5518 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 

183

[Docket No. FAA–1999–5401; Amendment 

Nos. 119–6, 121–284, 129–34, 135–81, and 

183–11] 

RIN 2120–AE42

Aging Airplane Safety

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; disposition of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action adopts the interim 

final rule published on December 6, 

2002, as a final rule with changes. The 

IFR imposed statutory requirements 

from the Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 

1991 for certain airplanes to undergo 

inspections and records reviews after 

their 14th year in service and at 

specified intervals after that. Also, the 

rule imposed a requirement to include 

supplemental inspections by specified 

deadlines in the maintenance programs 

for these airplanes. With this action, the 

FAA responds to comments to the IFR, 

further clarifies parts of the rule 

language, and substantially revises the 

supplemental inspection requirements.

DATES: The interim final rule became 

effective December 8, 2003. This final 

rule becomes effective March 4, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frederick Sobeck, Aircraft Maintenance 

Division, AFS–308, Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–7355; facsimile 

(202) 267–5115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s 

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

arm/index.cfm; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You can also get a copy 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) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments to any of our dockets 

using the name of the individual who 

sent the comment. You can also search 

by the person who signed the comment 

if, for example, an association, business, 

or labor union, sent the comment. You 

may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact its local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm.

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding 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 promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, General requirements and 

Section 44717, Aging aircraft. Under 

section 44701 the Administrator is 

charged with prescribing ‘‘regulations 

and minimum standards in the interest 

of safety for inspecting, servicing, and 

overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, and appliances.’’ Under 

section 44717 the Administrator is 

charged with prescribing ‘‘regulations 

that ensure the continuing airworthiness 

of aging aircraft.’’ In accordance with 

those regulations the Administrator 

must ‘‘make inspections, and review the 

maintenance and other records, of each 

aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air 

transportation that the Administrator 

decides may be necessary to enable the 

Administrator to decide whether the 

aircraft is in a safe condition and 

maintained properly for operation in air 

transportation.’’ These inspections and 

reviews ‘‘shall be carried out as part of 

each heavy maintenance check of the 

aircraft conducted after the 14th year in 

which the aircraft has been in service.’’

This regulation is within the scope of 

section 44701 since it establishes 

requirements and minimum standards 

for the inspection of aging aircraft and 

establishes requirements for the 

inclusion of supplemental inspections 

in aircraft maintenance programs. 

Additionally, the regulation specifically 

responds to the statutory mandate 

prescribed in section 44717 by 

establishing a requirement for certain 

airplanes to undergo inspections and 

records reviews after their 14th year in 

service and at specified intervals 

thereafter. 

Background 

This final rule adopts the interim final 

rule (IFR) published at 67 FR 72726 on 

December 6, 2002, as a final rule with 

changes. The provisions of the IFR 

became effective on December 8, 2003. 

The rule resulted from requirements 

placed on the FAA by the Aging Aircraft 

Safety Act (AASA) of 1991. Section 402 

of the AASA requires the Administrator 

to ‘‘initiate a rulemaking proceeding for 

the purpose of issuing a rule to assure 

the continuing airworthiness of aging 

aircraft.’’

Specifically, the AASA requires ‘‘the 

Administrator to make such inspections 

and conduct such reviews of 

maintenance and other records of each 

aircraft used by an air carrier to provide 

air transportation as may be necessary to 

determine that such is in a safe 

condition and is properly maintained 

for operation in air transportation.’’ 

Further, the AASA states an air carrier 

must show, as part of the inspection, 

‘‘that maintenance of the aircraft’s 

structure, skin, and other age-sensitive 

parts and components have been 

adequate and timely enough to ensure 

the highest degree of safety.’’ Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

§§ 121.368, 129.33, 135.422, and 

135.423 of the IFR cover the AASA’s 

requirements for airplane inspections 

and records reviews. 

Additionally, the FAA found it 

necessary to initiate a consistent 

approach to preserve the continued 

airworthiness of the airplane structure 

that is susceptible to fatigue cracking 

that could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. Sections 121.370a, 129.16, and 

135.168 of the IFR include 

supplemental inspection requirements 

that address the continued 

airworthiness of this type of airplane 

structure. These sections require 

operators to use damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures to maintain 

the continued airworthiness of the 

affected airplane structure. However, 

certain operators of airplanes initially 

certificated with nine or fewer 

passenger seats and used in scheduled 

operations could use service-historyVerDate jul<14>2003 13:17 Feb 01, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02FER2.SGM 02FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5519

based inspections to meet these 

requirements. The damage-tolerance 

(DT) based inspections and procedures 

required in these sections are based on 

the same methodology identified in 14 

CFR 25.571 (Damage-tolerance and 

fatigue evaluation of structure). This 

methodology has been used successfully 

to develop supplemental structural 

inspection programs (SSIP) and repair 

assessment guidelines (RAGs) for 

pressurized fuselages. Therefore, the 

FAA has determined that this 

methodology is an acceptable approach 

to maintaining the continued 

airworthiness of the affected airplane 

structure. 

IFR Revised by Technical Amendment 

The FAA published a technical 

amendment (68 FR 69307) on December 

12, 2003, to the Aging Airplane Safety 

IFR. This amendment made minor 

technical changes to the IFR.

Aging Airplane Program Activities 

The FAA’s Aging Airplane Program 

came about to address airplanes 

operated beyond their original design 

service goals, the 1988 Aloha B–737 

accident, and the Aging Aircraft Safety 

Act of 1991. When the program first 

started, the goal was to preserve the 

structural integrity of the aging airplane 

fleet by requiring structural 

modifications and inspections to 

address certain design deficiencies that 

could lead to airplane structural 

damage. Following the 1996 TWA 800 

B–747 accident, the FAA expanded the 

Aging Airplane Program to include nonstructural systems. The goal was to 

address requirements for design, 

inspection, repair, and maintenance of 

fuel tanks and electrical wiring on aging 

airplanes. Efforts related to Aging 

Airplane Program initiatives have 

resulted in the issuance of airworthiness 

directives (ADs) and rulemaking 

actions. Such actions include this Aging 

Airplane Safety rule, which addresses 

airplane structure. 

The FAA’s Review of the Aging Airplane 

Program 

Because of issues raised by industry 

about the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the Aging Airplane Program, the FAA 

recently performed a comprehensive 

review of it. The goals of this review 

were to—

• Identify how to most effectively 

align rulemaking initiatives to ensure 

there are no overlapping or redundant 

requirements; 

• Ensure that design approval holder 

data supporting operator compliance are 

available and timely; and, 

• Ensure the resulting maintenance 

requirements allow operators to be more 

efficient in revising their maintenance 

programs when addressing multiple, 

similar initiatives. 

The Aging Airplane Safety IFR was 

among the rules and proposals included 

in the FAA’s aging program review. The 

FAA determined that better aligning 

certain compliance dates in existing 

rules and pending proposals and 

making certain substantive changes to 

them would increase their costeffectiveness without compromising 

safety. As a result, the FAA has made 

changes to the Aging Airplane Safety 

IFR and has clarified parts of the rule 

language in the IFR. Also, the FAA has 

made changes to other aging program 

rules. 

Additionally, the FAA tasked the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) to develop damage 

tolerance (DT) guidelines to support 

compliance with §§ 121.370a and 

129.16 of the Aging Airplane Safety rule 

in response to comments to the IFR (69 

FR 26641, May 13, 2004). Further, based 

on comments to the IFR, the FAA is 

considering proposing a new rule to 

require type certificate and 

supplemental type certificate holders to 

develop DT programs that will support 

compliance with the Aging Airplane 

Safety final rule. 

On July 30, 2004, the FAA published 

a final rule with request for comments 

entitled, Fuel Tank Safety Compliance 

Extension and Aging Airplane Program 

Update, (69 FR 45936). You may refer to 

that document for more details about 

the FAA’s review of the Aging Airplane 

Program initiatives and the results of the 

review. 

Changes to the IFR 

Based on the FAA’s recent review of 

the Aging Airplane Program and the 

comments to the Aging Airplane Safety 

IFR, we believe certain revisions and 

clarifications to the IFR are proper. 

These changes are intended to retain the 

rule’s safety objective while reducing 

the burden on the industry. The major 

changes, which pertain to the 

supplemental inspections requirements 

in §§ 121.370a, 129.16, and 135.168 are 

listed below and are described in detail 

later in this preamble. 

• Removal of certain DT-based 

supplemental inspection requirements 

for airplanes operated under parts 121 

and 129. 

• Extension of the compliance date 

and narrowing of the airplane 

applicability for the DT-based 

supplemental inspection requirements 

that remain in the final rule for 

airplanes operated under parts 121 and 

129. 

• Removal of the supplemental 

inspection requirements for part 135 

airplanes. 

• Clarification of the type of airplane 

structure the supplemental inspection 

requirements cover. 

Discussion of Comments 

The FAA sought and received 

comments to the interim final rule (IFR). 

General Comments 

Comment: Several commenters 

express concern the FAA did not seek 

recommendations from the ARAC to 

develop the IFR. The commenters ask 

the FAA to explain why the agency did 

not seek ARAC’s advice. One 

commenter wants the FAA to refer the 

IFR to the ARAC for final review and 

completion so the rule could more 

easily be harmonized with foreign Civil 

Aviation Authorities’ (CAAs) 

requirements. 

FAA Response: This final rule is 

based on a congressional mandate 

imposed by the Aging Aircraft Safety 

Act (AASA) of 1991. Therefore, rather 

than seeking recommendations, the 

FAA used the terms of the AASA to 

develop the Aging Airplane Safety rule. 

However, based on requests from the 

Air Transport Association (ATA) and 

others from the industry, the FAA 

recently tasked ARAC (69 FR 26641, 

May 13, 2004) to develop guidelines 

that would support industry’s 

compliance with §§ 121.370a and 

129.16 of this final rule. Since Congress 

mandated the terms of the Aging 

Airplane Safety rule, the FAA believes 

it would not have been proper to refer 

the rule to ARAC, solely to harmonize 

it with foreign CAAs’ actions. 

Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews 

Comment: A commenter suggests the 

FAA modify the recordkeeping 

requirements of the IFR. 

FAA Response: The commenter did 

not provide specific recommendations 

about how to modify the recordkeeping 

requirements of the rule. However, as 

part of the FAA’s review of the Aging 

Airplane Program, the FAA withdrew 

the Corrosion Prevention and Control 

Program (CPCP) proposed rule (69 FR 

50350, August 16, 2004). Therefore, the 

FAA has amended the Aging Airplane 

Safety IFR to remove from §§ 121.368, 

129.33, and 135.422, the requirement for 

operators to provide the current status 

of CPCPs as a separate item. Instead, 

they will provide this information as 

part of the requirement for the current 

inspection status of the airplane. 

5520 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

However, for those CPCPs mandated by 

airworthiness directive (AD), they will 

provide it as part of the requirement for 

the current status of ADs. 

In addition, the FAA has removed the 

requirement from §§ 121.368, 129.33, 

and 135.422 of this final rule for 

operators to provide the current status 

of the inspections and procedures 

required under the supplemental 

inspection portion of the IFR. The FAA 

removed this requirement because 

under the terms of the final rule, 

operators must provide this information 

as part of the current inspection status 

of the airplane.

Comment: One commenter requests 

the FAA include a definition for ‘‘agesensitive parts’’ in 14 CFR part 1. 

FAA Response: For purposes of this 

rule, the FAA considers this term to 

mean those structural parts and 

components that are susceptible to 

fatigue cracking that could contribute to 

a catastrophic failure. Although the 

FAA has not defined age-sensitive parts 

in 14 CFR part 1, we will include this 

definition in the related advisory 

material. 

Comment: One commenter requests 

the FAA amend the regulation to allow 

the use of Organizational Designated 

Airworthiness Representatives (ODAR) 

to perform the inspections and records 

review required by § 121.368. Several 

commenters address the use of 

Designated Airworthiness 

Representatives (DARs) to perform the 

required inspections and records 

reviews. The commenters are concerned 

with access to enough inspectors to 

perform the necessary inspections. One 

commenter states that to carry out the 

required inspections and records 

review, every air carrier will need at 

least two or three DARs. The commenter 

says this would require a greater 

commitment by the FAA to qualify 

many more DARs than they have in the 

past. Another commenter states they 

would need access to a DAR or 

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) 

in the FAA’s London, United Kingdom, 

office to inspect their aircraft and 

review their records. The commenter 

requests the FAA clarify whether data 

obtained from this review would be 

acceptable to the FAA when transferring 

an aircraft to the U.S. registry. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

believe it is necessary to include 

specific language in the rule allowing 

the use of ODARs to perform 

inspections and records review. Each 

operator may decide, based on 

individual need, whether they will use 

designees or have the FAA perform the 

airplane inspections and records review 

this rule requires. The final rule does 

not mandate the use of DARs or ODARs. 

The Administrator already has the 

authority under § 183.33 (Designated 

Airworthiness Representative) to 

designate certain persons or 

organizations to perform these 

functions. 

To aid the inspections by existing 

DARs, the FAA has updated the 

guidance material in FAA Order 

8100.8B, Designee Management 

Handbook, and is providing workshops 

for its designees. The intent is to 

maximize the number of DARs available 

to conduct the inspections and records 

reviews. The FAA remains committed to 

the timely issuance of designee 

authorizations to properly qualified 

persons. 

The comment about whether ‘‘data’’

obtained during airplane inspections 

and records review would be acceptable 

when transferring an aircraft to the U.S. 

registry is unclear. For part 129 

operators, this final rule only applies to 

U.S.-registered airplanes. If the 

commenter transfers a non-U.S.-

registered airplane to the U.S. registry, 

the airplane would have to meet all 

FAA operational and certification 

requirements on transfer, including the 

requirements of this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter, who 

expresses concern for air safety, agrees 

the rule is needed and asks who would 

conduct the airplane inspections. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s 

airworthiness inspectors and designees 

will conduct the airplane inspections 

and records reviews required by this 

rule. 

Comment: Two commenters discuss 

examining wire during airplane 

inspections and records reviews. One 

commenter says wiring is often 

overlooked in the inspection process. A 

second commenter says it is necessary 

to determine a timetable for wire and 

cable bundles to be inspected and 

replaced. 

FAA Response: Congress passed the 

Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 to 

address aging aircraft structural 

concerns resulting from the April 1988 

accident involving a B–737. The Aging 

Airplane Safety rule, which resulted 

from the Act, addresses only structural 

concerns. The FAA is evaluating future 

rulemaking actions that may address 

other airplane systems such as wiring. 

Comment: Some commenters say the 

rule is unnecessary. Several commenters 

believe the rule does not provide added 

safety benefits. One commenter says the 

FAA can achieve the same results 

without rulemaking by simply adding 

increased inspections to C and D 

checks. One commenter says the IFR 

duplicates existing regulations, is 

unevenly applied, and is inconvenient. 

FAA Response: The Aging Aircraft 

Safety Act (AASA) of 1991, as codified 

in Section 44717 of Title 49 U.S.C., 

directs the Administrator to ‘‘make 

inspections and review the maintenance 

and other records of each aircraft an air 

carrier uses to provide air 

transportation.’’ The FAA issued this 

rule to comply with this statutory 

mandate. The rule helps ensure the 

continued structural airworthiness of 

airplanes that operate beyond their 

original design service goals. The 

inspection and records review 

requirements in this rule are not 

intended to increase the number of 

inspections the operator performs. The 

FAA will perform the airplane 

inspections and records reviews 

required by this rule during scheduled 

maintenance. 

Comment: Some commenters express 

concern the term ‘‘highest degree of 

safety’’ is vague and is open to 

interpretation. One commenter says 

while this term appears in the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958, it has never 

appeared in a rule until now. The 

commenter believes the FAA should 

interpret the Act rather than simply 

repeat the phrase in the rule. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s use of the 

term, ‘‘highest degree of safety,’’ in the 

Aging Airplane Safety rule is based on 

the statutory language contained in the 

AASA of 1991, subsequently codified as 

section 44717 of title 49 U.S.C. For 

purposes of this rule, the FAA considers 

that operators will have met the 

‘‘highest degree of safety’’ by complying 

with their FAA-approved maintenance 

program. 

The maintenance programs for those 

airplanes affected by the inspections 

and records review requirement of this 

rule may include certain elements of the 

FAA’s Aging Airplane Program listed 

below: 

• Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Programs. 

• Corrosion Prevention and Control 

Programs. 

• Structural Modification Programs. 

• Repair Assessment Programs. 

• Inspections and procedures 

identified in the Airworthiness 

Limitation section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness. 

• Damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures required by 

§§ 121.370a and 129.16 of this rule. 

The first five elements have been 

incorporated into most large transport 

category airplane maintenance 

programs. There are some airplanes 

subject to the inspections and records 

reviews requirement that do not include 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5521

some of these elements. Maintenance 

programs that include any of these 

elements will be subject to the airplane 

inspections and records review 

provisions of this rule.

According to the IFR, operators of 

certain model airplanes are not required 

to incorporate damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures in their 

maintenance programs until December 

5, 2007. This final rule extends this 

compliance date to December 20, 2010. 

As a result, damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures, as required 

by §§ 121.370a and 129.16, are not 

required to be incorporated into 

maintenance programs before this date. 

As explained later in this preamble 

under ‘‘Changes to the Interim Final 

Rule’’ heading, the FAA has removed 

the DT requirements for certain 

airplanes operated under parts 121, 129, 

and 135. However, the airplane 

inspections and records review 

requirement still applies to these 

airplanes. 

Comment: One commenter states the 

requirements for the extent of 

inspections and records reviews are not 

clearly defined, which may lead to 

inconsistent interpretation and 

application. 

FAA Response: The FAA intends to 

perform structural spot inspections of 

each airplane and review those records 

needed to determine compliance with 

§§ 121.368(d), 129.33(c), 135.422(d) of 

this final rule. The FAA has provided 

the following guidance to aid 

compliance with the airplane 

inspections and records reviews 

requirements in the rule: 

• Notice 8300.113, Conducting 

Records Reviews and Aircraft 

Inspections Mandated by the Aging 

Aircraft Rules, dated November 25, 

2003, which has been incorporated into 

FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness 

Inspector’s Handbook. This guidance 

includes information on scheduling 

inspections and records review to 

minimize the impact on operators’

maintenance schedules. 

• Advisory Circular (AC 120–84) 

Aging Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews, provides guidance for 

operators to comply with the 

requirements of this rule. 

The FAA believes providing guidance 

for our inspectors and for the industry 

will help reduce inconsistencies in 

interpreting and complying with the 

rule. 

Comment: A commenter recommends 

the records review of ADs and 

modifications on structures that are not 

easily ‘‘de-modified,’’ such as Boeing 

747 section 41, be waived after the first 

inspection. For repetitive inspections, 

the commenter suggests the review be 

required only on the records collected 

since the last inspection. 

FAA Response: Under the airplane 

inspections and records review 

requirements, the FAA does not intend 

to inspect an airplane such that an 

operator would have to ‘‘de-modify’’ the 

structure to gain access to certain areas. 

These areas include ones modified by 

AD, supplemental type certificate (STC), 

FAA approved service bulletin, or FAA 

approved repair. However, if in 

complying with §§ 121.370a and 129.16 

deficiencies are identified in a repair, 

alteration, or modification, or in the 

inspection procedures, removal of a 

previously modified structure may be 

required. 

Comment: A commenter says the 

FAA’s Flight Standards office has for 

many years conducted thorough records 

reviews and on-site spot inspections of 

airplanes during heavy maintenance 

visits. The commenter wants the FAA to 

allow credit for these prior records 

reviews and inspections either in the 

regulation or in the guidance material. 

The commenter says a certificate 

holder’s PMI could be responsible for 

determining the extent of credit to give 

on a particular airplane. 

FAA Response: Operators must 

provide the FAA with the current 

inspection status of the airplane as 

required by §§ 121.368(d), 129.33(c), 

and 135.422(d). To meet the 

requirement of these sections, the FAA 

intends to conduct the specified 

inspections and records review during 

scheduled maintenance visits. The FAA 

also intends to perform structural spot 

inspections of each airplane and review 

those records necessary to determine 

compliance with this rule. The FAA 

will consider the scope and timeframe 

of prior inspections to determine the 

extent to which those prior inspections 

can help the operator meet the 

inspections and records reviews 

mandated by this rule. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

the requirement for a fixed repeat 

inspection interval not to exceed 7 years 

required by § 121.368(b) should be 

removed. Further, any subsequent 

inspection requirements should be met 

based on an agreement between the 

operator and the PMI. This would allow 

the operator and the PMI to agree on the 

schedule for follow-up inspections. The 

commenter says this is particularly true 

for those fleet types where the FAAapproved maintenance programs are 

segmented. Such programs do not 

provide for 14-day downtimes or only 

provide for 14-day downtimes at 

intervals beyond 7 years. Thus, the 

commenter recommends the following 

wording at the end of subparagraphs (1), 

(2), and (3) of § 121.368(b): ‘‘* * * and 

thereafter at intervals approved by the 

FAA principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) having cognizance for the 

operator.’’

FAA Response: The FAA selected a 7-

year interval for repeat inspections to 

provide time for operators to schedule 

the inspections and records review. 

Such scheduling would take place 

during a ‘‘C’’ check or segment thereof, 

‘‘D’’ check or segment thereof, or other 

scheduled maintenance visits where 

structural inspections are done. The 

FAA believes a 7-year repeat interval 

provides scheduling flexibility for the 

operator to meet the requirements of the 

rule. Also, §§ 121.368(c), 129.33(b), and 

135.422(c) of the rule authorize the 

Administrator to approve up to a 90-day 

extension beyond the 7-year interval 

required by §§ 121.368(b), 129.33(a), 

and 135.422(b). The FAA’s PMI may 

approve this extension for the 

Administrator. The FAA agrees the 

operator and PMI should work together 

to agree on the specific time within the 

7-year repeat intervals to conduct the 

required inspections and records 

review. 

Comment: Several commenters 

express concern about the inspection 

intervals. One commenter states the 

repeat interval for inspections will 

result in maintenance program 

scheduling constraints. The commenter 

says meeting the 7-year requirement in 

the rule would result in 118 added 

heavy maintenance visits (HMV) 

because their HMVs on B–737 and B–

767s are scheduled at 8-year intervals. 

In general, the commenter believes the 

timeframes for inspections and records 

reviews in the rule are out of sync with 

their particular maintenance program 

requirements. Another commenter states 

that certificate holders and FAA 

inspectors should work together to 

schedule the required inspections to 

coincide with existing inspection 

schedules. The commenter adds the 

FAA should quickly publish guidance 

that removes any doubt about the effect 

of the rule on heavy maintenance check 

(HMC) schedules. 

FAA Response: The AASA states the 

records reviews and inspections will be 

carried out as part of the operator’s 

HMC. To comply with the statute, the 

FAA considers an HMV or HMC to 

consist of a ‘‘C’’ check or segment 

thereof, a ‘‘D’’ check or segment thereof, 

or other scheduled maintenance where 

structural inspections are accomplished. 

The FAA agrees the required 

inspections and records review should 

coincide as much as possible with 

operators’ existing maintenance 

5522 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

schedules. The FAA does not believe 

the rule will result in added HMVs or 

HMCs since the FAA intends to 

coordinate the airplane inspections and 

records reviews to coincide with 

scheduled HMVs and HMCs. To provide 

guidance for the conduct of the 

inspections and records reviews, the 

FAA published Notice 8300.113 and AC 

120–84, discussed earlier in this 

preamble. 

Comments: A commenter suggests the 

FAA reduce the inspection intervals 

from 14 years to 8 years and conduct 

periodic spot checks of 20 percent of the 

airplanes during the inspection 

intervals. 

FAA Response: The statute requires 

inspections and records reviews of each 

airplane to ‘‘be carried out as part of 

each HMC of the aircraft conducted after 

the 14th year in which the aircraft has 

been in service.’’ To meet this 

requirement, the FAA must inspect each 

airplane. However, the FAA intends to 

conduct a spot inspection of each 

airplane. The FAA established the first 

and repeat intervals at which 

inspections and records reviews will be 

done. The FAA set the first inspections 

based on the age of the airplane with the 

oldest airplanes being scheduled first. 

The repeat intervals for all airplanes, 

regardless of age, is set at 7 years, 

following completion of the first 

inspection. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

§ 121.368(d) should request a listing of 

operational limits as part of the airplane 

records. This commenter also says aging 

aircraft rules require full compliance 

with their terms on transfer of an 

aircraft. Therefore, a statement about 

full compliance on transfer should be 

included in the rule.

FAA Response: The FAA does not 

require a listing of ‘‘operational limits’’

as part of the airplane records required 

in § 121.368. However, the FAA does 

require that operators make available 

records that contain the current status of 

life-limited parts of the airframe. 

The FAA has not included a 

requirement that an operator provide a 

statement that an airplane complies 

with the provisions of this rule at the 

time of transfer. Operators show 

compliance with the airplane and 

records availability requirements of the 

rule by making affected airplanes that 

meet the stated time in service and their 

associated records available to the 

Administrator within the prescribed 

interval. If the commenter transfers an 

airplane from a foreign country to the 

U.S. registry, the airplane will have to 

meet all FAA operational and 

certification requirements on transfer, 

including the requirements of this final 

rule. 

Comments: Several commenters state 

§ 121.368 duplicates current regulations, 

especially the provisions of § 121.380, 

which also relate to recordkeeping 

requirements. In support of their 

comments, they say most operators of 

large transport category airplanes have 

developed elaborate maintenance 

recordkeeping systems under § 121.380. 

They say these systems duplicate the 

requirements under § 121.368. They 

recommend the FAA revise the language 

in § 121.368(d) that states ‘‘* * * 

together with records containing the 

following information’’ to read ‘‘* * * 

together with the following records or 

those specified in § 121.380.’’

One commenter contends the FAA 

should modify the rule or add in the 

advisory circulars a statement saying 

compliance with § 121.380 is an 

alternate way to comply with § 121.368. 

This same commenter states § 121.380 is 

more comprehensive than § 121.368, 

especially about airworthiness 

directives. Existing § 121.380(a)(2)(vi) 

requires records to include ‘‘* * * the 

current status of applicable 

airworthiness directives, including the 

date and methods of compliance, and, if 

the airworthiness directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required.’’

However, for Airworthiness Directives, 

§ 121.368(d)(8)(i) requires ‘‘current 

status of the following, including the 

method of compliance.’’

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

some of the recordkeeping requirements 

of § 121.368(d) are also found in 

§ 121.380. However, § 121.368(d) 

contains added recordkeeping 

requirements not found in § 121.380. 

These added requirements allow the 

FAA to determine compliance with the 

Aging Airplane Safety rule. For 

example, § 121.368(d) requires records 

containing information on total years in 

service of the airplane and total flight 

cycles of the airframe. Because 

§ 121.368(d) contains requirements not 

contained in § 121.380, compliance with 

§ 121.380 by itself cannot constitute 

compliance with § 121.368(d). Operators 

can show compliance to both 

§§ 121.368(d) and 121.380 within a 

single recordkeeping system that is 

acceptable to the FAA. This removes the 

need to repeat recordkeeping for those 

requirements found in § 121.368(d) and 

§ 121.380. The FAA included guidance 

in advisory circular AC 120–84, Aging 

Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews, to address the records 

requirements. The FAA also has 

included guidance in Notice 8300.113, 

Conducting Records Reviews and 

Aircraft Inspections Mandated by the 

Aging Aircraft Rules, which has recently 

been incorporated into FAA Order 

8300.10 to address these requirements. 

The FAA agrees that compliance with 

§ 121.380(a)(2)(vi) should satisfy the 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in § 121.368(d)(8). Therefore, we have 

revised § 121.368(d)(8) to match the 

requirements in § 121.380(a)(2)(vi). 

Comments: A commenter says the 

provisions of § 119.59 already provide 

adequate authority to carry out aircraft 

inspections and records reviews 

required by § 121.368. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. 

Section 119.59(a) states ‘‘at any time or 

place, the Administrator may conduct 

an inspection or test to determine 

whether a certificate holder under this 

part is complying with Title 49 of the 

United States Code, applicable 

regulations, the certificate, or certificate 

holder’s operations specifications.’’ The 

Aging Aircraft Safety Act, however, 

requires the Administrator to conduct 

specific inspections that before the Act 

were part of the FAA’s discretionary 

oversight. 

Comments: One commenter notes 

some major repairs have no repetitive 

inspections associated with them and 

recommends the FAA amend 

§ 121.368(d)(10) to read: ‘‘A report of 

major repairs which require 

supplemental inspections, and the 

inspection status of those repairs.’’

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. 

Knowing the inspection status of all 

major repairs, including those repairs 

that have no damage-tolerance-based 

repetitive inspection requirement, is an 

important part of maintaining the 

continued airworthiness of aging 

airplanes. The inspection and records 

review required by § 121.368(d)(10) will 

help ensure major repairs and changes 

to major repairs are properly recorded 

and their inspection status verified. 

There are past instances where 

modification of major repairs degraded 

the airplane’s structural integrity to the 

point of making it no longer airworthy. 

In some cases, it was determined the 

current inspections were not adequate 

to address the modifications. In other 

cases, where no inspections were 

required for the original modification, it 

was determined that repetitive 

inspections were necessary to ensure 

the airworthiness of the modified repair. 

Therefore, the value of the inspection 

and records review required by 

§ 121.368(d)(10) is to verify the 

condition of all major repairs and 

identify areas where more inspections 

may be required. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5523

Advisory Material and Training for 

Aging Airplane Inspections and 

Records Reviews 

Comment: Several commenters 

express concern about whether enough 

training, guidance material, and trained 

inspectors would be available to support 

compliance with the rule. One 

commenter suggests if guidance 

materials and trained inspectors are not 

ready by December 8, 2003, the 

compliance date specified in § 121.368, 

the FAA should index the 48-month 

inspection and records review 

completion window based on the 

availability of trained inspectors. One 

commenter requests the FAA open DAR 

and PMI training programs to non-U.S. 

operators. Another commenter asks the 

FAA to extend this compliance date to 

the date the FAA completes training for 

FAA inspectors and DARs, unless the 

guidance material is issued with the 

final rule. One commenter says it is 

especially important to provide training 

and guidance material to operators 

during the initial period of compliance 

with this rule. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

timeliness of training is important to 

meeting the deadlines in the rule. 

Therefore, the FAA completed 

workshops for its flight standards 

airworthiness inspectors and is 

providing workshops for its designees 

(DARs and ODARs). The intent of these 

workshops is to ensure that FAA 

airworthiness inspectors, DARs, and 

ODARs use uniform procedures when 

conducting their inspections and 

records reviews. A foreign air carrier 

may hire an FAA designee to perform 

the airplane inspections and records 

review required by the Aging Airplane 

Safety rule. The FAA does not intend to 

develop a training course specifically 

for air carriers. However, the FAA has 

developed an AC 120–84, Aging 

Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews, to help operators affected by 

the Aging Airplane Safety rule. 

Additionally, the FAA published 

guidance in Notice 8300.113, 

Conducting Records Reviews and 

Aircraft Inspections Mandated by the 

Aging Aircraft Rules. The FAA’s 

training preparations and published 

guidance allowed the FAA to begin 

inspections and records reviews shortly 

after the effective date of the IFR. 

The FAA is adopting an approach that 

enables the existing FAA inspector 

workforce to comply with their 

obligations under this rule. The 

approach involves the use of spot 

inspections and records reviews and 

coordinating with operators to perform 

these inspections and reviews during 

scheduled maintenance. 

Comment: A commenter requests 

clarification on the applicability of 

Handbook 8300.10, volume 3, chapter 2, 

to on-site inspections. 

FAA Response: The FAA has 

reviewed volume 3, chapter 2 of FAA 

Order 8300.10, Airworthiness 

Inspector’s Handbook, which discusses 

the conduct of structural spot 

inspections of an operator’s aircraft, to 

determine the applicability of that 

chapter to the airplane inspections and 

records review requirements. The FAA 

found that this Order did not provide 

enough guidance to conduct inspections 

and record reviews required under the 

rule. Therefore, the FAA issued Notice 

8300.113 on November 25, 2003, to 

provide added guidance to inspectors to 

conduct these inspections and records 

reviews.

Comment: Several commenters 

discuss draft AC 120–84, which was 

released concurrently with the IFR. In 

general, the commenters express 

concern that the AC provides no added 

guidance to operators. The commenters 

feel that operators are inadequately 

prepared for the inspections and 

reviews required under the IFR. 

FAA Response: Based on comments 

received, the FAA has revised AC 120–

84, Aging Airplane Inspections and 

Records Reviews, to be consistent with 

the final rule. The FAA has provided 

more guidance in the AC on conducting 

airplane inspections and records 

reviews. In addition, the FAA has 

changed Order 8300.10, Airworthiness 

Inspector’s Handbook, to provide 

standardized guidance to FAA 

inspectors when conducting airplane 

inspections and records reviews. 

Comment: A commenter requests the 

FAA clarify whether AC 120–84 is 

intended to address structural issues 

only. 

FAA Response: AC 120–84 applies to 

airplane structures only. 

Comment: A commenter notes that 

AC 120–84 contains an inaccurate 

reference to § 121.212, which does not 

exist. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenter and has made the 

correction in the final version of AC 

120–84. 

Supplemental Inspections 

To aid understanding of the 

discussion about repairs, alterations, 

and modifications (RAMs), which 

appears below, the FAA offers the 

following explanation: The industry has 

used the terms ‘‘alteration’’ or 

‘‘modification’’ synonymously to define 

a design change to an airplane. 

Therefore, the FAA uses both terms to 

avoid potential misinterpretation of the 

intent of these terms. 

Comment: A commenter suggests the 

FAA withdraw the supplemental 

inspection requirement and task the 

ARAC to provide advice in this area. 

Another commenter suggests the FAA 

extend the compliance date to 2010 

since the FAA issued the notice of 

proposed rulemaking in 1999. 

FAA Response: The FAA determined 

that it is no longer necessary to impose 

the DT requirements of this rule on the 

number of airplanes mandated in the 

IFR. Therefore, this final rule only 

imposes DT requirements on airplanes 

that are—

• Transport category; 

• Turbine powered; 

• Have a type certificate issued after 

January 1, 1958; and 

• Have, because of original type 

certification or later increase in 

capacity, a maximum type-certificated 

passenger seating capacity of 30 or more 

or a maximum payload capacity of 7500 

pounds or more. 

The FAA determined that damagetolerance-based inspections and 

procedures are an effective way to meet 

the AASA’s requirement for preserving 

the continued airworthiness of an 

airplane’s structure. AC–25.571–1C, 

Damage Tolerance and Fatigue 

Evaluation of Structure, which the 

ARAC helped develop, is an acceptable 

means of compliance with the DT-based 

supplemental inspection requirements 

for the baseline structure (type design) 

of an airplane. The FAA tasked the 

ARAC on May 13, 2004, to develop 

guidelines to support the industry’s 

compliance with the rule’s requirements 

to address repairs, alterations, and 

modifications. Further, the FAA has 

extended the compliance date for 

operators to have damage-tolerancebased inspections and procedures in 

their airplane maintenance programs 

from December 5, 2007, to December 20, 

2010. This extension should allow 

enough time for the ARAC to perform 

the tasking and for operators to comply 

with the supplemental inspection 

requirements of the final rule. 

Comment: A commenter asks whether 

the FAA would extend the December 

20, 2010, compliance date for those 

parts of the IFR that already contain this 

compliance date. 

FAA Response: The FAA has removed 

from the rule the supplemental 

inspection requirements related to 

design-life goal airplanes, airworthiness 

directive-mandated service-historybased inspections, and multiengine 

airplanes with nine or fewer passenger 

seats. These requirements had a 

5524 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance date of December 20, 2010. 

However, as noted earlier, the FAA has 

removed all part 135 supplemental 

inspection requirements from this rule. 

Also, the FAA has extended the 

compliance date for the remaining 

supplemental inspection requirements 

under parts 121 and 129 from December 

5, 2007, to December 20, 2010. 

Comment: One commenter states for 

aircraft transferring from country to 

country, it is not clear how the life 

limits (design-life goal) would be 

interpreted. 

FAA Response: As noted earlier, the 

FAA has removed the design life goal 

requirement from the rule. 

Comment: One commenter states the 

FAA has not proven that a DT 

inspection program is any more 

effective than the current programs 

operators use for their small airplane 

fleets. The commenter suggests the FAA 

use another method for 10- to 19-seat, 

nontransport-category airplanes. 

FAA Response: Based on industry 

comments and the FAA’s reassessment 

of the IFR and the Aging Airplane 

Program, the FAA narrowed the scope 

of airplane applicability in §§ 121.370a 

and 129.16 to impose DT requirements 

on transport category, turbine powered 

airplanes with a type certificate issued 

after January 1, 1958, that as a result of 

original type certification or later 

increase in capacity, have—

• A maximum type-certificated 

passenger seating capacity of 30 or 

more; or 

• A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

As a result, the final rule does not 

apply to the airplanes the commenter 

references. 

Comment: A commenter notes that 

currently DT and safe-life inspections 

are acceptable to show compliance with 

maintenance requirements. However, it 

appears that under the IFR, the FAA 

will only accept DT-based maintenance 

programs after December 2007. The 

commenter suggests the IFR clearly state 

that parts certified as safe-life are 

exempt from the requirements of 

§ 121.370a. Another commenter notes 

that several aircraft, such as the EMB–

110, were designed using safe-life 

criteria, which were required at the time 

of certification. The commenter states 

that aircraft not designed using DT 

techniques will not have accessibility to 

all areas that must be inspected under 

a Damage Tolerance Inspection Program 

(DTIP). The commenter suggests that 

forcing DT inspections could result in 

unintended damage to the structural 

integrity of the aircraft. 

FAA Response: The intent of the 

Aging Airplane Safety rule is to apply 

the DT and fatigue evaluation of 

structure consistent with the evaluation 

prescribed in § 25.571. Section 25.571(c) 

includes provisions for the evaluation of 

safe-life structures when the applicant 

determines the DT requirements of 

§ 25.571(b) are impractical for a 

particular structure. For purposes of this 

rule, damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures will not be 

required for an airplane component 

certified as a safe-life design (e.g., 

landing gear) and where the application 

of the DT requirements of § 25.571(b) 

are determined to be impractical. 

Comment: Several commenters ask 

the FAA to clarify the extent to which 

a DT assessment for repairs, alterations, 

and modifications (RAMs) beyond the 

fuselage pressure boundary will be 

required. One of the commenters says 

the industry held 29 meetings over 7 

years to develop a process and 

procedure to assess existing repairs. 

They found that a rational, technical 

basis is needed only to assess the DT of 

fuselage pressure boundary repairs. 

Also, the commenter states while the 

IFR indicates damage-tolerance-based 

maintenance programs must be in place 

by December 2007, the IFR does not say 

what this means. The commenter 

recommends two options regarding 

§ 121.370a. In option 1, the commenter 

states the FAA should withdraw 

§ 121.370a and the associated draft AC 

91–56B (regarding airplanes >75,000 lbs 

maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)). 

Additionally, the commenter requests 

that the FAA task the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) with formulating the technical 

considerations and the rule and 

advisory language for developing a 

damage tolerance-based maintenance 

program for the primary structure of the 

airplane. In option 2, the commenter 

notes the FAA should remove the DT 

assessment of primary structural 

elements (PSEs) for RAMs discussion 

from the preamble to the IFR and the 

associated draft AC 91–56B, when republished, and task ARAC to develop 

appropriate direction for the FAA. 

One commenter also notes that 

significant gaps appear in the DT 

guidance materials original equipment 

manufacturers (OEM) provide for DTbased inspections and procedures.

Another commenter states the rule, 

with respect to RAMs made to non-ATA 

53 (fuselage structure) PSEs, should not 

apply to aircraft certificated before 

amendment 25–45. The commenter 

further states that they are unaware of 

any fleet evidence of DT problems 

associated with a repair to non-ATA 53 

PSEs. The commenter supports the 

ARAC’s Airworthiness Assurance 

Working Group’s (AAWG) earlier 

recommendation on repair assessment 

that the scope of addressing repairs for 

DT on pre-amendment 25–45 aircraft 

should be confined to those repairs 

made only to the fuselage pressure 

boundary. 

FAA Response: In 1992, the FAA and 

the AAWG surveyed large transport 

category airplane models to assess the 

status of repairs. In 1994, the AAWG 

requested manufacturers conduct a 

second survey on airplane repairs to 

validate the 1992 results. The surveys 

showed that the fuselage pressure 

boundary was the area most susceptible 

to structural damage and subsequent 

repairs. Therefore, in response to the 

AAWG’s recommendations, the FAA 

issued the ‘‘Repair Assessment for 

Pressurized Fuselages’’ final rule (65 FR 

24108, April 25, 2000). 

In the preamble language to that rule, 

the FAA recognized, based on the 

AAWG’s recommendations, that 

additional rulemaking may be needed to 

address repairs on the remaining 

primary structures. In addition, the 

preamble under the heading 

‘‘Determining which Airplanes Should 

be Affected,’’ states:

Those transport category airplanes that 

have been certificated to regulatory standards 

that include the requirements for damagetolerance structure under § 25.571 are not 

included in this rulemaking action. These 

later requirements make it incumbent on the 

operating certificate holder to return the 

structure to the original certification basis by 

installing only those repairs that meet the 

airplane’s damage-tolerance certification 

basis. The AAWG, in its final report on this 

subject, did recommend continued 

monitoring of repairs on newer airplanes, 

with the possibility of additional rulemaking 

if conditions warrant * * * It was from this 

activity that the AAWG and the 

manufacturers recognized not only the need 

for a RAG document for each affected model, 

but a SRM updated to include the results of 

a damage-tolerance assessment.

As transport category airplanes 

continue to accumulate flight hours, 

they are increasingly susceptible to 

fatigue cracking and repairs. The FAA 

has determined that there is no 

technical basis for excluding any 

repaired airplane structure that is 

susceptible to fatigue cracking that 

could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. Therefore, the FAA believes that 

repairs made to such structure that is 

outside the pressure boundary must be 

addressed as part of this final rule. 

In an effort to support industry’s 

compliance with the Aging Airplane 

Safety final rule, the FAA tasked ARAC 

(69 FR 26641, May 13, 2004) to make 

recommendations regarding the 

assessment of repairs beyond the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5525

fuselage pressure boundary. We tasked 

ARAC to complete their work by 

December 18, 2009. In addition, the 

FAA recognizes that additional time is 

needed to implement the ARAC 

recommendations, which are related to 

guidelines for establishing DT-based 

inspections and procedures for RAMs, 

and for operators to incorporate DTbased inspections and procedures for 

RAMs into their maintenance programs. 

Therefore, the FAA has extended the 

DT-based supplemental inspection 

requirement compliance time in this 

final rule to December 20, 2010. 

Comment: A commenter requests 

clarification on whether the FAA would 

accept a SSID program developed by the 

OEM as an alternate means of 

compliance with the supplemental 

inspection requirements. 

FAA Response: The FAA will accept 

a SSID program for the baseline 

structure of an airplane developed by 

the OEM and approved by the FAA. If 

a SSID does not consider repairs, 

alterations, and modifications (RAMs), 

as required by this rule, the FAA would 

not accept it as a means to comply with 

this portion of the rule. 

Comment: One commenter notes that 

the IFR will apply to pre- and postamendment 25–45 airplanes; however, 

the accompanying guidance materials 

do not provide guidance for postamendment 25–45 airplanes. Another 

commenter says the FAA should apply 

the December 2007 compliance date 

only to DTIPs for those areas where 

guidance materials have been 

developed. 

FAA Response: The FAA believes 

adequate guidance exists for developing 

DT-based supplemental structural 

inspections for post-amendment 25–45 

airplanes. The FAA recognizes that the 

guidance material for developing DTbased supplemental inspection 

programs that address repairs, 

alterations, and modifications may be 

inadequate to support compliance with 

this rule. Therefore, the FAA has tasked 

the ARAC to draft an advisory circular 

that contains guidance to support 

operators’ compliance with §§ 121.370a 

and 129.16 for all affected airplanes. 

This guidance will support compliance 

with the final rule for the DTassessment of repairs, alterations, and 

modifications made to aircraft structure 

that is susceptible to fatigue cracking 

that could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. 

The FAA also has decided to extend 

the compliance date for the DT-based 

supplemental inspection requirement 

from December 5, 2007 to December 20, 

2010. This will allow the ARAC enough 

time to develop the guidance material 

and will give the operators enough time 

to incorporate the DT requirements into 

their maintenance programs. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

because ‘‘DTIP’’ is not concisely 

defined, the FAA should include a 

definition of this term in 14 CFR part 1. 

A second commenter expresses concern 

over the FAA’s failure to clearly define 

‘‘DTIP.’’

FAA Response: The term ‘‘damagetolerance-based inspections and 

procedures’’ or DTIP as used in this rule 

refers to the actions needed to achieve 

damage tolerance as defined in AC 

25.571–1C, Damage Tolerance and 

Fatigue Evaluation of Structure. 

Comment: Several commenters 

express concern that operators will not 

be able to comply with the 

supplemental inspection requirements 

in the rule without data from the OEM. 

One commenter notes the IFR does not 

require OEMs to provide these data. 

This commenter suggests the FAA 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

standardize SSID ADs to aid industry 

compliance with DT-based inspections. 

Another commenter states they would 

not be able to comply with the rule 

because the manufacturer has not issued 

FAA-approved SSIDs for their airplane 

fleets. 

FAA Response: The FAA is 

considering proposing a new rule to 

require type certificate and 

supplemental type certificate holders to 

develop damage tolerance inspection 

programs that will support compliance 

with the Aging Airplane Safety final 

rule. The FAA recognizes the need to 

standardize SSID ADs to aid industry’s 

compliance with DT-based inspections 

and procedures. 

Comment: One commenter notes that 

although the FAA has acknowledged 

difficulty in implementing ADs for 

structural repair manuals, the FAA does 

not present a solution to this problem in 

the IFR. 

FAA Response: It is not the FAA’s 

intent to mandate structural repair 

manuals by issuing ADs. While the 

commenter’s specific concern is 

unclear, the FAA notes that we issue 

ADs to address known unsafe 

conditions on aircraft. OEM produced 

structural repair manuals are a part of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness, and are used in carrying 

out operators’ maintenance programs. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

express concern about the design-life 

goals contained in Appendix N to part 

121, Appendix B to part 129, and 

Appendix G to part 135 of the IFR. The 

commenters say the FAA may have used 

inconsistent approaches for determining 

design-life goals and evaluating specific 

aircraft types. 

FAA Response: The FAA 

acknowledges the concerns the 

commenters express. The FAA has 

removed the design-life goal 

requirements, which include part 121 

Appendix N, part 129 Appendix B, and 

part 135 Appendix G, from the 

regulation. The design-life goals were 

intended as a transition measure for 

those models listed in the appendices. 

The IFR required inspection programs to 

be in place by December 5, 2007 for 

airplanes above their design-life goals. 

For those airplanes that had not reached 

their design-life goal, inspection 

programs were not required until 

December 20, 2010. Since the 

compliance date for the damage 

tolerance requirements has been 

extended to December 20, 2010, this 

transition period is no longer needed. 

Additionally, only three of the models 

listed in the appendices meet the new 

airplane applicability requirement of 

this final rule, and these three models 

are no longer operated under part 121.

Comment: One commenter states that 

under existing ADs and repair 

assessment guidelines for pressurized 

fuselages, the required repair 

assessments are linked to the number of 

flight cycles as a percentage of the 

design-life goal. The commenter 

recommends that for airplanes that have 

more than 14 years in service but 

relatively few flight cycles, the FAA 

should not require DT assessment of all 

repairs during the initial aging aircraft 

inspections. 

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 

that current repair assessment 

guidelines for pressurized fuselages 

required by § 121.370 are linked to the 

number of flight cycles as a percentage 

of the design-life goal. The FAA has 

tasked ARAC to develop guidelines that 

would support the industry’s 

compliance with § 121.370a for repairs, 

alterations, and modifications made to 

the baseline primary structure. The FAA 

expects the new repair assessment 

guidelines will be consistent with those 

developed for § 121.370. Also, the FAA 

has extended the compliance date for 

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures to December 20, 2010. This 

will give the ARAC enough time to 

complete its work. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommends the term ‘‘primary 

structure’’ be replaced with the term 

‘‘Principle Structural Elements.’’

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees 

the term ‘‘primary structure’’ should be 

replaced with the term ‘‘Principle 

Structural Elements.’’ This is mainly 

because of the different industry 

5526 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

interpretations for the term ‘‘Principle 

Structural Elements.’’ However, the 

FAA believes it would be helpful to 

clarify the intent of this rule regarding 

the type of primary structure that 

requires damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures. Therefore, 

the FAA provided this clarification in 

§§ 121.370a and 129.16 of this rule. The 

revised language applies to ‘‘airplane 

structure susceptible to fatigue cracking 

that could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure.’’

Advisory Material for Supplemental 

Inspections 

Comment: Many commenters address 

the need for the FAA to provide more 

guidance material to assist operators in 

complying with the required DT-based 

inspections and procedures. 

FAA Response: Guidance material is 

available in AC 25.571C for developing 

DT-based inspections for an airplane’s 

baseline primary structure. As noted 

earlier, the FAA has tasked the ARAC to 

develop guidance material the operators 

can use to support their compliance 

with §§ 121.370a and 129.16 of this rule 

with respect to addressing repairs, 

alterations, and modifications. 

Comment: One commenter says draft 

AC 91–56, Continued Structural 

Integrity Program for Airplanes, states 

that widespread fatigue damage (WFD) 

will be the subject of a separate 

rulemaking. However, little detail is 

given about how service bulletin 

reviews and aging aircraft programs 

should be carried out. The commenter 

recommends the FAA include in AC 

91–56 the text the European Aging 

Aircraft Working Group (EAAWG) 

presented to cover these points. Another 

commenter questions whether the 

statement ‘‘cracks must be difficult to 

detect during regular maintenance’’

shows that WFD should be evaluated. If 

so, the commenter suggests the FAA 

clarify in the AC the effects of such an 

evaluation in extending design-life 

goals. 

FAA Response: This rule does not 

include requirements for evaluating 

WFD. However, the FAA is considering 

future rulemaking that would address 

this topic. As a part of their tasking, the 

ARAC will review and make 

recommendations to the FAA on AC 91–

56. Since the EAAWG is represented on 

the ARAC working group that is 

conducting the review, the FAA expects 

the views of the EAAWG would be 

considered. 

Comment: A commenter suggests the 

FAA include a sample DT-assessment 

report in AC 91–56. 

FAA Response: The commenter does 

not indicate how a DT-assessment 

report would be used and does not 

provide enough information about the 

scope of such a report. Without this 

information, the FAA is unable to 

consider including a sample report in 

AC–91–56. 

Comment: One commenter questions 

whether the FAA will assign extended 

design-life goals to aircraft with SSIDs. 

FAA Response: The FAA has removed 

the design-life goal requirements from 

the final rule. Therefore, aircraft with 

SSIDs will not be subject to design-life 

goal requirements. 

Comment: A commenter recommends 

the FAA include in the AC not only 

those RAMs produced by type 

certificate (TC) holders, but also RAMs 

produced by non-TC holders through 

alternate means. 

FAA Response: The FAA has tasked 

the ARAC to assess the effectiveness of 

AC–91–56B to provide guidance to 

supplemental type certificate (STC) 

holders for developing damagetolerance-based inspections and 

procedures for repairs, alterations, and 

modifications made to airplane 

structure that is susceptible to fatigue 

cracking that could contribute to a 

catastrophic failure. The ARAC will 

provide recommendations regarding the 

development of guidance for addressing 

RAMs. 

Comment: A commenter notes that 

AC 91–60, The Continued 

Airworthiness of Older Airplanes, is 

being used to guide operators in 

scheduled operations. The commenter 

recommends the FAA edit the list of 

components in AC 91–60 to consider 

them for inclusion in inspection 

programs and express them in more 

general terms. 

FAA Response: AC 91–60 addresses 

service-history-based inspections, 

which are typically applied to airplanes 

operated under part 135. As mentioned 

in the FAA’s response to prior 

comments, the FAA has changed the 

airplane applicability in this final rule. 

Because of this change, the requirement 

in § 135.168 related to service-historybased inspections and procedures has 

been removed from the rule. However, 

the FAA intends to issue a revised 

version of the related AC, AC 91–60, 

Continued Airworthiness of Older 

Airplanes, as guidance for part 135 

operators, who may still want to 

develop service-history-based 

inspections. 

Comment: A commenter notes the 

preamble to the IFR states that certain 

DT-based supplemental structural 

inspection programs (SSIPs) do not fully 

meet the requirements of the IFR, which 

apply to the complete primary structure. 

The commenter suggests the final rule 

or its accompanying ACs state that 

inspections and procedures in the 

Airworthiness Limitation section of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness and the supplemental 

structural inspection document (SSID) 

satisfy the IFR for baseline structure. 

FAA Response: With respect to an 

airplane’s baseline structure, FAAapproved DT-based supplemental 

structural inspection programs that 

address airplane baseline structure 

susceptible to fatigue cracking that 

could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure are considered an acceptable 

means of compliance with this rule. 

With respect to repaired, altered, or 

modified baseline structure, the FAA 

has tasked ARAC to develop guidelines 

that would support the industry’s 

compliance with §§ 121.370a and 

129.16 of the rule. 

Comment: A commenter requests the 

FAA address how operators should 

communicate to the FAA that a 

Designated Engineering Representative 

(DER) approved repair is DT-based, 

when DT requirements were not part of 

the original certification requirements. 

FAA Response: Operators inform the 

FAA that a DER approved repair is DT 

based by establishing DT-based 

inspections according to the 

requirements of § 25.571 at amendment 

25–45 or later. 

Economic or Cost Comments 

Comment: One commenter states that 

operators of aircraft with 19 or fewer 

seats will pay the greatest cost, on a 

seat-by-seat basis, for complying with 

the IFR. The commenter notes that 

unlike the aircraft involved in the Aloha 

Airlines, Inc. accident, aircraft with 19 

or fewer seats are unpressurized. The 

commenter requests the FAA provide an 

alternative to the DT maintenance 

program for non-transport category 

airplanes with 19 or fewer seats 

operated under part 121. 

Another commenter states the IFR 

will impose an enormous burden on 

turboprop aircraft operators, many of 

which will not be able to afford to 

support a DTIP. There are, for example, 

a relatively small number of EMB–110s 

being used in scheduled passenger 

operations, meaning that the very large 

development costs for a DTIP would be 

distributed over a few operators. The 

commenter suggests this will result in 

the premature retirement by 2007 of a 

significant number of aircraft still 

within their safe-life design-service goal.

FAA Response: In consideration of 

comments to the IFR and the FAA’s 

review of the Aging Airplane Program, 

the FAA has narrowed the scope of the 

airplane applicability in §§ 121.370a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5527

and 129.16. The new applicability for 

DT inspections and procedures covers 

airplanes that meet all the following 

requirements: 

• Transport category. 

• Turbine powered. 

• Type certificate issued after January 

1, 1958. 

• As a result of original type 

certification or later increase in 

capacity, have a maximum typecertificated passenger seating capacity 

of 30 or more, or a maximum payload 

capacity of 7500 pounds or more. 

Comment: Several commenters state 

the IFR will cause them an undue 

burden. One commenter states the 

financial impact of the IFR will far 

exceed the FAA’s estimates because 

these estimates have grown since 1999, 

the year the NPRM was-issued. Another 

commenter says it conducted a survey 

of its members to estimate the 

compliance costs of the IFR. Based on 

its cost estimates for inspections, 

airplane and records availability, and 

establishing DT programs, this 

commenter estimates the cost of the IFR 

on the industry over the next 20 years 

will be between $1.3 billion and $2.7 

billion. Another commenter notes the 

IFR will cost them an additional $363 

million per year in rescheduling and 

$285,790,000 in lost revenue. 

FAA Response: Following industry 

comments about the IFR cost estimates, 

the FAA reassessed the Aging Airplane 

Safety Program, and the FAA modified 

the IFR’s existing requirements. These 

changes to the existing requirements of 

the IFR have the economic impact of 

reducing costs. The FAA estimates the 

changes to this rule will provide 

substantial cost savings to operators of 

10-to 29-seat airplanes. The estimated 

cost savings depend on the number of 

affected airplanes remaining in 

scheduled passenger carrying operations 

as of December 20, 2010. Cost savings 

will decrease as the number of affected 

airplanes decrease. The final rule 

provides cost relief and imposes no 

added costs. 

Comment: A commenter states that it 

will be costly for operators to perform 

the required inspections and records 

reviews. The commenter recommends 

that an operator’s DARs perform the 

inspections and records review required 

by the IFR because DARs are more 

familiar with the aircraft. The 

commenter suggests the FAA’s role 

should be to evaluate the DARs rather 

than conduct the inspections and 

records reviews. 

FAA Response: This rule does not 

restrict operators from using DARs or 

ODARs to perform the required airplane 

inspections and records reviews. 

Comment: A commenter states that 

requiring HMCs every 7 years has a 

potential cost to its members of more 

than $500 million. The commenter 

suggests the FAA align the IFR with 

existing air carrier maintenance 

schedules to mitigate these costs. 

FAA Response: The FAA intends to 

perform the required airplane 

inspections and records reviews within 

the operator’s normal maintenance 

cycle. Therefore, the FAA will perform 

these inspections and records reviews at 

a ‘‘C’’ check or segment thereof, a ‘‘D’’

check or segment thereof, or other 

scheduled maintenance visits where 

structural inspections are accomplished. 

Comment: Several commenters 

address how the FAA might reduce the 

implementation costs of the IFR. One 

commenter states that the best way to 

reduce implementation costs is to train 

field inspectors comprehensively and 

emphasize the importance of integrating 

the IFR’s requirements into current air 

carrier maintenance and inspection 

programs. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

having an adequately trained inspector 

and designee workforce is important to 

providing a standardized approach to 

conducting the required airplane 

inspections and records reviews. 

Therefore, the FAA completed 

workshops for its flight standards 

airworthiness inspectors and is 

providing workshops for its designees 

(DARs and ODARs). The intent of these 

workshops is to ensure that FAA 

airworthiness inspectors, DARs, and 

ODARs use uniform procedures when 

conducting their inspections and 

records reviews. The FAA also has 

changed related guidance material to 

ensure uniformity in the inspection and 

records review process. 

Comment: One commenter, who 

conducts operations under part 135, 

states the FAA should use Government 

funds to subsidize, at least in part, the 

cost of the inspections to minimize the 

impact on ticket prices. 

FAA Response: As discussed earlier, 

the FAA made many changes to the IFR, 

which are cost relieving, particularly to 

persons conducting operations under 

part 135. For example, the FAA has 

removed the supplemental inspection 

requirement in the IFR for part 135 

operators. 

Comment: A commenter suggests that 

lessors will require non-U.S. operators 

to meet the part 121 requirements and 

non-U.S. operators will attempt to 

mitigate the costs, leading to a greater 

proportion of aircraft being owned by 

operators rather than being leased. The 

commenter contends that this may 

cause operators to elect to operate 

aircraft manufactured outside the 

United States, which are less likely to 

have the IFR requirements imposed 

within the lease agreements.

FAA Response: The FAA notes that 

the provisions of this rule apply to any 

affected airplane, regardless of its State 

of design or State of manufacture. The 

FAA notes that any affected U.S.-

registered airplane will be subject to the 

requirements of this rule whether it is 

purchased from a seller in a U.S. 

location or from a seller in a foreign 

location. The FAA does not believe the 

requirements of this rule will influence 

an operator to elect to lease a foreign 

manufactured airplane in lieu of a U.S.-

manufactured airplane. 

Comment: A commenter, who 

conducts operations in Alaska, says that 

current regulations already provide for 

adequate safety for aircraft operated 

under part 121 and additional 

regulations will have no measurable 

increase on safety. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes the 

proposal would not apply to airplanes 

engaged in operations solely within the 

State of Alaska. This rule responds to a 

congressional mandate set forth in the 

Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. If the 

airplane is operated outside the State of 

Alaska, it would be subject to the 

provisions of this rule. 

International Trade 

Comment: One commenter states the 

FAA did not consider the impact of the 

IFR outside the U.S. market. 

FAA Response: The FAA notes that 

this rule only applies to U.S.-registered 

airplanes. The rule does not apply to 

non-U.S.-registered airplanes used by 

foreign air carriers to conduct 

operations under part 129. 

Changes to the Interim Final Rule 

After the FAA’s recent review of the 

Aging Airplane Program and comments 

to the Aging Airplane Safety interim 

final rule (IFR), the FAA found it 

necessary to make changes to the IFR. 

The IFR became effective on December 

8, 2003. A discussion of the changes to 

the rule follows. 

Sections 121.368 and 129.33 Aging 

Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews 

These sections describe the 

requirements for operators to make 

certain airplanes available to the 

Administrator for inspection and 

records review. They also explain the 

type and content of records operators 

must make available for review. Current 

§§ 121.368(d) and 129.33(c) explain the 

content of the records operators must 

make available for review. The FAA 

5528 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

made the following changes to these 

sections: 

• In §§ 121.368(d)(2) and 129.33(c)(2), 

‘‘total flight hours of the airframe’’ has 

been changed to ‘‘total time in service 

of the airframe.’’ The FAA’s use of the 

term ‘‘total flight hours’’ was not 

intended to differ from the meaning of 

the term ‘‘total time in service’’ as 

defined in 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA made 

this change to avoid any inconsistencies 

in the interpretation of this rule and to 

remain consistent with existing 

recordkeeping requirements. 

• Sections 121.368(d)(8) and 

129.33(c)(8) of the IFR require the 

current status of inspections and 

procedures required by §§ 121.370a and 

129.16, airworthiness directives, and 

corrosion prevention and control 

programs. As pointed out earlier in this 

preamble, as part of the FAA’s review of 

the Aging Airplane Program, the FAA 

withdrew the Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Program (CPCP) proposed rule 

(69 FR 50350, August 16, 2004). 

Therefore, the Aging Airplane Safety 

IFR is being amended to remove from 

§§ 121.368 and 129.33, the requirement 

for operators to provide the current 

status of CPCPs as a separate item. 

Instead, operators will provide this 

information as part of the requirement 

for the current inspection status of the 

airplane, or for those CPCPs mandated 

by AD, they will provide it as part of the 

requirement for the current status of 

ADs. In addition, the FAA has removed 

the requirement from §§ 121.368 and 

129.33 for operators to provide the 

current status of the inspections and 

procedures that are required under the 

supplemental inspection portions of the 

IFR. The FAA removed this requirement 

because under the terms of this final 

rule, operators must provide this 

information as part of the current 

inspection status of the airplane. 

Further, a commenter to the rule 

pointed out that § 121.380(a)(2)(vi) 

should satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 121.368(d)(8) related 

to ADs. The FAA agrees and has revised 

§§ 121.368(d)(8) and 129.33(c)(8) to 

match § 121.380(a)(2)(vi). 

Sections 135.422 and 135.423 Aging 

Airplane Inspections and Records 

Reviews for Multiengine Airplanes 

On December 20, 1995, the FAA 

published the Commuter Operations 

and General Certification and Operation 

Requirements rule (60 FR 65832). 

Because of this rule, airplanes 

certificated with 10 or more passenger 

seats may not conduct scheduled 

passenger carrying operations under 

part 135. Therefore, airplanes engaged 

in these operations are now subject to 

the aging airplane inspections and 

records review requirements contained 

in § 121.368 of this final rule. As a 

result, the requirements in § 135.422 of 

the IFR, which addresses these 

airplanes, are no longer needed. 

The FAA notes that § 121.368 requires 

operators to provide records containing 

total flight cycles of the airframe. The 

FAA recognizes that some part 135 

operators may not have kept a record of 

the total flight cycles of the airframe. 

Therefore, current flight cycle 

information may not be available. In 

such an instance, the operator should 

determine flight cycles using a flight 

hour to flight cycle ratio included in 

their manual that is acceptable to the 

assigned PMI. 

In this final rule, the FAA has 

redesignated § 135.424 as § 135.423 and 

has made the following changes to 

§ 135.422: 

• The reference to ‘‘total flight hours 

of the airframe’’ is changed in to ‘‘total 

time in service.’’ This change is similar 

to the change in §§ 121.368(d)(2) and 

129.33(c)(2) described earlier. 

• The requirements to provide the 

current status of Corrosion Prevention 

and Control Programs (CPCP) and the 

current status of supplemental 

inspections and procedures required by 

§ 135.168 are removed. These changes 

are similar to those made in §§ 121.368 

and 129.33. 

• The requirement to provide the 

time and date of the next recurring 

action for an airworthiness directive 

was added to paragraph (d)(7). These 

changes are similar to those made in 

§§ 121.368 and 129.33. In addition, the 

requirements in § 135.168 have been 

removed from the rule. 

Sections 121.370a, 129.16, and 135.168

Supplemental Inspections 

Airplane applicability: This final rule 

narrows the airplane applicability for 

supplemental inspections and 

procedures (DT-based and servicehistory-based). The final rule removes 

requirements for service-history-based 

inspections and procedures and 

imposes damage tolerance requirements 

on transport category, turbine powered 

airplanes with a type certificate issued 

after January 1, 1958, that as a result of 

original type certification or later 

increase in capacity, have—

• A maximum type-certificated 

passenger seating capacity of 30 or 

more; or 

• A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

The FAA determined that this rule 

should apply to airplanes with a type 

certificate issued after January 1, 1958, 

because this date is generally accepted 

as the beginning of the jet age for 

commercial aviation in the United 

States. It corresponds with the type 

certificate applicability date used in 

other rules, such as the Fuel Tank 

Design Review (SFAR 88) rule. 

The reference to the original type 

certificate or later increase in capacity is 

intended to address two situations: 

1. In the past, some designers and 

operators have attempted to avoid the 

application of requirements that apply 

only to airplanes over specified 

capacities by obtaining a design change 

approval for a slightly lower capacity. 

By including the reference to ‘‘capacity 

resulting from the original 

certification,’’ the FAA intends to 

remove this possible means of avoiding 

compliance. 

2. It is also possible for an airplane 

design to be originally certified with a 

capacity slightly lower than the 

minimum specified in this section. But, 

through later design changes, the 

capacity could be increased above this 

minimum. The reference to ‘‘later 

increases in capacity’’ is intended to 

ensure that, if this occurs, the design 

would have to meet the requirements of 

this section.

The FAA received comments to the 

IFR that expressed concern about the 

economic burden the supplemental 

inspection requirement would place on 

persons operating small commuter 

airplanes in air-carrier service. These 

operators typically operate small fleets 

of airplanes with a passenger seating 

capacity of 30 or less. As of 2003, the 

U.S. fleet total of these airplanes 

consisted of 19 models and about 350 

airplanes. This small number of 

airplanes per model makes it costly for 

operators to develop inspection 

programs. The FAA found that as of 

2002, only about 50 percent of the small 

commuter fleet in use in 1997 was still 

operating in the U.S. By 2010, the FAA 

expects this percentage to decrease to 

only 11 percent (about 80 aircraft) or 

less of the commuter fleet in use in 

1997. The FAA has determined the 

supplemental inspections for these 

airplanes are no longer needed and 

intends to address the discovery of any 

age-related problems for these airplanes 

through continued operational safety 

programs and ADs. 

If operators of these small airplanes 

choose to voluntarily develop 

supplemental inspection programs, they 

can refer to AC 91–60, The Continued 

Airworthiness of Older Airplanes, 

which the FAA is currently revising, for 

guidance. 

Compliance date: The current 

regulation contains a compliance date of 

December 5, 2007, for operators to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5529

include damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures in their 

maintenance programs. In 

§§ 121.370a(c) and 129.16(b) of this final 

rule, the FAA has extended this 

compliance date to December 20, 2010. 

On May 13, 2004, the FAA tasked 

ARAC to develop guidelines to support 

the industry’s compliance with the 

rule’s requirement to address repairs, 

alterations, and modifications. 

Extending the compliance date to 

December 20, 2010, will give ARAC 

time to develop these guidelines. It also 

will allow operators enough time to 

comply with the requirement to 

incorporate damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures into their 

maintenance programs. 

New model added through type 

certificate amendment (parts 121 and 

129): The FAA has determined that this 

requirement is no longer needed. The 

intent of this requirement under 

§§ 121.370a(b) and 129.16(c) of the IFR 

was to cover certain large transport 

category airplanes (e.g., B–737s, MD–

80s, and A300s) whose certification 

basis does not include a requirement for 

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures. Since the FAA expects that 

some of these airplanes may reach or 

exceed their design-life goals before the 

extended compliance date for 

supplemental inspections, the FAA 

finds it necessary to mandate 

supplemental inspections and 

procedures (i.e., supplemental structural 

inspection documents (SSIDs)) for these 

airplanes by issuing ADs. Operators of 

airplanes that will not reach their 

design-life goal by December 20, 2010, 

must comply with the supplemental 

inspection requirements (§§ 121.370a(c) 

and 129.16(b)) of this final rule by the 

December 20, 2010, date. 

Design-life goal airplanes (parts 121 

and 129): Under §§ 121.370a(c) and 

129.16(d) of the IFR, the design-life-goal 

requirement restricts an operator from 

operating an airplane with a design-life 

goal listed in part 121 Appendix N and 

part 129 Appendix B, after December 5, 

2007. This requirement is no longer 

needed because most of these airplanes 

have a passenger seating capacity of less 

than 30 passenger seats. Also, the FAA 

has extended the compliance date for 

supplemental inspections to December 

20, 2010. The FAA expects that most of 

these airplanes will not be in scheduled 

passenger service by December 20, 2010. 

The FAA will address any age-related 

problems for these remaining airplanes 

through continued operational safety 

programs and ADs. 

Airworthiness directive-mandated 

service-history-based inspections (parts 

121 and 129): This requirement under 

§§ 121.370a(d) and 129.16(e) of the IFR 

prohibits an operator from operating an 

airplane beyond December 20, 2010, for 

which an airworthiness directive 

requires the maintenance program to 

include service-history-based 

inspections and procedures. The IFR 

further requires that after this date, the 

operator’s maintenance program must 

include DT-based inspections and 

procedures for these airplanes. The 

airplanes subject to this requirement are 

mostly reciprocating engine powered 

airplanes that have long been out of 

scheduled passenger service. There are 

about 50 of these airplanes, consisting of 

four models, currently serving as 

freighters. Some of these airplanes are 

operating in the State of Alaska and are 

excepted from the requirements in this 

rule. The FAA has determined that 

imposing damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures on the 

airplanes not operating in Alaska would 

impose an undue economic burden with 

little increase in safety benefits. The 

withdrawal of this requirement does not 

relieve the operators of these airplanes 

from any of the requirements in 

applicable ADs. 

Supplemental inspections (part 135):

Since the FAA has narrowed the 

applicability for supplemental 

inspections to certain transport category 

airplanes, § 135.168 and Appendix G to 

part 135 have been removed from this 

final rule. 

Airplane structure applicability: Some 

comments to the IFR indicated the rule 

is still unclear about the type of airplane 

structure to which the DT-based 

inspections and procedures should be 

applied. Therefore, the FAA further 

clarified §§ 121.370a(c)(1) and 

129.16(b)(1) of this final rule to state 

operators must include in their 

maintenance programs ‘‘FAA-approved 

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures for airplane structure 

susceptible to fatigue cracking that 

could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. These inspections and 

procedures must take into account the 

adverse affects repairs, alterations, and 

modifications may have on fatigue 

cracking and the inspection of this 

airplane structure.’’

Approvals (§§ 121.370a(e) and 

129.16(f)): The FAA has removed these 

approval paragraphs and has placed the 

approval requirements in 

§§ 121.370a(c)(2) and 129.16(b)(2) of the 

final rule. The FAA has modified the 

related rule language to further clarify 

and identify the approval levels the rule 

requires. The final rule states the 

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures and any revisions to them 

must be approved by the Aircraft 

Certification Office or the office of the 

Transport Airplane Directorate with 

oversight responsibility for the relevant 

type certificate or supplemental type 

certificate, as determined by the 

Administrator. The FAA intends to 

develop guidance material to provide a 

consistent approach to the approval 

process. 

The rule also states operators must 

include the damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures in their 

FAA-approved maintenance program. 

Section 135.411 Applicability 

The part 135 airplane inspections and 

records review requirements in the final 

rule, which applies to multiengine 

airplanes certificated for nine or fewer 

passenger seats, are now under 

§ 135.422. In addition, the FAA has 

removed the requirements under 

§ 135.423 and has redesignated 

§ 135.423 as § 135.424. As a result, the 

FAA had to amend § 135.411(a)(1), 

which lists the part 135 aircraft 

maintenance requirements sections for 

aircraft with nine or fewer passenger 

seats. Additionally, we had to amend 

§ 135.411(a)(2), which lists the part 135 

aircraft maintenance requirements 

sections for aircraft with 10 or more 

passenger seats. In § 135.411(a)(1), we 

removed the reference to § 135.423 and 

added a reference to § 135.422. In 

§ 135.411(a)(2), we removed the 

reference to § 135.422. 

Cost Benefit Analysis 

Proposed 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. 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 Act requires agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

for U.S. standards 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 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

5530 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation.)

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs, is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures; (2) will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; (3) 

will not create obstacles to international 

trade; and does not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

This regulatory evaluation assesses 

the economic impacts of the changes to 

the IFR. Following the FAA’s review of 

industry comments and the FAA’s 

reassessment of the Aging Airplane 

Safety Program, the FAA modified the 

requirements of the IFR. These changes 

to existing requirements have the 

economic impact of reducing costs. As 

the economic impact of the changes to 

the IFR is cost relieving, the rule does 

not warrant a full regulatory evaluation. 

The FAA provides the basis for this 

minimal impact determination below. 

Under the terms of the final rule, the 

FAA will conduct spot inspections and 

records reviews of affected airplanes 

operating under parts 121, 129, and 135. 

These inspections and records reviews 

are based on the requirements in the 

Aging Airplane Safety Act (AASA), 

which requires the Administrator to 

conduct inspections and records 

reviews of aging aircraft. The FAA 

intends to conduct these activities 

during scheduled maintenance to 

minimize the cost to industry. 

This final rule reduces compliance 

costs by narrowing the scope of airplane 

applicability for the supplemental 

inspections portion (§§ 121.370a, 

129.16, 135.168) of the IFR. This final 

rule requires damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures 

(supplemental inspections) for transport 

category, turbine-powered airplanes 

with a type certificate issued after 

January 1, 1958, and that, as a result of 

original type certification or later 

increase in capacity, have a maximum 

type-certificated passenger seating 

capacity of 30 or more, or a maximum 

payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or 

more. 

As a result of narrowing the airplane 

applicability, the part 135 requirement 

and certain parts 121 and 129 

requirements for supplemental 

inspections have been removed in the 

final rule. It would be costly for 

operators to develop inspection 

programs for the remaining small 

number of affected airplanes. The FAA 

found that as of 2002, about 50 percent 

of the small commuter fleet in use in 

1997 was still operating in the U.S. By 

2010, the FAA expects this percentage 

to decrease to only 11 percent (about 80 

airplanes) or less. Therefore, the FAA 

has determined that the supplemental 

inspections for these airplanes are no 

longer needed. The FAA intends to 

address the discovery of any age-related 

problems for these airplanes through 

continued operational safety programs 

and ADs. 

The FAA is removing the design-life 

goal requirements, which include part 

121 Appendix N, part 129 Appendix B, 

and part 135 Appendix G, from the 

regulation. The IFR required 

supplemental inspection programs to be 

in place by December 5, 2007, for 

airplanes that exceeded their design-life 

goals. For those airplanes that had not 

reached their design-life goal, these 

inspection programs were not required 

until December 20, 2010. Since the 

compliance date for the damage 

tolerance requirements has been 

extended to December 20, 2010, this 

transition period is no longer needed. 

The FAA has extended the 

compliance date from December 5, 2007 

to December 20, 2010, for parts 121 and 

129 operators to meet the DT-based 

supplemental inspection requirement. 

This extension will provide operators 

additional time to develop to 

incorporate DT-based inspection and 

procedures into their maintenance 

program. The FAA believes this 

extension is necessary to provide 

industry enough time to develop the 

DT-based inspections and for operators 

to incorporate these inspections and 

procedures into their maintenance 

programs. The extension will also allow 

ample time to train inspectors. 

The FAA estimates this final rule will 

provide substantial cost savings to 

operators of multi-engine airplanes with 

less than 30 seats. Additionally, this 

final rule will provide cost savings by 

extending the supplemental inspections 

compliance date from 2007 to 2010 for 

all affected operators. The final rule 

provides cost relief and imposes no 

added costs. The benefits to this rule are 

the cost relief provided by extending the 

damage tolerance compliance time and 

narrowing the airplane applicability for 

DT-based inspections and procedures. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined the 

benefits of this regulatory action justify 

the costs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ Under that principle, the 

Act requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals, 

and to consider the rationale for their 

actions. The Act covers a wide range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the determination is that it 

will have such an impact, the agency 

must prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis as described in the Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed, or final, rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 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. 

The changes to the IFR are cost 

relieving, thus are not expected to have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA presents the factual basis 

below. 

For the IFR, the FAA conducted a 

complete regulatory flexibility analysis 

to assess the impact on small entities. 

This rule will affect operators of certain 

airplanes operated under parts 121, 129, 

and 135. For operators, a small entity is 

defined as one with 1,500 or fewer 

employees. As there are operators that 

meet these criteria for a small business, 

calculations were done to assess 

whether the rule will have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of these 

operators. 

Issues To Be Addressed in a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

The central focus of the FRFA, like 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, is the requirement that 

agencies evaluate the impact of a rule on 

small entities and analyze regulatory 

alternatives that minimize the impact 

when there will be a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.

The requirements, outlined in section 

604(a)(1–5) of the RFA, appear in items 

1 through 5 below. The FAA’s response 

follows each requirement. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5531

(1) A succinct statement of the need 

for, and objectives of, the rule. 

This rule represents a critical step 

toward compliance with the Aging 

Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. Section 

44717 of Title 49 U.S.C. instructs the 

Administrator to ‘‘prescribe regulations 

that ensure the continuing airworthiness 

of aging aircraft.’’ The law also requires 

‘‘the Administrator to make inspections, 

and review the maintenance and other 

records, of each aircraft an air carrier 

uses to provide air transportation.’’ The 

objectives of the rule are to ensure the 

continuing airworthiness of aging 

airplanes operating in air transportation. 

(2) A summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary 

of the assessment of the agency of such 

issues, and a statement of any changes 

made in the proposed rule as a result of 

such comments. 

There were few public comments 

explicitly on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. There were several 

comments from part 135 operators that 

discuss the financial burden the IFR 

would place on them. Many part 135 

operators have fewer than 1,500 

employees and are considered small 

entities. 

In response to public comments, the 

FAA revised the supplemental 

inspection requirement by narrowing 

the applicability to transport category, 

turbine powered airplanes with a type 

certificate issued January 1, 1958, that 

because of original type certification or 

later increase in capacity, have a 

maximum type-certificated passenger 

seating capacity of 30 or more or a 

maximum payload capacity of 7500 

pounds or more. This change excepted 

part 135 operators from having to 

implement a supplemental inspection 

program. 

(3) A description of, and an estimate 

of the number of, small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available. 

On December 8, 2003, the Aging 

Airplane Safety IFR was codified. After 

the FAA’s review of the Aging Airplane 

Program and comments to the IFR, the 

FAA made the changes to the IFR that 

are reflected in this final rule. The FAA 

has determined that these changes 

impose no additional costs and provide 

cost relief to small entities. No 

description or estimated number of 

small entities is given as the final rule 

provides only cost relief to these 

operators. 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

The changes to the IFR will result in 

no additional paperwork burden. 

(5) A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

The changes the FAA made to the IFR 

resulted in part 135 operators not 

having to implement supplemental 

inspection programs. This decreased the 

cost burden for these operators, many of 

whom are small entities. 

Description of Alternatives 

The FAA considered several 

alternative approaches to this 

rulemaking action. One was to retain the 

provisions of the rule as set forth in the 

IFR. The FAA rejected this alternative 

after a review of the Aging Airplane 

Program initiatives and comments to the 

IFR. We determined that better aligning 

certain compliance dates in existing 

aging airplane rules and pending 

proposals and making certain 

substantive changes to them would 

increase their cost-effectiveness without 

compromising safety. The FAA 

included the Aging Airplane Safety rule 

in the review. The results were the 

removal of the supplemental inspection 

requirement for certain airplanes and 

the extension of the supplemental 

inspection compliance date for those 

airplanes still subject to the rule. 

Another alternative came from 

commenters to the IFR. They 

recommended the FAA withdraw the 

rule. The FAA rejected this alternative 

because the rule is based on a 

congressional mandate, which requires 

the FAA to implement regulations to 

ensure the continuing airworthiness of 

aging aircraft. 

Compliance Assistance 

The FAA has tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to review and make 

recommendations on the contents of AC 

91–56B, Continuing Structural Integrity 

Programs for Airplanes. This AC will 

provide guidance to develop damagetolerance-based SSIPs. The FAA intends 

to publish this AC before the December 

20, 2010 compliance date specified in 

this rule. The FAA also intends to 

publish AC 120–84, Aging Airplane 

Inspections and Records Review, 

concurrently with this rule to help 

operators in complying with the 

airplane inspections and records 

reviews required by this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information collection requirements 

in the final rule have been previously 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and have been 

assigned OMB Control Numbers: 2120–

0020, 2120–0008, and 2120–0039. Part 

129 record requirements can be found in 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization Annexes. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in 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. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this final 

rule and determined that it will impose 

the same costs on domestic and 

international entities and thus have a 

neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) 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 an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (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.’’ The 

5532 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances.

Energy Impact 

The energy impact of the notice has 

been assessed in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) Public Law 94–163, as amended 

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

1053.1. It has been determined that the 

final rule is not a major regulatory 

action under the provisions of the 

EPCA.

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 119 

Air carriers, Air transportation, 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Commuter 

operations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 129 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 183 

Aircraft, Authority delegations 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration adopts 

the interim final rule (IFR) published at 

67 FR 72726 on December 6, 2002, and 

revised by technical amendment (68 FR 

69307, December 12, 2003), as a final 

rule with the following changes:

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 

44903–44904, 44912, 45101–45105, 46105, 

46301.

■ 2. Amend § 121.368 by revising 

paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(8) introductory 

text to read as follows:

§ 121.368 Aging airplane inspections and 

records reviews.

* * * * *

(d) * * * 

(2) Total time in service of the 

airframe;

* * * * *

(8) Current status of applicable 

airworthiness directives, including the 

date and methods of compliance, and if 

the airworthiness directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required:

* * * * *

■ 3. Revise § 121.370a to read as follows:

§ 121.370a Supplemental inspections. 

(a) Applicability. Except as specified 

in paragraph (b) of this section, this 

section applies to transport category, 

turbine powered airplanes with a type 

certificate issued after January 1, 1958, 

that as a result of original type 

certification or later increase in capacity 

have—

(1) A maximum type certificated 

passenger seating capacity of 30 or 

more; or 

(2) A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

(b) Exception. This section does not 

apply to an airplane operated by a 

certificate holder under this part 

between any point within the State of 

Alaska and any other point within the 

State of Alaska. 

(c) General requirements. After 

December 20, 2010, a certificate holder 

may not operate an airplane under this 

part unless the following requirements 

have been met: 

(1) The maintenance program for the 

airplane includes FAA-approved 

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures for airplane structure 

susceptible to fatigue cracking that 

could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. These inspections and 

procedures must take into account the 

adverse affects repairs, alterations, and 

modifications may have on fatigue 

cracking and the inspection of this 

airplane structure. 

(2) The damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures identified in 

this section and any revisions to these 

inspections and procedures must be 

approved by the Aircraft Certification 

Office or office of the Transport 

Airplane Directorate with oversight 

responsibility for the relevant type 

certificate or supplemental type 

certificate, as determined by the 

Administrator. The certificate holder 

must include the damage-tolerancebased inspections and procedures in the 

certificate holder’s FAA-approved 

maintenance program.

Appendix N To Part 121 [Removed]

■ 4. Amend part 121 by removing 

Appendix N.

PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN 

AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN 

OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED 

AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON 

CARRIAGE

■ 5. The authority citation for part 129 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904, 

44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107–71 sec 104.

■ 6. Revise § 129.16 to read as follows:

§ 129.16 Supplemental inspections for 

U.S.-registered aircraft. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to U.S.-registered, transport category, 

turbine powered airplanes with a type 

certificate issued after January 1, 1958 

that as a result of original type 

certification or later increase in capacity 

have—

(1) A maximum type certificated 

passenger seating capacity of 30 or 

more; or 

(2) A maximum payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds or more. 

(b) General requirements. After 

December 20, 2010, a foreign air carrier 

or foreign person may not operate an 

airplane under this part unless the 

following requirements have been met: 

(1) The maintenance program for the 

airplane includes FAA-approved 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5533

damage-tolerance-based inspections and 

procedures for airplane structure 

susceptible to fatigue cracking that 

could contribute to a catastrophic 

failure. These inspections and 

procedures must take into account the 

adverse affects repairs, alterations, and 

modifications may have on the fatigue 

cracking and the inspection of this 

airplane structure.

(2) The damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures identified in 

this section and any revisions to these 

inspections and procedures must be 

approved by the Aircraft Certification 

Office or office of the Transport 

Airplane Directorate with oversight 

responsibility for the relevant type 

certificate or supplemental type 

certificate, as determined by the 

Administrator. The operator must 

include the damage-tolerance-based 

inspections and procedures in the 

operator’s FAA-approved maintenance 

program.

■ 7. Amend § 129.33 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(8) introductory 

text to read as follows.

§ 129.33 Aging airplane inspections and 

records reviews for U.S.-registered 

multiengine aircraft.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(2) Total time in service of the 

airframe;

* * * * *

(8) Current status of applicable 

airworthiness directives, including the 

date and methods of compliance, and if 

the airworthiness directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required:

* * * * *

Appendix B To Part 129 [Removed]

■ 8. Amend part 129 by removing 

Appendix B.

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

■ 9. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 

44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 

44715–44717, 44722.

§ 135.168 [Removed and reserved]

■ 10. Remove and reserve §135.168.

■ 11. Amend § 135.411 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as 

follows:

§ 135.411 Applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Aircraft that are type certificated 

for a passenger seating configuration, 

excluding any pilot seat, of nine seats or 

less, shall be maintained under parts 91 

and 43 of this chapter and §§ 135.415, 

135.416, 135.417, 135.421 and 135.422. 

An approved aircraft inspection 

program may be used under § 135.419. 

(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 

maintenance program in §§ 135.415, 

135.416, 135.417, and 135.423 through 

135.443.

* * * * *

■ 12. Amend part 135, by revising 

§ 135.422 to read as follows:

§ 135.422 Aging airplane inspections and 

records reviews for multiengine airplanes 

certificated with nine or fewer passenger 

seats. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to multiengine airplanes certificated 

with nine or fewer passenger seats, 

operated by a certificate holder in a 

scheduled operation under this part, 

except for those airplanes operated by a 

certificate holder in a scheduled 

operation between any point within the 

State of Alaska and any other point 

within the State of Alaska. 

(b) Operation after inspections and 

records review. After the dates specified 

in this paragraph, a certificate holder 

may not operate a multiengine airplane 

in a scheduled operation under this part 

unless the Administrator has notified 

the certificate holder that the 

Administrator has completed the aging 

airplane inspection and records review 

required by this section. During the 

inspection and records review, the 

certificate holder must demonstrate to 

the Administrator that the maintenance 

of age-sensitive parts and components of 

the airplane has been adequate and 

timely enough to ensure the highest 

degree of safety. 

(1) Airplanes exceeding 24 years in 

service on December 8, 2003; initial and 

repetitive inspections and records 

reviews. For an airplane that has 

exceeded 24 years in service on 

December 8, 2003, no later than 

December 5, 2007, and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7 years. 

(2) Airplanes exceeding 14 years in 

service but not 24 years in service on 

December 8, 2003; initial and repetitive 

inspections and records reviews. For an 

airplane that has exceeded 14 years in 

service, but not 24 years in service, on 

December 8, 2003, no later than 

December 4, 2008, and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7 years. 

(3) Airplanes not exceeding 14 years 

in service on December 8, 2003; initial 

and repetitive inspections and records 

reviews. For an airplane that has not 

exceeded 14 years in service on 

December 8, 2003, no later than 5 years 

after the start of the airplane’s 15th year 

in service and thereafter at intervals not 

to exceed 7 years. 

(c) Unforeseen schedule conflict. In 

the event of an unforeseen scheduling 

conflict for a specific airplane, the 

Administrator may approve an 

extension of up to 90 days beyond an 

interval specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(d) Airplane and records availability.

The certificate holder must make 

available to the Administrator each 

airplane for which an inspection and 

records review is required under this 

section, in a condition for inspection 

specified by the Administrator, together 

with the records containing the 

following information: 

(1) Total years in service of the 

airplane; 

(2) Total time in service of the 

airframe; 

(3) Date of the last inspection and 

records review required by this section; 

(4) Current status of life-limited parts 

of the airframe; 

(5) Time since the last overhaul of all 

structural components required to be 

overhauled on a specific time basis; 

(6) Current inspection status of the 

airplane, including the time since the 

last inspection required by the 

inspection program under which the 

airplane is maintained; 

(7) Current status of applicable 

airworthiness directives, including the 

date and methods of compliance, and, if 

the airworthiness directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required; 

(8) A list of major structural 

alterations; and 

(9) A report of major structural repairs 

and the current inspection status for 

these repairs. 

(e) Notification to the Administrator.

Each certificate holder must notify the 

Administrator at least 60 days before the 

date on which the airplane and airplane 

records will be made available for the 

inspection and records review.

§ 135.423 [Removed]

■ 13. Amend part 135 by removing 

§ 135.423.

§ 135.424 [Redesignated]

■ 14. Redesignate § 135.424 as § 135.423.

Appendix G To Part 135 [Removed]

■ 15. Amend part 135 by removing 

Appendix G.

5534 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 

2005. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–1756 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P