19498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. 28273; Amendment No. 43–36]

RIN 2120–AE57

Revisions to Maintenance and

Preventive Maintenance Rule

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the

maintenance rules to allow properly

trained pilots of aircraft type certificated

for 9 or fewer passenger seats and

operated under 14 CFR Part 135 to

perform certain maintenance tasks on

their aircraft. This rule also adds certain

tasks to those items considered to be

preventive maintenance. The changes

are needed because a large number of

exemption requests has demonstrated a

need for pilots conducting certain types

of operations to be able to respond more

rapidly to emergency medical missions

and to reconfigure cabins to

accommodate changing needs to

transport varying combinations of

passenger and/or cargo in situations

when a certificated mechanic is not

available to perform the required

maintenance task. This rule will

improve emergency response and flight

turnaround times for these operations,

and will relieve the public and agency

burdens of filing and processing

exemptions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward L. Ortiz, General Aviation

Commercial Branch (AFS–340), Aircraft

Maintenance Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591,

(202) 267–8203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Statement of the Problem

Many small air carriers operating

under 14 CFR part 135 (part 135)

perform missions in locations where or

during times when a certificated

mechanic may not be available to

perform certain maintenance tasks that

need immediate attention. These air

carriers provide emergency ambulance

service; transport internal organs for

emergency medical treatment; transport

packages, parts, and electronic

equipment whose delivery is of a timecritical nature; and provide normal

passenger-carrying service, occasionally

with freight as a secondary load.

Because the demand for these services

varies and, especially in the case of

medical emergency calls, arises at all

times of the day, it is impossible for air

carriers to anticipate airplane

configuration requirements.

Performing cabin conversions to

aircraft operating under part 135 is

considered either maintenance (if

extensive) or preventive maintenance (if

simple), and must currently be

performed by a certificated mechanic as

required by § 43.3. Similarly, the

removal and replacement of medical

oxygen bottles is considered

maintenance and must be performed by

a certificated mechanic.

For many carriers, locating a

mechanic each time a request for service

occurs creates lengthy delays that are

costly and could be potentially life

threatening to injured or ill passengers.

Similarly, providing a maintenance

crew on ‘‘24-hour call’’ is cost

prohibitive for many carriers.

In addition to imposing these

burdens, the current regulations also

prohibit general aviation pilots from

removing and replacing easily

removable communication and

navigation devices, and from updating

easily replaceable data bases. Certain

aviation communication and navigation

systems are now designed for easy

removal and data base update. Many

privately-owned aircraft owners and

operators prefer to remove this selfcontained equipment (a job that

normally requires only an allen wrench

and no disassembly of the unit) to

prevent theft. They also would like to be

able to insert flight plans or update the

Air Traffic Control (ATC) software data

base. Current regulations require that a

mechanic perform these tasks.

History

The FAA has addressed over 250

petitions for exemption from the

sections of part 43 governing these

‘‘maintenance’’ items. A majority of

these petitions were from nonhelicopter,

air taxi operators who learned from

local FAA inspectors that their pilots

are not authorized to reconfigure their

cabins or exchange medical oxygen

bottles. The petitions for exemption

highlight several common issues: (1)

Many small part 135 air carriers operate

in areas where they undergo a hardship

due to their regions’ lack of certificated

mechanics; (2) Many others operate

during times when certificated

mechanics are not normally on duty

(these missions are usually timecritical); and (3) Many of these operators

are unable to operate their aircraft in

only one configuration. Passenger-tocargo or passenger-to-stretcher

conversion ensures the most efficient

utilization of cabin space on each flight.

In most instances, seats stretchers, base

assemblies, and other items used in the

conversion are approved for aircraft

installation, and the procedures for

installation and removal are designed to

be accomplished safely by a trained

person.

Historically, the FAA has granted

exemptions to permit pilots of aircraft

operated under part 135 to perform seat

removal and replacement tasks only if

the aircraft were operated in remote

areas such as the Alaskan bush or

sparsely populated areas of the

Northwestern United States. Certificated

mechanics servicing these areas are

scarce. Many of the operations include

such essential services as flying food,

mail, needed goods, and people into and

out of areas that may not be accessible

by other modes of transportation.

More recently, however, exemptions

have been granted to part 135 air

carriers to permit their properly trained

pilots to reconfigure cabin seats when

flying missions of an emergency nature

during times—at night and on

weekends—when certificated

mechanics are not normally available,

and when a time delay incurred by

locating a mechanic could cause undue

burden or create a life-threatening

situation.

The FAA has determined that if a

properly trained pilot can change seat

configurations in a remote area where a

certificated mechanic is not available

(and which might be performed under

adverse conditions), he or she would be

capable of and should be allowed to

perform the same conversions under

better conditions such as those present

at the operator’s maintenance base.

Passenger-to-cargo and passenger-tostretcher conversions have been

performed safely by pilots who have

been trained to do so and who are

employed by air carriers holding

exemptions allowing their pilots to

perform the tasks. No reported incidents

or accidents have been attributed to

properly trained pilots changing aircraft

cabin configurations. If an air taxi

operator develops an appropriate

program for performing seat conversions

and appropriately instructs and trains

its pilots according to the program,

safety levels equivalent to those

achieved by certificated mechanics will

be maintained.

Also, on January 10, 1994, the FAA

published a Request for Comments (59

FR 1326; docket No. 27581) to solicit

from the public a list of those

regulations that are believed to be

unwarranted or inappropriate. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19499

agency received eight comments that

addressed the maintenance and

preventive maintenance regulations of

part 43. The commenters noted that

current regulations do not allow a pilot

of a part 135 operator to remove and

reinstall aircraft cabin seats and

stretchers. The comments feel that the

current regulations are unnecessary and

are financially and physically

burdensome. They point out that the

FAA has issued a number of exemptions

to relieve the burden, and that the

exemption process itself is burdensome

and time consuming.

The FAA has determined that the

concern shown for this issue is

significant, and that this rulemaking

action is consistent with the agency’s

responsibility to review the continuing

need for its regulations and to eliminate

regulations that impose unnecessary

burdens.

Related Rulemaking

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC), which is a

committee composed of aviation

community and FAA personnel, has

been tasked with reviewing part 43 and

Appendix A to determine what

revisions, if any, should be made. The

FAA has not yet received any

recommendations.

The Current Rule

Part 43 requires air carriers to use

certificated mechanics for their aircrafts’

maintenance and preventive

maintenance needs. This requirement

reflects an FAA policy that passengers

of all aircraft be given a high degree of

safety protection through the proper

installation of cabin seats and

appointments. As outlined in Appendix

A, paragraph (c), of this part, removal

and replacement of aircraft seats is

considered preventive maintenance.

Several years ago, the FAA recognized

the need for pilots operating helicopters

under part 135 to be able to perform

certain preventive maintenance tasks

when operating in remote areas.

Accordingly, the agency amended part

43, effective January 6, 1987 (51 FR

40702, Nov. 7, 1986), by adding a new

§ 43.3(h), which authorizes part 135

certificate holders to allow their pilots,

when operating rotorcraft, to perform

specific preventive maintenance tasks,

under the following conditions:

(1) The items of preventive

maintenance must be a result of a

known or suspected mechanical

difficulty or malfunction that occurred

en route to or in a remote area.

(2) The pilot must have satisfactorily

completed an approved training

program and is authorized, in writing,

by the certificate holder for each item of

preventive maintenance that the pilot is

authorized to perform.

(3) There must be no certificated

mechanic available to perform

preventive maintenance.

(4) The certificate holder must have

procedures to evaluate the

accomplishment of a preventive

maintenance item that requires a

decision concerning the airworthiness

of the rotorcraft.

(5) The items of preventive

maintenance authorized by this section

must be those listed in paragraph (c) of

Appendix A of part 43.

Discussion of Comments

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Revisions to

Maintenance and Preventive

Maintenance’’ was published on July 18,

1995 (60 FR 36926), which solicited

public comment. Forty comments were

received. Thirty-one commenters agree

with the proposal as published.

Five commenters believe that

airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats

should be included in the rulemaking,

and one commenter believes that

rotorcraft with 10 or more seats should

be similarly included. The FAA

disagrees. This rulemaking was

precipitated by the volume of

exemption requests that were filed by

operators who needed a shorter turnaround time to respond to emergency

medical missions and other time

sensitive operations, or who operated in

areas where a certificated mechanic was

not available. Almost all of the

exemption requests were filed by

operators whose airplanes are

configured with nine or fewer passenger

seats. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA

continues to find that operators of

aircraft type certificated for 10 or more

passenger seats are required to have a

maintenance organization in place to

support their part 135 operations, and

their aircraft tend to be more complex

in design and construction. The FAA

will continue to address operations

using aircraft configured with 10 or

more passenger seats on a case by case

basis. There will be no change to the

proposed rule as a result of these

comments.

One commenter suggests that the

regulatory language in § 43.3(h) be

amended to include fixed wing aircraft

with nine or fewer passenger seats. The

FAA disagrees. This rulemaking

addresses specific tasks associated with

specific operations, and the suggestions

of the commenter are outside the scope

of this action. There will be no change

to the proposed rule as a result of these

comments.

One commenter proposes that the

word ‘‘aircraft’’ be changed to read

‘‘airplane.’’ The FAA disagrees. The rule

is intended to include rotorcraft so

helicopter pilots can also perform the

tasks prescribed that allow for a shorter

turn around in emergency situations.

Without the term ‘‘aircraft,’’ helicopter

pilots transporting patients, for instance,

would not be allowed to reconfigure

their cabins without an exemption. The

commenter also proposes that the word

‘‘fewer’’ be replaced by the old term

‘‘less’’ in the context ‘‘nine or fewer.’’

The FAA recognizes that people are

familiar with the hold terminology, but

the agency is moving in a direction to

correct grammatical errors whenever

rules are revised. The new term, ‘‘nine

or fewer’’ is being incorporated into new

rulemaking efforts. There will be no

change to the proposed rule as a result

of these comments.

The same commenter is concerned

about the phrase in paragraph (i) that

says ‘‘may perform the removal and

reinstallation of approved aircraft cabinmounted seats. . .’’ He suggests that the

sentence should include a reference to

maintenance and preventive

maintenance, as stated in the section

title, and that the term ‘‘aircraft’’ should

again read ‘‘airplane.’’ The FAA

disagrees. The title of the section is

sufficient without repeating it in

paragraph (i); the redundancy would not

clarify the rule language, but would

rather make it more cumbersome. The

argument for ‘‘aircraft’’ vs. ‘‘airplane’’ is

addressed above. There will be no

change to the proposed rule as a result

of these comments.

The same commenter suggests that the

rule should allow pilots of part 135

rotorcraft to perform the functions. The

FAA agrees and will retain the term

‘‘aircraft’’ in the rule language. The

commenter suggests that the reference to

part 135 be removed from § 43.3(g),

which, he states, would eliminate the

need for paragraph (h) and (i). He also

suggests that current paragraphs (h) (2),

(3), (4), and (5) should be incorporated

into existing paragraph (g), and that

existing paragraph [i] should be

redesignated as new paragraph (h).

Under this scheme, existing paragraph

(h)(1) would be eliminated. He also

suggests that the new rule should add

the removal and reinstallation of

stretchers and cabin-mounted medical

oxygen bottles to [paragraph (c) of]

Appendix A. The FAA disagrees.

Removing the reference to part 135 from

§ 43.3(g) would allow pilots to perform

any of the tasks listed in paragraph (c)

of Appendix A. The purpose of this

rulemaking is to allow pilots performing

specific operations to perform only
19500 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

certain tasks relevant to the operation.

Pilots are hired to fly aircraft, not to

perform maintenance and preventive

maintenance in all areas on a regular

basis. Moreover, the suggestion to

incorporate existing paragraphs (h) (2),

(3), (4), and (5) into existing paragraph

(g) would have the unintended effect of

having general aviation pilots, who

operate under part 91, meet

requirements intended and adopted for

rotorcraft pilots who operate under part

135 in order to perform preventive

maintenance tasks. The suggestion to

revise § 43.3(g) is outside the scope of

this rulemaking and no change to the

proposal will be made pursuant to the

suggestion.

Two commeters point out that

removing and replacing navigation and

communication devices (paragraph

(c)(31)) could adversely affect safety if

the connectors are not properly engaged

upon reinstallation and no operational

check is performed. The FAA agrees,

and has revised the proposed rule

language to reflect that the panelmounted device must be a front loading

device that employs a tray-mounted

connector that connects the unit when

the unit is installed into the instrument

panel. Language has also been added to

paragraphs (c)(31) and (c)(32) to require

an operational check prior to use, in

accordance with the applicable sections

of part 91. Depending on the type of

flight and/or the type of equipment, a

pilot would have to comply with

FAA91.407 or § 91.171.

One of these commenters also

suggests that procedures on how to

perform the maintenance task and any

testing required to determine if the

equipment is serviceable after

maintenance is performed, should be

documented in the aircraft flight

manual. The FAA agrees that the

information should be made available to

the pilot, but will not restrict the

location of the material to the flight

manual. Paragraph (i)(2) has been

revised to require the certificate holder

to have written procedures available to

the pilot to evaluate the

accomplishment of the task.

The same commenter states that the

tasks permitted in this rulemaking

should be allowed only when there is

no maintenance personnel available.

The FAA disagrees. During rulemaking

proceedings, the FAA examined this

issue extensively. The definition of

‘‘availability’’ is complex enough that in

this case, it was determined that if a

pilot is properly trained to perform the

tasks, he or she should be permitted to

perform them whenever needed during

operations described in this rulemaking

action. Over 250 exemptions have been

granted by the FAA to allow pilots to

perform the tasks described here, with

no adverse effect on safety. Therefore,

no change will be made to the proposal

as a result of this comment.

International Compatibility

The FAA has reviewed corresponding

International Civil Aviation

Organization regulations and Joint

Aviation Authority regulations, where

they exist, and has identified no

differences in these proposed

amendments and the foreign

regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements

in the amendment to § 43.3 have been

previously approved by the Office of the

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511)

and have been assigned PMB Control

Number 2120–0021. For further

information contact: the Information

Requirements Division, M–34, Office of

the Secretary of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590, (202) 366–4735.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Executive Order 12866 established the

requirement that, within the extent

permitted by law, a Federal regulatory

action may be undertaken only if the

potential benefits to society for the

regulation outweigh the potential costs

to society. In response to this

requirement, and in accordance with

Department of Transportation policies

and procedures, the FAA has estimated

the anticipated benefits and costs of this

rulemaking action. The FAA has

determined that this rule change is not

a significant rulemaking action as

defined by Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review). The

results are summarized in this section.

For more detailed economic

information, see the full regulatory

evaluation contained in the docket.

This rule is cost relieving because it

eliminates the need for operators to

carry mechanics on trips to remote areas

or make special trips to maintenance

facilities for the purpose of altering seat

configurations or exchanging medical

oxygen bottles. Currently, even if a

mechanic is not needed on a regular

basis at a remote site, operators may

have to hire the services of a local

mechanic to reconfigure a cabin, which

can be especially expensive for

emergency medical evacuation

operations conducted at night during

off-duty hours. For the purposes of this

regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumes

that typical air taxi operators that fly

into remote areas where mechanics are

scarce could make 36 trips per year that

require cabin configuration. The FAA

further assumes that a pilot flying into

a remote area has to fly the airplane for

an additional hour (roundtrip) to a

larger airport where a mechanic is

available to perform the required

maintenance.

The FAA estimates that a mechanic

will have to be paid for 1⁄2 hour of

working time at a loaded wage rate

(including benefits) of $18.16 per hour.

The FAA also estimates that, in the

event a cabin reconfiguration is needed

in a remote area, the airplane burns an

additional 30 gallons of fuel during the

one hour of flying time needed to reach

an available mechanic, which adds $60

to operating costs. The additional cost

per trip amounts to $69. On an annual

basis, these cost-savings amount to

$2,484 ($69×36) based on the

assumption of 36 trips per year. The

FAA further estimates that at least 30

operators per year have a recurring need

to reconfigure cabins in remote areas

based on the number of requests for

exemption from the requirements of

§ 43.3 submitted to the FAA each year.

This number is a very conservative

estimate; many air taxi operators are

unaware of this option and forego the

additional revenue that could be earned

through reconfiguring their cabins. The

FAA estimates that industry-wide cost

savings from the proposed rule

amendment amount to $74,520 per year

($2,484×30). Over a 10-year period, the

discounted value of these cost savings

amounts to $523,382.

Since January 1987, part 135

rotorcraft operators have been permitted

to allow their pilots to perform certain

preventive maintenance tasks, under

very limited specified conditions, one of

which is that the item of preventive

maintenance must be the result of a

malfunction that occurred en route to or

in a remote area. In addition, numerous

exemptions that permitted pilots of

aircraft operating under part 135 to

reconfigure cabins were granted to

operators of rotorcraft. Each of the above

authorizations contained a requirement

that the pilot be properly trained for the

preventive maintenance task that would

be undertaken. Rotorcraft pilots

operating under part 91 rules are

authorized to perform preventive

maintenance tasks under § 43.3(g).

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) accident reports reveal no

instance of rotorcraft accidents where

the removal and replacement of cabin

seats by a rotorcraft pilot was suspected

as a possible cause. In fact, a search of

the FAA and NTSB accident and

incident data recorded for part 91 and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19501

part 135 operations over the 1972-

present period did not reveal a single

instance in which the performance by a

pilot of any of the tasks that would be

authorized in this final rule were

suspected as having had a causal role in

an accident. The FAA has therefore

determined that this final rule is cost

relieving and will not reduce the current

level of safety.

In the NPRM, the FAA solicited

information from the public to refine its

estimate of cost savings. No comments

were received.

International Trade Impact Analysis

This rule will affect only those

operators engaged in part 135 operations

of a localized or regional nature. No

impact is expected on international

trade because these domestic operators

seldom compete with foreign firms in

the markets they serve.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily and disproportionately

burdened by government regulations.

The RFA requires agencies to review

rules that may have ‘‘a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ This final

rule is of a cost relieving nature and will

therefore afford cost savings to

individual part 135 operators.

Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the

criterion for a ‘‘substantial number’’ is a

number that is not less than 11 and that

is more than one third of the small

entities subject to the rule. This rule

will affect all part 135 operators who

operate aircraft type certificated for 9 or

fewer passenger seats. For operators of

aircraft for hire, a small operator is one

that owns, but not necessarily operates,

nine or fewer aircraft.

The FAA’s criterion for a ‘‘significant

impact’’ is $4,330 or more per year for

a unscheduled operator. The extent of

the cost savings per operator is

estimated at $2,484 per operator in the

section on economic impacts. The FAA

concludes, therefore, that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact,

positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities.

Federalism Implications

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this rule will not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, and based on the findings in

the Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and the International Trade Impact

Analysis, the FAA has determined that

this final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies

that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or

negative, on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule is

considered nonsignificant under Order

DOT 2100.5, Policies and Procedures for

Simplification, Analysis, and Review of

Regulations. A regulatory evaluation of

the rule, including an initial Regulatory

Flexibility Determination and

International Trade Impact Analysis,

has been placed in the docket. A copy

may be obtained by contacting the

person identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 43

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 43 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations as follows:

PART 43—MAINTENANCE,

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE,

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION

1. The authority citation for part 43

continues to read as follows:

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

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

2. In § 43.3, paragraph (i) is

redesignated as paragraph (j), and a new

paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:

§ 43.3 Persons authorized to perform

maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, and alterations.

* * * * *

(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (g) of this section, in

accordance with an approval issued to

the holder of a certificate issued under

part 135 of this chapter, a pilot of an

aircraft type-certificated for 9 or fewer

passenger seats, excluding any pilot

seat, may perform the removal and

reinstallation of approved aircraft cabin

seats, approved cabin-mounted

stretchers, and when no tools are

required, approved cabin-mounted

medical oxygen bottles, provided—

(1) The pilot has satisfactorily

completed an approved training

program and is authorized in writing by

the certificate holder to perform each

task; and

(2) The certificate holder has written

procedures available to the pilot to

evaluate the accomplishment of the

task.

* * * * *

3. In Appendix A to part 43,

paragraph (c)(30)(i), the reference

‘‘§ 147.21(f)’’ is revised to read

‘‘§ 147.21(e) of this chapter.’’

4. In Appendix A to part 43,

paragraphs (c)(31) and (c)(32) are added

to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 43—Major

Alterations, Major Repairs, and

Preventive Maintenance

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(31) Removing and replacing selfcontained, front instrument panelmounted navigation and

communication devices that employ

tray-mounted connectors that connect

the unit when the unit is installed into

the instrument panel, (excluding

automatic flight control systems,

transponders, and microwave frequency

distance measuring equipment (DME)).

The approved unit must be designed to

be readily and repeatedly removed and

replaced, and pertinent instructions

must be provided. Prior to the unit’s

intended use, and operational check

must be performed in accordance with

the applicable sections of part 91 of this

chapter.

(32) Updating self-contained, front

instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic

Control (ATC) navigational software

data bases (excluding those of automatic

flight control systems, transponders,

and microwave frequency distance

measuring equipment (DME)) provided

no disassembly of the unit is required

and pertinent instructions are provided.

Prior to the unit’s intended use, an

operational check must be performed in

accordance with applicable sections of

part 91 of this chapter.

§ 43.7 [Amended]

5. In section 43.7(d), the reference

‘‘§ 43.3(h)’’ is revised to read ‘‘§ 43.3(j)’’.

§ 43.11 [Amended]

6. In section 43.11(b), the reference

‘‘§ 91.30(d)(2)’’ is revised to read

‘‘§ 91.213(d)(2) of this chapter’’.
19502 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26,

1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10823 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P