenance 

1. Current and Accessible Documents 

and Data (§ 145.109(d)) 

The FAA proposes to remove the last 

sentence and its prescriptive list of 

documents in § 145.109(d),11 that repair 

stations must keep ‘‘current and 

accessible’’ when performing 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations. The prescriptive list 

requires that the documents be ‘‘current 

and accessible when the relevant work 

is being done;’’ however, this conflicts 

with § 43.13(a) because not all of these 

documents must be ‘‘current’’ when 

used. For example, repair stations are 

also authorized to use maintenance and 

overhaul manuals that were current at 

the aircraft’s certification instead of the 

manufacturer’s most current version in 

time. Repair stations may also use other 

documents (including a manual revision 

that pre-dates the current version if the 

maintenance is performed using other 

acceptable methods, techniques, and 

practices). 

A 2010 FAA legal interpretation 12

clarified that ‘‘current’’ in § 145.109(d) 

means ‘‘up to date,’’ i.e., the most recent 

version (revision) of the document (e.g., 

maintenance manual) issued by the 

manufacturer. This interpretation also 

clarified that if a maintenance provider 

used a prior version or revision of a 

manual in performing maintenance, that 

person would not be in violation of the 

maintenance performance rules in 

§ 43.13 unless the FAA could show that 

the information used was no longer 

acceptable. This is because of the 

flexibility provided in the maintenance 

regulations. For example, § 43.13(a) 

provides that the person performing 

maintenance shall use the current 

manufacturer’s maintenance manual or 

ICA, ‘‘or other methods, techniques, and 

practices acceptable to the 

Administrator. . . .’’ If a repair station 

were to use ‘‘other methods, techniques, 

and practices acceptable to the 

Administrator’’ (for example, those 

contained in a prior manual revision), 

then the repair station would not be 

required to use the latest revision 

provided by the manufacturer. 

Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove 

the requirement in § 145.109(d) that the 

documents and data referred to in that 

section must be current. 

The means for assuring appropriate 

data would be provided by the repair 

station’s quality control system. 

Currently, § 145.211(a) requires that 

each repair station establish and 

maintain a quality control system 

acceptable to the FAA that ensures the 

airworthiness of the articles being 

maintained. Section 145.211(c) provides 

that, as part of a repair station’s 

acceptable quality control system, the 

repair station must keep current a 

quality control manual in a format 

acceptable to the FAA and specify what 

that manual must include. Section 

145.211(c)(1)(v) provides specifically 

that the manual must include a 

description of the procedures used for 

‘‘[e]stablishing and maintaining current 

technical data for maintaining articles.’’ 

In developing acceptable procedures for 

assuring the currency of the technical 

data, repair stations typically work with 

their responsible Flight Standards office 

to tailor procedures that consider 

realistic time frames in which to 

incorporate manual revisions and other 

changes and updates into their systems. 

Further, § 145.211(c)(2) requires that the 

manual include ‘‘[r]eferences, where 

applicable, to the manufacturer’s 

inspection standards for a particular 

article, including reference to any data 

specified by that manufacturer.’’ 

Based on the above considerations, 

the FAA invites the public to comment 

on this proposal to remove the current 

requirement that a repair station must 

maintain the specified documents and 

that the documents be ‘‘current’’ and 

accessible when the relevant work is 

being done. In particular, we seek 

comments that address any concerns 

associated with repair stations using a 

manual that is not the most current 

revision issued by the manufacturer, in 

the context of the maintenance 

performance rule that permits using 

other acceptable methods, techniques, 

and practices, and any potential 

unintended impacts of the proposal. 

Based on the comments received, the 

FAA may consider alternatives to 

removing the requirements in 

§ 145.109(d), including retaining or 

amending the provision. 

2. FAA Contract Maintenance 

(§§ 145.201(a)(2) and 145.217) Approval 

We propose to amend §§ 145.201(a)(2) 

and 145.217, which address contract 

maintenance by a certificated repair 

station, to clarify that the requirements 

in § 145.217, including the need to 

obtain FAA approval of contract 

maintenance, are applicable only when 

the certificated repair station is 

assuming responsibility for the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations work performed by an 

outside source. 

Section 145.201(a)(2) contains the 

general authority for a certificated repair 

station to arrange (i.e., contract) for 

another person to perform maintenance, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6065 

13The FAA summarized and responded to 

comments in the NPRM withdrawal, which did not 

include reference to negative comments regarding 

the contract maintenance proposal. See 74 FR 

21287, May 7, 2009. 14See 14 CFR 145.5(a) and 145.201. 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

of any article for which it is rated. That 

regulation further requires that if the 

person to whom the work is contracted 

is not certificated under part 145, the 

certificated repair station must ensure 

that the non-certificated person follows 

a quality control system equivalent to 

the system followed by the certificated 

repair station. 

Section 145.217 contains additional 

specific procedures that a repair station 

must follow when contracting a 

maintenance function to an outside 

source. By the plain language of 

§ 145.217(a)(1), FAA approval is 

required for a maintenance function to 

be contracted to an outside source, 

whether the outside source is an FAAcertificated repair station or a noncertificated person. This requirement 

has caused confusion in the past as 

some repair stations believed preapproval was not required if: (1) the 

contract was with another FAAcertificated repair station that was rated 

for the task; and (2) after completing the 

requested work, the contracted repair 

station made the requisite airworthiness 

determination and approved the work 

performed for return to service. 

In 2006, we attempted to address this 

confusion in a larger part 145 proposed 

rulemaking. In our proposal to amend 

§ 145.217 [71 FR 70253, 70266, 

December 1, 2006], we proposed to 

remove the requirement in paragraph 

(a)(1) that maintenance functions 

contracted to all outside sources be 

approved by the FAA. We proposed to 

limit FAA approval to a maintenance 

function contracted to an outside source 

not certificated under part 145. A repair 

station contracting a maintenance 

function to a repair station certificated 

under part 145 would not have to obtain 

FAA approval. The FAA withdrew the 

large part 145 2006 NPRM because it 

did not adequately address the repair 

station operating environment at that 

time. It was also withdrawn because of 

the many significant issues commenters 

to the NPRM raised.13

We believe the confusion surrounding 

the approval requirement is part of a 

broader misunderstanding of contract 

maintenance regulations. Section 

145.217 applies when a certificated 

repair station contracts a maintenance 

function to an outside source with the 

intent of then assuming regulatory 

responsibility for the maintenance work 

performed by the outside source, 

regardless of whether that outside 

source is certificated under part 145. 

The certificated repair station, rather 

than the outside source, would approve 

the article for return to service. The 

originating certificated repair station 

would be responsible for making the 

maintenance record entry required by 

14 CFR 43.9(a), if applicable. Because it 

assumes responsibility for the outside 

source’s performed maintenance, the 

certificated repair station must meet the 

requirements in § 145.217, notably to 

obtain FAA approval of the contract 

maintenance and to ensure that the 

work is accomplished in a satisfactory 

manner. 

As written, however, §§ 145.201(a)(2) 

and 145.217 can be read to apply even 

to contract maintenance arrangements 

where the originating certificated repair 

station contracts work to another 

certificated repair station and that 

outside repair station then performs the 

work and approves the article for return 

to service under its own certificate, 

rating(s), and quality control system. 

This construction of the regulations was 

never intended. Compliance with this 

additional administrative procedure in 

§ 145.217 does not provide any 

additional safety benefit in this scenario 

because the outside source is also 

certificated under part 145 with the 

appropriate rating(s) and will be using 

the privileges of its own certificate to 

perform the work and approve the 

article for return to service; 14 therefore, 

this constitutes an unnecessary 

administrative burden on the requesting 

repair station and the FAA. The FAA 

would have already determined, 

through the issuance of the repair 

station certificate, operations 

specifications, ratings, and other 

authorizations or approvals, that the 

outside certificated repair station meets 

the qualifications under part 145 to 

perform, independently, the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations on the type of article(s) in 

question. 

Accordingly, the FAA proposes to 

amend § 145.201(a)(2) to clarify that 

compliance with § 145.217 is required 

only where the certificated repair 

station assumes responsibility for the 

outside source’s performed work. 

Section 145.201(a)(2) currently 

authorizes a certificated repair station to 

‘‘[a]rrange for another person to perform 

the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations of any 

article for which the certificated repair 

station is rated.’’ The phrase ‘‘for which 

the certificated repair station is rated’’ is 

confusing because it can be read to 

imply that the certificated repair station 

may not arrange for another person to 

perform the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations of any 

article for which the certificated repair 

station is not rated. Repair stations 

routinely arrange for other repair 

stations to perform work on articles for 

which the originating repair station is 

not rated or otherwise qualified to 

maintain or alter as long as the other 

repair station is rated to perform the 

work and approves the article for return 

to service. Thus, we will remove the 

phrase ‘‘for which the certificated 

station is rated’’ from § 145.201(a)(2) to 

clarify that part 145 contains no 

restriction on the ability of repair 

stations to arrange for other persons to 

perform work on articles for which the 

originating repair station is not rated. 

The section would now provide that a 

certificated repair station may ‘‘[a]rrange 

for another person to perform the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations of any article.’’ As 

discussed below, we are also proposing 

clarifications to limitations on contract 

maintenance in § 145.217. 

The FAA proposes to add language to 

§ 145.201(a)(2) that would permit the 

originating certificated repair station to 

approve an article for return to service 

after work performed by an outside 

person only if the originating 

certificated repair station is: (1) rated to 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations on the 

article; and (2) complies with the 

requirements in § 145.217 for contract 

maintenance. This will make it more 

explicit that while a repair station can 

make arrangements for other persons to 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations, the repair 

station would be able to approve the 

article(s) for return to service only if it 

meets the additional contract 

maintenance requirements in § 145.217, 

including the requirement in 

§ 145.217(a)(1) to obtain FAA approval, 

regardless of whether the outside person 

is certificated under part 145. 

In addition, we will remove the 

second sentence in § 145.201(a)(2) 

because it is redundant; this subsection 

requires a certificated repair station that 

enters into an arrangement with a 

noncertificated person to ‘‘ensure that 

the noncertificated person follows a 

quality control system equivalent to the 

system followed by the certificated 

repair station.’’ This requirement is 

already contained in § 145.217(b)(1), 

and its inclusion in § 145.201(a)(2) is 

superfluous. 

Additionally, the FAA proposes to 

revise paragraph § 145.217(a) to reflect 

the same proposal for § 145.201(a)(2) to 

clarify that the approval and other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6066 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in § 145.217 only apply 

when the originating certificated repair 

station approves an article for return to 

service after an outside source performs 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations. 

The FAA is also proposing to move 

existing § 145.217(b)(3) into a new 

paragraph (a)(3). This provision 

currently applies when a certificated 

repair station contracts a maintenance 

function to a noncertificated person and 

requires that the originating certificated 

repair station verify, by test and/or 

inspection, that the work has been 

performed satisfactorily by the 

noncertificated person and that the 

article is airworthy before approving it 

for return to service. We believe the 

requirement to verify an outside 

person’s work should be applicable any 

time the originating certificated repair 

station approves an article for return to 

service following work performed by an 

outside person, regardless of whether 

that outside person is certificated. Even 

if the outside person is another 

certificated repair station, that person 

would not be exercising the full 

privileges of its certificate because it 

will not be approving the article(s) for 

return to service. Therefore, it is 

imperative that the originating 

certificated repair station, which will be 

approving the article for return to 

service, verify that the work has been 

performed satisfactorily and that the 

article is airworthy. By moving the 

requirement into paragraph (a), the 

originating certificated repair station 

would be required to verify the 

satisfactory performance of work 

performed by both certificated and 

noncertificated outside persons and the 

airworthiness of the article prior to 

approving it for return to service. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

direct that each Federal agency to 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) in any one year. The 

current threshold after adjustment for 

inflation is $177 million using the most 

current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for 

the Gross Domestic Product. This 

portion of the preamble summarizes the 

FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts 

of this proposed rule. We suggest 

readers seeking greater detail read the 

full regulatory analysis available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, we 

determined that this proposed rule: (1) 

has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities; (4) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (5) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

The estimated per aircraft savings is 

$7,974, and if 20 percent of the 

estimated single-engine turboprops are 

inspected under a manufacturerrecommended inspection program, the 

net annualized cost savings would be 

$7.4 million using a seven percent 

discount rate. These estimates are based 

on only one manufacturer offering a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

program (i.e., the manufacturer who has 

developed and provided us with cost 

savings estimates). The FAA does not 

identify any new costs for unmanned 

aircraft, and there are unquantifiable 

cost savings and benefits. 

B. Statement of Need for Regulatory 

Action 

The rule proposes to revise the 

aircraft maintenance inspection rules for 

small, corporate-sized, and unmanned 

aircraft. The most substantial change is 

the addition of more inspection program 

options for owners and operators of 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

and unmanned aircraft. Currently, 

owners and operators of these types of 

aircraft operating under part 91 are 

limited to annual, 100-hour, or 

progressive inspection programs, while 

unmanned aircraft operating under part 

135 are limited to AAIPs or CAMPs. 

This change would increase these 

options or, in the case of unmanned 

aircraft, require the selection of one of 

the options to include, among others, a 

manufacturer-recommended inspection 

program and an inspection program 

established by the registered owner or 

operator and approved by the 

Administrator. The added inspection 

programs would afford aircraft owners 

and operators more flexibility in 

performing aircraft inspections because 

they would have more options and 

would likely reduce inspection costs for 

the same. These programs would 

provide owners and operators of singleengine turbine-powered airplanes and 

unmanned aircraft with more aircraft 

inspection options without reducing 

safety. 

Manufacturers will also be able to 

implement more efficient and effective 

inspection programs for new and 

existing fleets of aircraft, which would 

bolster safety, control associated costs, 

and likely be attractive to new and 

existing owners. This rulemaking does 

not create a burden for single-engine 

turbine-powered airplane owners or 

operators because the decision to switch 

aircraft inspection programs is 

voluntary. This rulemaking does not 

create a burden for unmanned aircraft 

owners or operators because these 

aircraft are already using manufacturer 

inspection programs under authorized 

exemptions. Generally speaking, a 

manufacturer’s inspection requirements 

are optimized for a particular unmanned 

aircraft model when compared to 

annual inspection requirements or 

inspections under an AAIP or CAMP. 

Additionally, some maintenance-related 

regulations have confusing language, 

which has resulted in legal 

interpretation requests. This proposed 

rule would make several changes to 

clarify and simplify maintenance and 

inspection requirements for part 91 and 

part 125 operators and contract 

maintenance document retention 

requirements for part 145 repair 

stations. These clarifications would help 

ensure consistency in use and 

interpretation. 

Furthermore, the FAA proposes to 

align reporting requirements with 

similar requirements in other 

regulations, for example, §§ 121.703, 

135.415, and 145.221. Specifically, the 

rule proposed would lengthen the 

reporting interval for mechanical 

reliability reports, for aircraft operating 

under part 91, subpart K, fractional 

ownership rules, from 72 to 96 hours; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6067 

15Textron Aviation Inc. Petition for Rulemaking 

for 14 CFR 91.409. 

16 Due to less time in maintenance the improved 

aircraft availability would enable our highutilization operators more flexible scheduling. An 

annual or 100-hour inspection is costly considering 

shop equipment, labor, and aircraft downtime. 

Reduced operating costs may lower fares, therefore 

making air travel available to a wider segment of the 

public.’’ Textron Aviation Inc. Petition for 

Rulemaking for 14 CFR 91.409. 

and (2) allow electronic report 

submissions. 

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

By increasing inspection options 

available to owners and operators of 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

and unmanned aircraft, this proposal is 

expected to result in improved safety 

and net cost savings. The FAA does not 

identify any new costs; there are 

unquantifiable cost savings and benefits. 

Unmanned aircraft manufacturers 

seeking type certification or operational 

approval are already required to have an 

inspection program developed at the 

time the aircraft receives certification. 

One manufacturer estimated that 

inspecting aircraft under a Maintenance 

Steering Group—3rd Task Force (MSG– 

3) (used by manufacturers to develop 

initial scheduled maintenance/ 

inspection requirements) inspection 

program could save owners/operators 

approximately $7,974 per aircraft 

compared to an annual inspection 

program. 

Manufacturers would incur costs to 

update inspection programs, but these 

costs would be voluntary, as the rule 

would not require manufacturers to 

develop new inspection programs. 

However, most manufacturers would 

likely choose to do so, given the 

relatively low associated costs 

compared to potential safety and 

customer satisfaction benefits. 

Furthermore, even if a manufacturer 

does not choose to create an inspection 

program for a specific type of aircraft, 

this rule still provides a benefit to 

aircraft owners and operators because it 

allows them to develop their own 

inspection program. 

Improved safety will be one of this 

proposal’s benefits because a 

manufacturer-developed or ownercreated inspection program would be 

customized to the specific aircraft. This 

is due to the utilization of more relevant 

and appropriate inspection tasks and 

intervals. A manufacturer-developed 

program likely would be less invasive 

compared with the annual or 100-hour 

inspection. For example, highutilization operators performing a 100- 

hour inspection frequently generate 

maintenance issues due to frequent 

disassembly, inspection, and reassembly 

of components. Aircraft safety would be 

improved by having a less invasive 

scheduled maintenance process. The 

FAA estimated cost and cost savings 

over a 10-year time horizon as presented 

in the table below. Safety benefits were 

not quantified. 

Table 1 below presents a summary of 

estimated costs and cost savings for this 

proposal’s manned aircraft maintenance 

programs over a 10-year time period. 

These estimates are based on only one 

manufacturer offering a manufacturerdeveloped inspection program, i.e., the 

manufacturer who has developed and 

provided us with cost savings estimates. 

They result in an annualized net cost 

savings of $7.4 million using a 7 percent 

discount rate. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS

[$2020 U.S. Dollars] 

10-Year total 

cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

10-Year total 

costs 

(undiscounted) 

10-Year net 

cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

Net cost 

savings 7% 

present value 

Net cost 

savings 3% 

present value 

Annualized 

net cost 

savings 7% 

Annualized 

net cost 

savings 3% 

$77,757,841 $3,526,016 $74,231,825 $52,058,197 $63,278,086 $7,372,660 $7,392,755 

To understand the maximum 

potential cost savings for single-engine 

turbine-powered airplane and 

unmanned aircraft owners and 

operators, we ran a sensitivity analysis 

based on the assumption that all 

manufacturers of this type of aircraft 

would develop and make available 

manufacturer-developed inspection 

programs to those owners and operators. 

The sensitivity analysis indicates that 

annualized net cost savings reach $36.8 

million at a 7 percent discount rate if all 

manufacturers offer similar inspection 

programs. 

1. Who is potentially affected by this 

proposed rule? 

• Owners and operators of singleengine turbine-powered airplanes and 

unmanned aircraft operating under or 

otherwise using the inspection 

provisions of part 91. 

• Manufacturers who choose to 

develop inspection programs. 

2. Assumptions 

• Estimates are in 2020 dollars. 

• The period of analysis is 10 years. 

• Annual cost savings per aircraft of 

opting for a manufacturer-developed 

and recommended inspection program 

over an annual inspection program is 

$7,974. 

• The FAA uses a wage rate of $84.76 

per hour adjusted for total 

compensation and benefits to estimate 

costs. This is based on compensation 

data for an Aerospace Engineer from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

• Development of manufacturerrecommended inspection program 

would require four aerospace engineers 

full-time for 1 year. 

• Update of these programs would 

require two aerospace engineers full 

time each year. 

Estimates of the number of singleengine turbine-powered airplanes are 

computed using estimates of turboprops 

(years 2021 through 2030) from the 2018 

FAA Aerospace Forecast times the 

average number of single-engine 

turboprops as a percent of total 

turboprops from 2012 to 2019 from the 

FAA General Aviation Survey, Calendar 

Year 2019 

3. Benefits 

This proposal will result in improved 

safety because a manufacturerdeveloped inspection program would be 

less invasive compared with an annual 

or 100-hour inspection. For example, 

high-utilization operators performing 

100-hour inspections may encounter 

more maintenance issues due to 

frequent disassembly, inspection, and 

reassembly of components.15 The 

proposed inspection programs would 

meet the current minimum inspection 

requirements for turbine-powered multiengine airplanes. 

Another benefit would be more 

flexible scheduling for high-utilization 

operators because a 100-hour or annual 

inspection may require more aircraft 

downtime.16 The FAA has not 

quantified these benefits; those who 

benefit would be passengers and owners 

and operators. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6068 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

17These numbers are subject to rounding. 18These numbers are subject to rounding. 

4. Costs and Cost Savings 

This proposed rule would result in 

net cost savings. The proposal might 

potentially affect all the single-engine 

turbine airplanes. To estimate the 

number of affected aircraft and the 

proposed rule’s impact on aircraft 

owners and operators, we use the FAA’s 

general aviation survey (GA Survey) that 

tracks the number of single-engine 

turbine-powered airplanes. Estimates of 

the number of single-engine turboprop 

aircraft form the basis of the analysis 

and, accordingly, the number of aircraft 

that potentially could be inspected 

under one of the proposed optional 

inspection programs instead of the 

annual inspection program. However, 

we acknowledge the uncertainty on how 

many manufacturers of single-engine 

turbine airplanes would follow the 

example of one manufacturer that 

already developed its own inspection 

program. 

That general aviation aircraft 

manufacturer provided estimates of the 

cost differential between an MSG–3 

inspection program and an annual 

inspection program. An MSG–3 program 

is a manufacturers’ inspection program. 

Their analysis found that the total cost 

savings over 5 years would be $39,871 

or $7,974 on average per year, per 

aircraft. 

The cost savings would apply to only 

20 percent of the estimated number of 

single-engine turboprops fleet ranging 

from 4,847 in year 1 to 4,960 in year 10. 

The manufacturer that has developed 

this inspection program and supplied us 

with these estimates manufactures 20 

percent of single-engine turbine aircraft. 

As this manufacturer has actively 

developed the program, we think it 

highly likely the company would offer 

it to owners and operators of its aircraft. 

As it is likely to save these owners and 

operators money, we think that owners 

and operators would adopt the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

inspection program. The result would 

be the following total cost savings 

estimate in year 1: 

• Savings per aircraft × estimated 

Single-Engine turboprops × 20% = 

$7,974 × 4,847 × .2 = $7,730,502.17

The manufacturer has already 

developed the program; therefore, the 

development costs have already been 

incurred, and these development costs 

would not be accounted for in this 

analysis. This manufacturer would only 

incur the annual costs to maintain its 

inspection program it already 

developed. Below is the estimate of 

annual maintenance costs: 

The annual manufacturer cost to 

maintain a manufacturer-recommended 

inspection program is as follows: 

• Two aerospace engineers × loaded 

hourly wage rate × 2,080 hours = 2 

× $84.76 × 2,080 = $352,602. 

The estimated annual per aircraft 

savings is $7,974, and if 20 percent of 

the estimated single-engine turboprops 

are inspected under this manufacturer’s 

inspection program, the net cost savings 

in the first year would be $7.3 million, 

undiscounted ($7.7 million 

undiscounted cost savings ¥ $.4 

million undiscounted maintenance 

costs).18

Table 2 presents undiscounted cost 

savings, costs, net costs, discounted net 

cost savings, and annualized cost 

savings based on only one manufacturer 

offering its recommended inspection 

program. The annualized net cost 

savings would be $7.4 million at a 7 

percent discount rate. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED NET COST SAVINGS OF ONE MANUFACTURER

[$2020 U.S. dollars] * 

Year 

Estimated 

number of 

single-engine 

turboprops 

20% of the 

fleet achieves 

cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

Costs 

(undiscounted) 

Net cost 

savings 

(undiscounted) 

Net cost 

savings 7% 

present value 

Net cost 

savings 3% 

present value 

1 ............................................................... 4,847 $7,730,502 $352,602 $7,377,900 $6,895,234 $7,163,010 

2 ............................................................... 4,836 7,712,810 352,602 7,360,209 6,428,691 6,937,703 

3 ............................................................... 4,834 7,708,955 352,602 7,356,354 6,004,976 6,732,106 

4 ............................................................... 4,841 7,720,321 352,602 7,367,719 5,620,798 6,546,123 

5 ............................................................... 4,852 7,738,000 352,602 7,385,399 5,265,687 6,370,710 

6 ............................................................... 4,866 7,760,935 352,602 7,408,333 4,936,485 6,204,363 

7 ............................................................... 4,882 7,786,358 352,602 7,433,757 4,629,370 6,044,324 

8 ............................................................... 4,905 7,823,019 352,602 7,470,417 4,347,851 5,897,216 

9 ............................................................... 4,933 7,867,064 352,602 7,514,462 4,087,369 5,759,209 

10 ............................................................. 4,960 7,909,877 352,602 7,557,275 3,841,736 5,623,323 

Total .................................................. ........................ 77,757,841 3,526,016 74,231,825 52,058,197 63,278,086 

Annualized Net Cost Savings ........... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 7,411,916 7,418,122 

* These numbers are subject to rounding. 

5. Sensitivity Analysis 

Since there are four other 

manufacturers producing single-engine 

turbine-powered aircraft in this market 

segment, we conducted a sensitivity 

analysis to illustrate the maximum 

potential cost savings that could be 

achieved by all five manufacturers—and 

the owners and operators of the 

estimated aircraft fleet if the proposed 

rule is adopted. The following table 

shows cost savings if all owners and 

operators of single-engine turbinepowered aircraft were to transfer to an 

MSG–3 program and were able to 

achieve an annual cost savings of $7,974 

per airplane. 

For Year 1 in Table 3, using 2022 

forecast estimates, the annual potential 

cost savings of the proposed rule would 

be $38,652,509 [$7,974 (estimated cost 

savings per aircraft) × 4,847 (estimated 

single turboprops)]. In the remaining 

years in the 10-year period of analysis 

in Table 3, annual potential cost savings 

are calculated in the same manner as in 

Year 1 by multiplying $7,974 cost 

savings per aircraft with the number of 

forecasted aircrafts. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6069 

TABLE 5—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: MAXIMUM POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS

[$2020 U.S. dollars] 

Year 

Maximum potential 

cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

7% present value 3% present value 

1 ............................................................................................................... $38,652,509 $36,123,840 $37,526,708 

2 ............................................................................................................... 38,564,051 33,683,336 36,350,317 

3 ............................................................................................................... 38,544,776 31,464,019 35,273,930 

4 ............................................................................................................... 38,601,603 29,448,978 34,297,025 

5 ............................................................................................................... 38,690,001 27,585,436 33,374,335 

6 ............................................................................................................... 38,804,675 25,857,193 32,498,304 

7 ............................................................................................................... 38,931,791 24,244,763 31,655,109 

8 ............................................................................................................... 39,115,095 22,765,341 30,877,817 

9 ............................................................................................................... 39,335,318 21,395,807 30,147,246 

10 ............................................................................................................. 39,549,385 20,104,902 29,428,457 

Total .................................................................................................. 388,789,204 272,673,615 331,429,247 

Annualized Cost Savings ................................................................. .................................... 38,822,588 38,853,618 

Airplane manufacturers would have 

had to develop the inspection programs 

and incur the necessary annual costs to 

maintain and update their inspection 

programs for airplane owners and 

operators to realize these cost savings. 

We estimate that each manufacturer will 

devote four aerospace engineers fulltime for 1 year to develop the inspection 

program in the first year of the analysis. 

The development costs for five 

manufacturers are as follows: 

• Five manufacturers × development 

costs = 5 × $705,203 = $3,526,016 

Presented in the following table are 

cost savings, costs, net costs, discounted 

net cost savings, and annualized cost 

savings at their maximum potential. If 

all five manufacturers were to develop 

and offer manufacturer-recommended 

inspection programs, and all owners 

and operators of single-engine turbinepowered airplanes were to adopt these 

programs in place of their annual 

inspection programs, the annualized net 

cost savings would be $36.8 million at 

a 7 percent discount rate. 

TABLE 6—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: MAXIMUM POTENTIAL NET COST SAVINGS * 

Year 

Maximum 

potential 

cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

Costs 

(undiscounted) 

Maximum potential 

net cost savings 

(undiscounted) 

Maximum potential 

net cost savings 

7% present value 

Maximum potential 

net cost Savings 

3% present value 

1 ............................................................. $38,652,509 $3,526,016 $35,126,493 $32,828,498 $34,103,391 

2 ............................................................. 38,564,051 1,763,008 36,801,043 32,143,456 34,688,513 

3 ............................................................. 38,544,776 1,763,008 36,781,768 30,024,879 33,660,528 

4 ............................................................. 38,601,603 1,763,008 36,838,595 28,103,988 32,730,615 

5 ............................................................. 38,690,001 1,763,008 36,926,993 26,328,436 31,853,548 

6 ............................................................. 38,804,675 1,763,008 37,041,667 24,682,427 31,021,813 

7 ............................................................. 38,931,791 1,763,008 37,168,783 23,146,850 30,221,622 

8 ............................................................. 39,115,095 1,763,008 37,352,087 21,739,255 29,486,082 

9 ............................................................. 39,335,318 1,763,008 37,572,310 20,436,847 28,796,047 

10 ........................................................... 39,549,385 1,763,008 37,786,377 19,208,678 28,116,613 

Total ................................................ 388,789,204 19,393,088 369,396,116 258,643,314 314,678,773 

Annualized Net Cost Savings ......... ........................ ........................ .................................. 36,824,989 36,889,952 

* Totals may not add due to rounding. 

We request additional information 

regarding who would take advantage of 

this type of manufacturer’s inspection 

program and quantified data on 

potential cost savings or costs. After the 

comment period closes and depending 

on what information we receive, the 

FAA may choose to update the 

estimates. 

While the FAA quantified costs and 

cost savings, the rule would also result 

in unquantified cost savings by 

simplifying, clarifying, correcting terms, 

allowing for electronic data submission, 

and allowing an additional 24 hours to 

submit a mechanical reliability report. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121) and the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240), requires 

Federal agencies to consider regulatory 

action effects on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant impact. The term ‘‘small 

entities’’ comprises small businesses 

and not-for-profit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

We believe this proposed rule would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of entities for the 

following reasons: 

• The rule would not impose 

mandatory costs on small entities or 

result in any new costs to maintain the 

manufacturer inspection program. 

• It is likely to result in cost savings 

on the order of about $8,000 per aircraft 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

19 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

20FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ 

1210.pdf. 

for those small entities who voluntarily 

choose to use a manufacturer inspection 

program on their aircraft. 

Therefore, for the reasons provided, 

we certify that this proposed rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this proposed rule and 

determined that it would only have a 

domestic impact; therefore, it will not 

create unnecessary obstacles to United 

States foreign commerce. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or Tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. 

The FAA determined that the 

proposed rule will not result in the 

expenditure of $165 million or more by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or the private sector, in 

any one year. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined this proposed rule will 

not result in any new information 

collection requirements. 

The FAA proposes to lengthen the 

reporting interval for mechanical 

reliability reports, for aircraft operating 

under part 91, subpart K, fractional 

ownership rules, from 72 to 96 hours, 

and allow electronic report submissions. 

This increase in the reporting interval 

would align the requirement with 

similar reporting requirements in other 

regulations, for example, 14 CFR 

121.703, 135.415, and 145.221. 

Currently, the general aviation public, 

including part 91, subpart K, owners 

and operators, use FAA Form 8010–4, 

Malfunction and Defect Report, to 

submit voluntary reporting of 

occurrences or detection of failure, 

malfunctions, or defects. Approval to 

collect such information previously was 

granted by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned 

OMB Control Number 2120–0663. 

The supporting statement submitted 

to OMB for renewal of the Collection of 

Information 2120–0663 in October 2020 

estimated that 2,000 respondents from 

the General Aviation public each year 

would use Form 8010–4 by spending 10 

minutes each for an annual 334 total 

burden hours. The proposed change 

would simply align the required 

reporting interval from 72 hours to 96 

hours with similar requirements for part 

121, part 135, and part 145 operators of 

14 CFR and would neither decrease nor 

increase the current burden hours on 

2,000 respondents. 

Therefore, we determined that there 

would be no new information collection 

requirements associated with the 

proposal to increase the reporting 

timeframe for mechanical reliability 

reports in 14 CFR 91.1415 from 72 to 96 

hours and to allow for electronic 

submissions. 

H. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

I. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

Federalism. We determined this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government; therefore, 

it will not have any federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,19 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,20 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to affect uniquely or 

significantly their respective Tribes. Our 

proposal analysis has not identified any 

unique or significant effects, 

environmental or otherwise, on tribes. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

We analyzed this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001) and 

determined that it would not be a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and would not be likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, International 

Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6071 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

We analyzed this action under the 

policies and agency responsibilities of 

E.O. 13609 and determined that this 

action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

We invite interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should submit only one 

time if comments are filed 

electronically, or commenters should 

send only one copy of written 

comments if comments are filed in 

writing. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, we will consider all 

comments that we receive on or before 

the comments closing date; however, we 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments that 

are received. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal www.regulations.gov; 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at www.GovInfo.com. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

C. Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. Any commentary that 

the FAA receives that is not specifically 

designated as CBI will be placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

D. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of this NPRM, all comments 

received, any final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. A copy of 

this proposed rule will be placed in the 

docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at www.federalregister.gov and 

the Government Publishing Office’s 

website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy 

may also be found at the FAA’s 

Regulations and Policies website at 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed in 

the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking. 

E. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air carrier, Air taxis, Aircraft, 

Aviation safety, Charter flights, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 137 

Agriculture, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 145 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 

44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 

44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 

46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528– 

47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 

(49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of 

the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 2. Amend § 91.401 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 91.401 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sections 91.405 and 91.409 do not 

apply to— 

(1) An airplane inspected in 

accordance with part 125 of this 

chapter. 

(2) An aircraft inspected in 

accordance with an approved aircraft 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

inspection program under part 135 of 

this chapter and so identified by the 

registration number in the operations 

specifications of the certificate holder 

having the approved aircraft inspection 

program. 

(3) An aircraft that carries a special 

flight permit. 

(4) An aircraft that carries a current 

experimental, light-sport, or provisional 

airworthiness certificate, unless 

specified in an additional operating 

limitation under § 91.317 or § 91.319. 

■ 3. Amend § 91.403 by revising 

paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 91.403 General. 

* * * * * 

(c) No person may operate an aircraft 

for which a manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual or instructions for continued 

airworthiness has been issued that 

contains an airworthiness limitations 

section unless: 

(1) The mandatory replacement times, 

inspection intervals, and related 

procedures specified in the 

airworthiness limitations section have 

been complied with; or 

(2) Alternative inspection intervals 

and related procedures set forth in a 

continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program approved by the Administrator 

and authorized by operations 

specifications under part 121 or 135 of 

this chapter, or management 

specifications under subpart K of this 

part have been complied with; or 

(3) Alternative inspection intervals 

and related procedures set forth in an 

inspection program authorized for use 

under § 91.409(f) have been complied 

with. 

* * * * * 

(e) No person may operate an aircraft 

under a special flight permit unless it is 

operated in accordance with any 

conditions and limitations issued by the 

Administrator and it has been inspected 

to the extent necessary to determine the 

aircraft is in a condition for safe 

operation for the intended flight. 

■ 4. Amend § 91.405 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.405 Maintenance required. 

* * * * * 

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected 

as prescribed in this subpart and shall, 

between required inspections, except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, have discrepancies evaluated 

and dispositioned or corrected, as 

appropriate, through inspection, 

overhaul, repair, preservation, or the 

replacement of parts, in accordance 

with part 43 of this chapter, or 

appropriately deferred as provided in 

§ 91.213; 

* * * * * 

(c) Shall, at each required inspection, 

have any inoperative instrument or item 

of equipment that is permitted to be 

inoperative by § 91.213(d)(2), and that 

has not been repaired, replaced, or 

removed inspected to ensure that the 

inoperative instrument or item of 

equipment will not have an adverse 

effect on the continued safe operation of 

the aircraft; and 

(d) Shall ensure that when inoperative 

instruments or equipment are present, a 

placard marking it ‘‘inoperative’’ has 

been installed as required by § 43.11 of 

this chapter. 

■ 5. Amend § 91.409 by: 

■ a. Adding a heading for paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f) 

introductory text, and (f)(1), (3), and (4); 

■ c. Removing the undesignated 

paragraph following paragraph (f)(4); 

and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (g) 

introductory text and (g)(1). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 91.409 Inspections. 

(a) Annual inspections. * * * 

(b) 100 hour inspections. Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, no person may operate an 

aircraft carrying any person (other than 

a crewmember) for hire, no person may 

give flight instruction for hire in an 

aircraft which that person provides, and 

no person may operate an aircraft over 

congested areas under part 137 of this 

chapter unless within the preceding 100 

hours of time in service the aircraft has 

received an annual or 100-hour 

inspection and been approved for return 

to service in accordance with part 43 of 

this chapter or has received an 

inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with part 21 of this chapter. The 100- 

hour limitation may be exceeded by not 

more than 10 hours while en route to 

reach a place where the inspection can 

be done. The excess time used to reach 

a place where the inspection can be 

done must be included in computing 

the next 100 hours of time in service. 

(c) Applicability of annual and 100 

hour inspections. Paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section do not apply to— 

(1) An aircraft authorized by the 

Administrator to be inspected in 

accordance with a progressive 

inspection program under paragraph (d) 

of this section; 

(2) An aircraft subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section; or 

(3) Turbine-powered rotorcraft or 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

when the owner or operator elects to 

inspect that aircraft in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) Large airplanes (which are not 

inspected in accordance with part 125 

of this chapter), turbine-powered 

airplanes and rotorcraft, and unmanned 

aircraft—(1) Large airplanes, 

multiengine turbine-powered airplanes, 

and unmanned aircraft. Except as 

specified in § 91.401, no person may 

operate a large airplane, multiengine 

turbine-powered airplane, or unmanned 

aircraft unless the replacement times for 

life-limited parts specified in the aircraft 

specifications, type data sheets, or other 

documents approved by the 

Administrator are complied with and 

the aircraft, including the airframe, 

engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, 

survival equipment, and emergency 

equipment, is inspected in accordance 

with an inspection program selected 

under the provisions of paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(2) Turbine-powered rotorcraft and 

single-engine turbine-powered 

airplanes. In lieu of paragraph (a), (b), 

or (d) of this section, the owner or 

operator of a turbine-powered rotorcraft 

or a single-engine turbine-powered 

airplane may elect to use an inspection 

program selected under the provisions 

of paragraph (f) of this section. If an 

alternate inspection program is selected, 

no person may operate the aircraft 

unless the replacement times for lifelimited parts specified in the aircraft 

specifications, type data sheets, or other 

documents approved by the 

Administrator are complied with and 

the aircraft, including the airframe, 

engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, 

survival equipment, and emergency 

equipment, is inspected in accordance 

with the inspection program. 

(f) Selection of inspection program 

under paragraph (e) of this section. The 

registered owner or operator of each 

aircraft that is required to or has opted 

to use an inspection program under this 

section, as described in paragraph (e) of 

this section, must select, identify in the 

aircraft maintenance records, and use 

one of the following programs for the 

inspection of the aircraft. Each operator 

shall make a copy of the selected 

program available to the person 

performing inspections on the aircraft 

and, upon request, to the Administrator. 

(1) An inspection program that is part 

of a continuous airworthiness 

maintenance program currently in use 

by a person holding an air carrier 

certificate or an operating certificate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6073 

issued under part 121 or 135 of this 

chapter and operating that make and 

model aircraft under part 121 of this 

chapter or operating that make and 

model under part 135 of this chapter 

and maintaining it under § 135.411(a)(2) 

of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(3) An inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer that 

was the most current program available 

at the time of selection and identified in 

the aircraft maintenance records. 

(4) Any other inspection program 

established by the registered owner or 

operator and approved by the 

Administrator for that aircraft under 

paragraph (g) of this section. The 

Administrator may require revision of 

this inspection program in accordance 

with the provisions of § 91.415. 

(g) Inspection program approved 

under paragraph (e) of this section. Each 

operator of an aircraft desiring to 

establish or change an approved 

inspection program under paragraph 

(f)(4) of this section must submit the 

program for approval in a manner 

acceptable to the FAA. The program 

must be in writing and include at least 

the following information: 

(1) Instructions and procedures for the 

conduct of inspections for the particular 

make and model aircraft, including 

necessary tests and checks. The 

instructions and procedures must set 

forth in detail the parts and areas of the 

airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, and 

appliances, including survival and 

emergency equipment required to be 

inspected. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 91.415 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 91.415 Changes to aircraft inspection 

programs. 

(a) Whenever the Administrator finds 

that revisions to an inspection program 

approved under § 91.409(f)(4) or 

§ 91.1109 or § 125.247(e)(3) of this 

chapter are necessary for the continued 

adequacy of the program, the owner or 

operator must, after notification by the 

Administrator, make any changes in the 

program found to be necessary by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 91.501 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 91.501 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart prescribes operating 

rules, in addition to those prescribed in 

other subparts of this part, governing the 

operation of large airplanes of U.S. 

registry, turbojet-powered multiengine 

civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and 

fractional ownership program aircraft of 

U.S. registry that are operating under 

subpart K of this part in operations not 

involving common carriage. The 

operating rules in this subpart do not 

apply to those aircraft when they are 

required to be operated under parts 121, 

125, 129, 135, and 137 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 91.1415 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.1415 CAMP: Service difficulty reports. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each program manager shall 

submit each report required by this 

section, covering each 24-hour period 

beginning at 0900 local time of each day 

and ending at 0900 local time on the 

next day, to the FAA offices in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report 

of occurrences during a 24-hour period 

shall be submitted to the collection 

point within the next 96 hours. 

However, a report that is due on 

Saturday or Sunday may be submitted 

on the following Monday, and a report 

due on a holiday may be submitted on 

the next workday. 

* * * * * 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 

44716–44717, 44722. 

■ 10. Amend § 125.247 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 125.247 Inspection programs and 

maintenance. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The airplane, including airframe, 

aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, 

and survival and emergency equipment, 

and their component parts, is inspected 

in accordance with an inspection 

program authorized by the 

Administrator under paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) No person may operate an airplane 

subject to this part unless— 

(1) The installed engines have been 

maintained in accordance with the 

overhaul periods recommended by the 

manufacturer or a period approved by 

the Administrator; and 

(2) The engine overhaul periods, or a 

reference to where they can be found, 

are specified in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

(e) Inspection programs that may be 

authorized for use under this part 

include, but are not limited to— 

(1) An inspection program that is a 

part of a current continuous 

airworthiness maintenance program 

approved for use by a certificate holder 

under part 121 or 135 of this chapter; 

(2) An inspection program 

recommended by the manufacturer of 

the aircraft that was the most current 

program available at the time of 

selection and authorization under this 

part; or 

(3) An inspection program developed 

by a certificate holder under this part 

and approved by the Administrator. The 

Administrator may require revision of 

this inspection program in accordance 

with the provisions of § 91.415 of this 

chapter. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

41706, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 

44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– 

45105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 

44730). 

■ 12. Amend § 135.411 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 135.411 Applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Aircraft that are type certificated 

for a passenger seating configuration, 

excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or 

more, shall be maintained under a 

continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program in §§ 135.415, 135.417, and 

135.423 through 135.443. 

* * * * * 

PART 137—AGRICULTURAL 

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 137 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

44701–44702. 

■ 14. Amend § 137.53 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 137.53 Operation over congested areas: 

Pilots and aircraft. 

* * * * * 

(c) Aircraft. Each aircraft, other than 

a helicopter, must be equipped with a 

device capable of jettisoning at least 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1On October 26, 2001, the President signed into 

law the Uniting and Strengthening America by 

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 

107–56 (USA PATRIOT Act). Title III of the USA 

PATRIOT Act amended the anti-money laundering 

(AML) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to 

promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution 

of international money laundering and the 

financing of terrorism. The BSA, as amended, is the 

popular name for a collection of statutory 

authorities that FinCEN administers that is codified 

at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 1951–1960 and 31 U.S.C. 5311– 

5314, 5316–5336, and includes other authorities 

reflected in notes thereto. Regulations 

implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter 

X. 

2Pursuant to Treasury Order 180–01 (Jan. 14, 

2020), the authority of the Secretary to administer 

the BSA, including, but not limited to, 31 U.S.C. 

5318A, has been delegated to the Director of 

FinCEN. 

3 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)–(b)(4). For definition of 

‘‘covered financial institutions,’’ see 31 CFR 

1010.100(t) and section V.A.3 of this notice. 

one-half of the aircraft’s maximum 

authorized load of agricultural material 

within 45 seconds. If the aircraft is 

equipped with a device for releasing the 

tank or hopper as a unit, there must be 

a means to prevent inadvertent release 

by the pilot or other crewmember. 

PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 145 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. 

■ 16. Amend § 145.109 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 145.109 Equipment, materials, and data 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) A certificated repair station must 

maintain, in a format acceptable to the 

FAA, the documents and data required 

for the performance of maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

under its repair station certificate and 

operations specifications in accordance 

with part 43 of this chapter. These 

documents and data must be accessible 

when the relevant work is being done. 

■ 17. Amend § 145.201 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 145.201 Privileges and limitations of 

certificate. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Arrange for another person to 

perform the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations of any 

article. The certificated repair station 

may approve an article for return to 

service following the maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

performed on the article by the other 

person if— 

(i) The certificated repair station is 

rated to perform maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

on the article; and 

(ii) The requirements for contract 

maintenance in § 145.217 have been 

met. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 145.217 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘; and’’ at the end of 

paragraph (a)(1) and adding a period in 

its place; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(3); 

■ d. Adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (b)(1); 

■ e. Removing ‘‘; and’’ at the end of 

paragraph (b)(2) and adding a period in 

its place; and 

■ f. Removing paragraph (b)(3). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 145.217 Contract maintenance. 

(a) A certificated repair station may 

approve an article for return to service 

following the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations performed 

on an article by an outside source under 

contract or other arrangement, in 

accordance with § 145.201(a)(2), 

provided all the following conditions 

are met: 

* * * * * 

(3) The certificated repair station 

verifies, by test and/or inspection, that 

the work has been performed 

satisfactorily by the other person and 

that the article is airworthy before 

approving it for return to service. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44707 in 

Washington, DC. 

Robert M. Ruiz, 

Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00763 Filed 1–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

31 CFR Part 1010 

RIN 1506–AB65 

Proposal of Special Measure 

Regarding Al-Huda Bank, as a Foreign 

Financial Institution of Primary Money 

Laundering Concern 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), pursuant 

to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 

that proposes prohibiting the opening or 

maintaining of a correspondent account 

in the United States for, or on behalf of, 

Al-Huda Bank, a foreign financial 

institution based in Iraq found to be of 

primary money laundering concern. 

DATES: Written comments on the notice 

of proposed rulemaking must be 

submitted on or before March 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal E-rulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Refer to Docket Number FINCEN–2024– 

0001 in the submission. 

• Mail: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 

22183. Refer to Docket Number 

FINCEN–2024–0001 in the submission. 

Please submit comments by one 

method only and note that comments 

submitted in response to this NPRM 

will become a matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at 

1–800–767–2825 or electronically at 

frc@fincen.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Provisions 

Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act 

(section 311), codified at 31 U.S.C. 

5318A, grants the Secretary of the 

Treasury (Secretary) authority, upon 

finding that reasonable grounds exist for 

concluding that one or more financial 

institutions operating outside of the 

United States is of primary money 

laundering concern, to require domestic 

financial institutions and domestic 

financial agencies to take certain 

‘‘special measures.’’ 1 The authority of 

the Secretary to administer the Bank 

Secrecy Act (BSA) and its implementing 

regulations has been delegated to 

FinCEN.2

The five special measures set out in 

section 311 are safeguards that may be 

employed to defend the U.S. financial 

system from money laundering and 

terrorist financing risks. The Secretary 

may impose one or more of these special 

measures in order to protect the U.S. 

financial system from such threats. 

Through special measures one through 

four, the Secretary may impose 

additional recordkeeping, information 

collection, and reporting requirements 

on covered domestic financial 

institutions and domestic financial 

agencies—collectively, ‘‘covered 

financial institutions.’’ 3 Through 

special measure five, the Secretary may 

prohibit, or impose conditions on, the 

opening or maintaining in the United 

States of correspondent or payableVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Jan 30, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM 31JAP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1