58878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 43 and 45

[Docket No. FAA–2000–8017; Notice No. 00–

11]

RIN 2120–AH11

Safe Disposition of Life-Limited

Aircraft Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This action responds to the

Wendall H. Ford Investment and Reform

Act for the 21st Century by proposing

that all persons who remove any lifelimited aircraft part be required to have

a method to prevent the installation of

that part after it has reached its life

limit. This action would reduce the risk

of life-limited parts being used beyond

their life limits. This proposal would

also require that manufacturers of lifelimited parts provide instructions on

how to mark a part showing its life

limit, when someone removing such a

part requests it.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 30, 2001. Comments

on the information collection

requirements must be submitted on or

before December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to

the Docket Management System (DMS),

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Room Plaza Level 401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. You must identify the docket

number ‘‘FAA–2000–8017’’ at the

beginning of your comments, and you

should submit two copies of your

comments.

You may also submit comments

through the Internet to http://

dms.dot.gov. You may review the public

docket containing comments to these

proposed regulations in person in the

Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. The Dockets

Office is on the plaza level of the

NASSIF Building at the Department of

Transportation at the above address.

Also, you may review public dockets on

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Michaels, Flight Standards Service,

AFS–300, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone: (202) 267–7501, facsimile

(202) 267–5115, or e-mail:

albert.michaels@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed action by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments, as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

document also are invited. Substantive

comments should be accompanied by

cost estimates. Comments must identify

the regulatory docket or notice number

and be submitted in duplicate to the

Docket Management System address

specified above.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning this proposed rulemaking,

will be filed in the docket.

The Administrator will consider all

comments received on or before the

closing date before taking action on this

proposed rulemaking. Comments filed

late will be considered as far as possible

without incurring expense or delay. The

proposals in this document may be

changed in light of the comments

received.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using

the Internet by taking the following

steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the

Department of Transportation’s

electronic Docket Management System

(DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/

search).

(2) On the search page type in the last

four digits of the Docket number shown

at the beginning of this notice. Click on

‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page, which contains

the Docket summary information for the

Docket you selected, click on the

document number for the item you wish

to view.

You can also get an electronic copy

using the Internet through FAA’s web

page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/

nprm/nprm.htm or the Federal

Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting

a request to the Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Rulemaking,

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to

identify the docket number and notice

number of this rulemaking.

Background

The FAA has found life-limited parts

that exceeded their life-limits installed

on type-certificated products during

accident investigations and routine

surveillance. Although such installation

of life-limited parts violates existing

FAA regulations, concerns have arisen

regarding the disposition of these lifelimited parts when they have reached

their life limits.

Concerns over the use of life-limited

aircraft parts led Congress to pass a law

requiring the safe disposition of these

parts when they have reached their life

limits. The Wendall H. Ford Investment

and Reform Act for the 21st Century

(Public Law 106–181), added section

44725 to Title 49, United States Code,

as follows:

Sec. 44725. Life-Limited Aircraft Parts

(a) IN GENERAL—The Administrator of

the Federal Aviation Administration shall

conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require

the safe disposition of life-limited parts

removed from an aircraft. The rulemaking

proceeding shall ensure that the disposition

deter installation on an aircraft of a lifelimited part that has reached or exceeded its

life limits.

(b) SAFE DISPOSITION—For the purposes

of this section, safe disposition includes any

of the following methods:

(1) The part may be segregated under

circumstances that preclude its installation

on an aircraft.

(2) The part may be permanently marked

to indicate its used life status.

(3) The part may be destroyed in any

manner calculated to prevent reinstallation

in an aircraft.

(4) The part may be marked, if practicable,

to include the recordation of hours, cycles, or

other airworthiness information. If the parts

are marked with cycles or hours of usage,

that information must be updated every time

the part is removed from service or when the

part is retired from service.

(5) Any other method approved by the

Administrator.

(c) * * *

(d) PRIOR-REMOVED LIFE-LIMITED

PARTS—No rule issued under subsection (a)

shall require the marking of parts removed

from aircraft before the effective date of the

rules issued under subsection (a), nor shall

any such rule forbid the installation of an

otherwise airworthy life-limited part.

Existing regulations are not as specific

as the legislation governing the safe

disposition of life-limited parts. There

are no requirements for persons to safely

disposition life-limited parts that have

reached their life limits. This proposal

would require all life-limited parts to be

controlled in a manner to prevent

installation on a type-certificated

product (See sec 21.1(b)) after they have

reached their life limit. However, the

regulations require that each registered

owner or operator under

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58879

§ 91.417(a)(2)(ii) and each certificate

holder under § 121.380(a)(2)(iii) or

§ 135.439(a)(2)(ii), maintain records

showing ‘‘the current status of lifelimited parts of each airframe, engine,

propeller, rotor, and appliance.’’ This

proposal would provide additional

controls for life-limited parts that would

reduce the risk of parts being installed

in type-certificated products after

reaching their life limits.

This statute requires the FAA to issue

a rule ensuring the safe disposition of

life-limited aircraft parts. Congress also

provided civil penalties for violations of

this statute.

Current Requirements

Existing regulations require specific

markings be placed on all life-limited

parts at the time of manufacture. This

includes permanently marking the part

with a part number (or equivalent) and

a serial number (or equivalent). See 14

CFR 45.14.

The type design of an aircraft, aircraft

engine, or propeller includes the

Airworthiness Limitations section that

describes life limits for parts installed

on the product. See 14 CFR 21.31(c) and

14 CFR 25 appendix H 25.4.

In order for an aviation product to

comply with its type design, the lifelimited parts installed on it must fall

within the acceptable ranges described

in the Airworthiness Limitations

section. For this reason, installation of

a life-limited part after the mandatory

replacement time has been reached

would be a violation of the maintenance

regulations. Section 43.13(b) requires

that maintenance work be completed so

that the product worked on ‘‘will be at

least equal to its original or properly

altered condition.* * *’’

Persons who install parts do not

always have adequate information to

determine a part’s current life status. In

particular, documentation problems

may mislead an installer concerning the

actual useful life remaining for a lifelimited part.

The purpose of this proposed rule is

to provide for the data needs of a

subsequent installer to prevent the

installation of a previously removed

life-limited part that has reached its life

limit. This proposal would reduce the

risk of life-limited parts being used

beyond their life-limits.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the

Proposals

Section 43.1 Applicability

The removal, storage, and disposal of

parts is closely related to the

maintenance of aircraft. We propose to

amend the applicability of part 43.

Section 43.10 Disposition of LifeLimited Aircraft Parts

Part 43 would be amended by adding

a new section to incorporate the new

legislation. Paragraph (a) proposes

definitions for ‘‘life-limited part’’ and

‘‘life status.’’

‘‘Life-limited part’’ would be defined

to mean any part for which a mandatory

replacement time is specified in the

Airworthiness Limitations section of a

type certificate holder’s maintenance

manual or Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness.

‘‘Life status’’ would be defined to

mean the accumulated cycles, hours, or

any other mandatory replacement time

of a life-limited part.

Paragraph (b) proposes requirements

for the safe disposition of any lifelimited part that is removed from a typecertificated product (see § 21.1(b)) and

has reached its life limit. Generally, a

type-certificated product incorporates

life-limited parts. The method used

must prevent the part from being

installed after it has reached its life

limit. Generally, this is accomplished by

ensuring that the life status of the part

is readily available.

In accordance with the statute, this

proposal would apply only to lifelimited aircraft parts removed after the

effective date of the final rule. Existing

recordkeeping and storage regulations

will continue to apply to the control of

life-limited parts removed before the

effective date of this rule.

This paragraph provides that each

person removing a life-limited part from

a type-certificated product must ensure

that the part is controlled using one of

the methods in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (6) of this section. The person

who removes the part need not be the

same person who implements the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)

through (6). For example, an air carrier

mechanic removing a part might not

personally control the part in

accordance with one of the methods

described in paragraph (b) (1) through

(6) of this section, but may give the part

to the air carrier’s material control

department to disposition in accordance

with its procedures manual. The air

carrier’s procedures must ensure the

part can not be installed in a typecertificated product after it has reached

its life limit.

The first method for controlling a lifelimited part, in paragraph (b)(1), is to

segregate it under circumstances that

preclude its installation on a typecertificated product. These

circumstances must include, at least,

keeping a record of the serial number

and current life status of the part, and

ensuring the part is segregated from

serviceable parts. In this way the parts

retrieved from inventory would be new,

or records would be available to

indicate the life status of the part.

Paragraph (b)(2) provides that the part

may be permanently and legibly

marked, when practical, to indicate its

life status. The life status must be

updated each time the part is removed

from service. We expect that permanent

marking will be used mostly for parts

that are permanently removed from

service. If they are not permanently

removed from service, this marking

must be accomplished in accordance

with the manufacturer’s marking

instructions, as required under

proposed § 45.14. This will ensure the

integrity of the part is maintained.

Paragraph (b)(3) provides that the part

may be destroyed in any manner that

prevents installation in a typecertificated product. Advisory Circular

(AC) No. 21–38, Disposition of

Unsalvageable Aircraft Parts and

Materials, provides guidance for

destruction of parts.

Paragraph (b)(4) proposes that the part

may be marked, if practical, to include

the life status. This marking must be

accomplished in accordance with the

manufacturer’s marking instructions, as

required under proposed § 45.14, to

maintain the integrity of the part. When

a part is marked with its life status and

installed in a type-certificated product,

the life status must be updated each

time the part is removed from service.

When the part is retired from service, it

may be marked to indicate current life

status, or it may be destroyed,

permanently marked, segregated from

serviceable parts, or treated in any other

manner approved by the Administrator.

The statute does not provide for

tagging any life-limited parts, but does

provide that FAA may approve methods

other then those prescribed in proposed

paragraph (b)(1) through (4). The FAA

recognizes that there are cases when

marking is impractical. Size, material, or

geometry might make it impractical to

mark the part. Proposed paragraph (b)(5)

provides that if it is impractical to mark

the life-limited part, a tag may be

attached to the part to record the life

status. The tag with current life status

must be updated each time the part is

removed from service. Marking is

preferred over tagging because marking

is integral with the part and more likely

to remain on the part, therefore, tagging

would only be permitted when marking

is impractical. The manufacturer may

provide assistance in determining

whether a part may be marked or tagged.

Life status information must be updated

58880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

each time the part is removed from

service.

Paragraph (b)(6) provides that any

other method approved by the

Administrator may be used. For

instance, if an air carrier or repair

station currently has an approved

method for handling life-limited parts

that provides at least the same level of

safety as (b)(1) through (b)(5), that

method could be acceptable under this

proposed rule.

Paragraph (c) stipulates that each

person removing a life-limited part from

segregation, other than for immediate

installation, must ensure that the part is

controlled using one of the methods in

paragraphs (b)(2) through (6).

Section 45.14 Identification and

disposition of critical components

Section 45.14 would be amended by

adding language requiring each person

producing life-limited parts to provide

detailed marking instructions, when

requested. For example, the producer

would state what materials or methods

may be used to mark the parts, and

where the mark should be located on

the part, to avoid adversely affecting the

part. The producer would also state

whether the part cannot practically be

marked without compromising its

integrity.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal contains the following

new information collection

requirements. As required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of

Transportation has submitted the

information requirements associated

with this proposal to the Office of

Management and Budget for its review.

Title: Safe Disposition of Life-Limited

Aircraft Parts.

Summary: This proposal requires the

disposition of life-limited parts. This

may include marking or tagging the

parts with their life status. This

information must be updated each time

the part is removed from service or

when the part has reached its life-limit

and is retired from service. Each person

removing a life-limited part from a typecertificated product must ensure that

the disposition of the part is controlled

as required. The person removing the

part need not be the same person

implementing the requirements of the

proposal.

Use of: This rule would support the

information needs of a subsequent

installer in preventing the installation

into a type-certificated product of a part

that has reached its life limit.

Respondents (including number of):

The likely respondents to this proposed

information requirement are persons

responsible for removing and disposing

of life-limited parts. Of about 5,000 FAA

certificated repair stations, the FAA

believes about 1,500 would perform

most of these procedures. Although

some of these procedures may be carried

out on behalf of air carriers and owner/

operators in general aviation, the FAA

believes that most of the procedures will

be performed by a certificated repair

station.

Frequency: The FAA estimates each of

the 1,500 certified repair stations would

perform 300 such procedures as an

annual average. Each of the remaining

3,500 would average 50 procedures

annually. Thus, the annual frequency of

information requirements is 625,000

procedures.

Annual Burden Estimate: This

proposal would result in an annual

recordkeeping and reporting burden as

follows:

(1) there would be 625,000 removal

and disposal procedures annually;

(2) the recordkeeping and recording

part of each procedure would take 5

minutes; and

(3) the average fully burdened labor

cost of the individuals performing the

procedures is about $50 per hour.

Thus, the total annual estimated

burden of Public Law 106–181, which

directs this rulemaking, would be about

$2,600,000, borne by a total of 5,000

respondents.

The agency is soliciting comments

to—

(1) evaluate whether the proposed

information requirement is necessary for

the proper performance of the functions

of the agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden;

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

According to the regulations

implementing the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an

agency may not conduct or sponsor, a

person is not required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The OMB control number for

this information collection will be

published in the Federal Register, after

the Office of Management and Budget

approves it.

International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on International

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to

comply with International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards

and Recommended Practices to the

maximum extent practicable. The FAA

determined that there are no ICAO

Standards and Recommended Practices

that correspond to these proposed

regulations.

Economic Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must

undergo several economic analyses.

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that

each Federal agency shall propose or

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic impact of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Trade

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section

2531–2533) prohibits agencies from

setting standards that create

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

commerce of the United States. In

developing U.S. standards, this Trade

Act requires agencies to consider

international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis of

U.S. standards. And fourth, the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

requires agencies to prepare a written

assessment of the costs, benefits and

other effects of proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate likely to

result in the expenditure by State, local

or tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more, in any one year (adjusted for

inflation).

However, for regulations with an

expected minimal impact the abovespecified analyses are not required. If it

is determined that the expected impact

is so minimal that the proposal does not

warrant a full evaluation, a statement to

that effect and the basis for it is

included in the evaluation.

Consistent with Department of

Transportation policies and procedures

for simplification, analysis, and review

of regulations, this proposal is deemed

to have a minimal impact, and does not

warrant a full evaluation. The FAA

requests comments with supporting

justification regarding the FAA

determination of minimal impact.

Expected Benefits

This proposed rule would decrease

the possibility of installation into a

type-certificated product of life-limited

parts that have reached their life-limits.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58881

In general current industry good

practices already deter such installation.

These practices generally reflect the

direction and advice of current FAA

regulatory and advisory material. See 14

CFR parts 43, 45, 91, 121 and 135, and

FAA Advisory Circulars Nos. 43–9C and

20–62D. Thus, the additional benefits

expected to result from the broadening

and strengthening of good business

practices directed by this legislation are

small.

Expected Costs

It is the FAA’s intent that this

rulemaking would specify only the

requirements necessary to bring

industry into compliance with Public

Law 106–181. Thus, the FAA expects

that additional compliance costs would

be attributable to the legislation and not

to the rule.

While no existing FAA rule is as

specific as this proposed rule, its

requirements generally reflect industry

good practices. The implementation of

the legislation directing this proposed

rule would add to existing

requirements, and consequently to

costs, by requiring that each person

removing a life-limited part from a typecertificated product must control the

disposition of that part by marking,

tagging, segregating, destroying, or any

other approved method that ensures that

no life-limited part that has reached its

life limit will be installed into a typecertificated product.

The FAA believes that the 5,000 FAA

certificated repair stations will conduct

almost all these procedures. Additional

costs are estimated to average about

$1,250 annually for each of the 1,500

FAA certificated repair stations most

involved with the disposition of lifelimited parts. The FAA assumes these

repair stations annually perform an

average of 300 procedures involving the

safe disposition of life-limited parts.

The FAA assumes the remaining 3,500

repair stations average 50 such

procedures annually. Additional annual

costs for these repair stations is

expected to be about $200.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) establishes ‘‘as a

principle of regulatory issuance that

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with

the objective of the rule and of

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and

informational requirements to the scale

of the business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,

the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of

small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, § 605(b) of the 1980 act

provides that the head of the agency

may so certify and a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required. The

certification must include a statement

providing the factual basis for this

determination, and the reasoning should

be clear.

Because this proposed rule imposes

no economic effects, the FAA certifies

that it would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979

prohibits Federal agencies from

engaging in any standards or related

activities that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. Legitimate domestic

objectives, such as safety, are not

considered unnecessary obstacles. The

statute also requires consideration of

international standards and where

appropriate, that they be the basis for

U.S. standards. In addition, consistent

with the Administration’s belief in the

general superiority and desirability of

free trade, it is the policy of the

Administration to remove or diminish

to the extent feasible, barriers to

international trade, including both

barriers affecting the export of American

goods and services to foreign countries

and barriers affecting the import of

foreign goods and services into the

United States.

In accordance with the above statute

and policy, the FAA has assessed the

potential effect of this proposed

document and has determined that it

would impose the same costs on

domestic and international entities and

thus has a neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995, enacted as Public Law 104–4 on

March 22, 1995, is intended, among

other things, to curb the practice of

imposing unfunded Federal mandates

on State, local, and tribal governments.

Title II of the Act requires each Federal

agency to prepare a written statement

assessing the effects of any Federal

mandate in a proposed or final agency

rule that may result in a $100 million or

more expenditure (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector; such a mandate

is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’

This proposal does not contain such

a mandate. Therefore, the requirements

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Regulations Affecting Interstate

Aviation in Alaska

Section 1205 of the FAA

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.

3213) requires the Administrator, when

modifying regulations in title 14 of the

CFR in a manner affecting interstate

aviation in Alaska, to consider the

extent to which Alaska is not served by

transportation modes other than

aviation, and to establish such

regulatory distinctions as he or she

considers appropriate. Because this

proposed rule, if adopted, would only

apply to the subsequent use of these

life-limited aircraft parts, it would not

affect interstate aviation in Alaska. The

FAA, therefore, specifically requests

comments on whether there is

justification for applying the proposed

rule differently in interstate operations

in Alaska.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We

determined that this action would not

have a substantial direct effect on the

States, on the relationship between the

national Government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, we

determined that this notice of proposed

rulemaking would not have federalism

implications.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for

a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the notice has

been assessed in accordance with the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

58882 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(EPCA) Public Law 94–163, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1.

It has been determined that the notice

is not a major regulatory action under

the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 43

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited

parts, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 45

Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols.

The Proposed Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 43—MAINTENANCE,

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE,

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION

1. Amend the authority citation for

part 43 to read as follows:

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

44703, 44705, 44707, 44711, 44713, 44717,

44725.

2. Add § 43.1(c) to read as follows:

§ 43.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) This part applies to each person

who removes, segregates, or dispositions

a life-limited part from a typecertificated product as provided in

§ 43.10.

3. Add § 43.10 to read as follows:

§ 43.10 Disposition of life-limited aircraft

parts.

(a) For the purposes of this section the

following definitions apply.

Life-limited part means any part for

which a mandatory replacement time is

specified in the Airworthiness

Limitations section of a type certificate

holder’s maintenance manual or

Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness.

Life status means the accumulated

cycles, hours, or any other mandatory

replacement time of a life-limited part.

(b) After [the effective date of the final

rule], each person who removes a lifelimited part from a type-certificated

product must ensure that the part is

controlled using one of the methods in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this

section. The method must prevent the

part from being installed after it has

reached its life limit. Approved methods

include:

(1) The part may be segregated under

circumstances that preclude its

installation on a type-certificated

product. These circumstances must

include, at least—

(i) Keeping a record of the serial

number and current life status of the

part, and

(ii) Ensuring the part is stored

separately from serviceable parts.

(2) The part may be permanently and

legibly marked, if practical, to indicate

its life status. The life status must be

updated each time the part is removed

from service. Unless the part is

permanently removed from service, this

marking must be accomplished in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

marking instructions, in order to

maintain the integrity of the part, as

required under § 45.14 of this chapter.

(3) The part may be destroyed in any

manner that prevents installation in a

type-certificated product.

(4) The part may be marked, if

practical, to include the life status. The

life status must be updated each time

the part is removed from service. This

marking must be accomplished in

accordance with the pertinent

manufacturer’s marking instructions, in

order to maintain the integrity of the

part, as required under § 45.14 of this

chapter.

(5) If it is impractical to mark the part,

a tag may be attached to the part to

include the life status. The tag must be

updated to reflect life status each time

the part is removed from service.

(6) Any other method approved by the

Administrator.

(c) Each person who removes a lifelimited part from segregation as

identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, other than for immediate

installation on a type-certificated

product, must ensure that the part is

controlled using one of the methods in

paragraphs (b)(2) through (6).

PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND

REGISTRATION MARKING

4. The authority citation for part 45 is

amended to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 44109,

40113–40114, 44101–44105, 44107–44108,

44110–44111, 44504, 44701, 44708–44709,

44711–44713, 44725, 45302–45303, 46104,

46304, 46306, 47122.

5. Revise § 45.14 to read as follows:

§ 45.14 Identification and disposition of

critical components

Each person who produces a part for

which a replacement time, inspection

interval, or related procedure is

specified in the Airworthiness

Limitations section of a manufacturer’s

maintenance manual or Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness must

permanently and legibly mark that

component with a part number (or

equivalent) and a serial number (or

equivalent). When requested by a

person required to comply with § 43.10

of this chapter, each person who

produces a life-limited part must

provide detailed marking instructions,

or must state that the part cannot

practicably be marked without

compromising its integrity.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September

26, 2000.

L. Nicholas Lacey,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25045 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P