[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16298-16320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7443]



[[Page 16297]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 119, 121, et al.



Aging Airplane Safety; Proposed Rule

Advisory Circulars (AC) 91-MA and (AC) 120-XX; Notice of Availability 
and Request for Comments; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 1999 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 16298]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183

[Docket No. FAA-1999-5401; Notice No. 99-02]
RIN 2120-AE42


Aging Airplane Safety

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and withdrawal of prior 
proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to require all airplanes operated under part 
121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), all U.S.-
registered multiengine airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129, and 
all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled operations under 14 CFR 
part 135 to undergo records reviews and inspections by the 
Administrator after their 14th year in service to ensure that the 
maintenance of these airplanes' age-sensitive parts and components has 
been adequate and timely. The FAA also proposes to permit certain 
representatives of the Administrator to conduct these inspections. The 
proposed rule also would prohibit operation of these airplanes after 
specified deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures are included in their maintenance or inspection program.
    This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the 
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. It would help ensure the continuing 
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in air transportation by 
applying modern damage-tolerance analysis and inspection techniques to 
older airplane structures that were certificated before such techniques 
were available, and through mandatory aging aircraft records reviews 
and inspections to be performed by the Administrator.
    The Aging Airplane Safety NPRM published on October 5, 1993 (58 FR 
51944) is withdrawn.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking should be mailed or 
delivered, in triplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation 
Dockets, Docket No. FAA-1999-5401, 400 Seventh St. SW., Room Plaza 401, 
Washington, DC 20590. Comments also may be submitted electronically to 
the following Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be 
filed and/or examined in Room Plaza 401, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 
p.m. weekdays except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Sobeck, Aircraft Maintenance 
Division (AFS-300), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-7355.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this notice also are invited. Substantive comments should 
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory 
docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to the Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will 
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection 
before and after the comment closing date.
    All comments received on or before the closing date will be 
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed 
rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent 
practicable. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed, 
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement 
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-1999-5401.'' The postcard will be 
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic 
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations 
section of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 
(703) 321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: (202) 512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: (202) 267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's webpage at 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published 
rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket 
number of this NPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which 
describes the application procedure.

Background

Statutory Requirement

    In October 1991, Congress enacted Title IV of Public Law 102-143, 
the ``Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991'' (AASA), to address aging 
aircraft concerns. The AASA was subsequently codified as section 447717 
of Title 49, Unites States Code (49 U.S.C.).
    Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. instructs the Administrator to 
``prescribe regulations that ensure the continuing airworthiness of 
aging aircraft.'' That section 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 
records reviews and inspections would be those necessary to ``enable 
the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe condition 
and maintained properly for operation in air transportation.'' Section 
44717 of 49 U.S.C. specifies that these inspections and reviews must be 
carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance check 
conducted ``after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in 
service.'' It also states that the air carrier must ``demonstrate to 
the Administrator, as part of the inspection, that maintenance of the 
aircraft's age-sensitive parts and components has been adequate and 
timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.''
    Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. further states that the rule issued by 
the Administrator must require an air carrier to make its aircraft, as 
well as any records about the aircraft that the Administrator may 
require to carry out the review, available for inspection as necessary 
to comply with the rule. It also states that the Administrator must 
establish procedures to be followed for carrying out such an 
inspection.

[[Page 16299]]

Aging Airplane Safety Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1993

    On October 5, 1993, the FAA published Notice No. 93-14, ``Aging 
Airplane Safety'' (58 FR 51944). The proposals contained in that notice 
would have required operator certification of aging airplane 
maintenance actions and would have established a framework for the 
Administrator to impose operational limits on certain airplanes. Once 
an airplane reached those limits, additional maintenance actions would 
be necessary, such as inspections or parts replacements, for the 
airplane to continue operating. Operational limits would have been 
established in a separate rulemaking.
    Other specific proposals related to operator certification of aging 
airplane maintenance actions were included in the notice. Those 
proposals included: (1) A definition of the terms ``heavy maintenance 
check'' (HMC) and ``years in service''; (2) a requirement for 
certificate holders to establish an HMC interval for each airplane they 
operate; (3) a requirement for certificate holders to make a 
maintenance record at the start of each airplane's 15th year in service 
and at all subsequent HMCs to certify that the airplane met all 
maintenance program requirements; and (4) a requirement for certificate 
holders to notify the FAA at least 30 days before the start of an 
airplane's HMC.
    A number of commenters objected to certain provisions contained in 
the notice. Many commenters indicated that current rules already enable 
the Administrator to determine that an aircraft meets all maintenance 
program requirements; therefore, they asserted that additional 
rulemaking was unnecessary. Several commenters opposed the required 30-
day notice proposal because the current regulations provide the FAA 
with sufficient means to determine the date of an aircraft's next 
required inspection. Several commenters also were concerned that the 
definition of ``heavy maintenance check'' was too broad.
    A number of commenters opposed the concept of an operational limit 
unless the FAA specified the requirements used to establish and extend 
those limits. Finally, some commenters suggested that the FAA exclude 
airplanes already having damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspection 
programs (SIPs) from the operational limit requirement.

Withdrawal of Notice

    After further review, and taking into consideration public 
comments, the Aging Airplane Safety NPRM, Notice No. 93-14 (58 FR 
51944, October 5, 1993) is hereby withdrawn.

General Discussion

Historical Perspective

    The continued airworthiness of aircraft structure is significantly 
affected by age-related fatigue damage. Evidence to date suggests that 
when all critical structure are included, damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures provide the best approach to address 
aircraft fatigue.
    An underlying principle of damage tolerance is that the initiation 
and growth of structural fatigue damage can be anticipated with 
sufficient precision to allow damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures to detect damage before it reaches a size that affects an 
airplane's airworthiness. When damage is discovered, airworthiness is 
maintained by repairing the airplane before further flight.
    Early fatigue requirements, such as ``fail-safe'' regulations, did 
not provide for timely inspection of an aircraft's critical structure 
to ensure that damaged or failed components could be dependably 
identified and then repaired or replaced before a hazardous condition 
developed. In 1978, the damage-tolerance concept was adopted for 
transport category airplanes as an amendment to 14 CFR 25.571 by 
Amendment No. 25-45 (43 FR 46238). That amended rule required damage-
tolerance analysis as part of the type design of transport category 
airplanes for which application was received after October 5, 1978. On 
May 6, 1981, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91-56, 
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport 
Category Airplanes,'' guidance material based on the amended rule for 
existing designs. Using the guidance provided in AC 91-56, many 
manufacturers of large transport category airplanes (airplanes of more 
than 75,000 pounds) developed SIPs for their existing models.
    Beginning in 1984, the FAA issued a series of airworthiness 
directives (ADs) requiring the operators of those airplanes to 
incorporate the SIPs into their maintenance programs. SIPs provide 
inspections and procedures that are based on damage-tolerance 
principles.
    On August 6, 1993, the FAA revised the airworthiness standards for 
small metallic airplanes to incorporate Amendment No. 23-45 (58 FR 
42163) into 14 CFR part 23. Those revisions provided an option to use 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures as a means for 
achieving continued airworthiness of newly certificated normal, 
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. On February 9, 
1996, the FAA revised part 23 by Amendment No. 23-48 (61 FR 5148) to 
require damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures on all newly 
certificated commuter category airplanes.
    Other airplanes were not affected by the described rule changes and 
thus do not have prescribed damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures. These airplanes fall into four basic categories: (1) 
Airplanes with non-damage-tolerance-based SIPs, based solely on service 
history, as prescribed in AC No. 91-60, ``The Continued Airworthiness 
of Older Airplanes''; (2) airplanes that were certificated with design-
life limits on the entire airplane or on major components such as the 
wing, empennage, or fuselage; (3) airplanes that were designed to 
``fail-safe'' criteria to comply with fatigue requirements; and (4) 
airplanes that were certificated with limited consideration being given 
to metal fatigue.

This Proposal

    This proposed rule responds to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44717, 
which requires the Administrator to ``prescribe regulations that ensure 
the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft * * * [and] to 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 safe condition and maintained 
properly for operation in air transportation.''
    As a result of requirements stipulated in 49 U.S.C. 44717, the FAA 
proposes to prohibit the operation of certain airplanes in scheduled 
service unless the Administrator or the Administrator's designee has 
determined that maintenance of the aircraft's age-sensitive parts and 
components has been adequate and timely. All airplanes operating under 
part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operating under 
part 129, and all multiengine airplanes conducting scheduled operations 
under part 135 would be affected.
    Air carriers would be required to make each airplane and certain 
records related to the maintenance of age-sensitive components of the 
airplane available to the Administrator. Also, each affected airplane 
would be prohibited from operating unless damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures are included in the

[[Page 16300]]

maintenance or inspection program used on each airplane in accordance 
with a specified schedule. Damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures would be required on all affected airplanes no later than 
December 20, 2010.
    The airplanes affected by this proposed rule transport a 
significant proportion of those passengers carried in scheduled 
passenger service and are the most prevalent airplanes operated in such 
service.
    This notice does not propose requirements for rotorcraft or single-
engine airplanes, nor does it propose requirements for on-demand 
passenger- or cargo-carrying operations under 14 CFR part 135. The 
scope of this proposal includes the preponderance of aircraft the 
Congress intended to cover under the AASA. Furthermore, the FAA 
anticipates that the resource-intensive implementation of the proposed 
aircraft and records inspection provisions may be difficult to 
administer initially, but that FAA (and designee) resources, in the 
future, will have the capacity to oversee additional fleets of 
aircraft.
    Thus, in a future notice, the FAA will propose aging aircraft 
requirements necessary to cover the operation of all the other aircraft 
used by air carriers to provide air transportation. For the purpose of 
developing those proposals, the FAA may consider the information (e.g., 
documents in public docket) it develops for the rule proposed in this 
notice. It is possible that those future proposals could be similar to 
the requirements proposed in this notice; however, because of the 
differences in the designs, operations, and maintenance of those 
aircraft, differences between this notice and the future proposals are 
likely.
    Congress also instructed the Administrator to encourage governments 
of foreign countries and relevant international organizations to 
develop programs addressing aging aircraft concerns. Most foreign air 
carriers and foreign persons engaged in common-carriage operations have 
maintenance program requirements adopted by their governments. The FAA 
issues the airworthiness certificates for U.S.-registered airplanes. By 
including part 129 in this proposed rule, foreign air carriers and 
foreign persons operating U.S.-registered multiengine aircraft within 
or outside the United States would be required to include damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their maintenance 
programs and be subject to aging aircraft records reviews and 
inspections. This action forms a portion of the FAA's response to the 
AASA by helping to ensure the continued airworthiness of aging U.S.-
registered airplanes operated worldwide.
    This proposal also would revise current 14 CFR 183.33(a) to expand 
the authority of the Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR). The 
DAR would be authorized to conduct the proposed records reviews and 
inspections on behalf of the Administrator. When this proposal becomes 
a final rule, the FAA intends to recommend that the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 
consider making similar changes to their recommended practices and 
requirement.

Inspections

    The FAA intends to verify that each operator has records to show 
that they have accomplished all required maintenance tasks, as well as 
the damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that would be 
required by this proposal. The FAA would validate that these records 
are correct for each affected airplane during the records review and 
inspection required by this proposed rule.
    Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. specifies that the records reviews and 
inspections be carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance 
check after the 14th year in service. For airplanes that have already 
completed 14 years in service, the proposal would require the first 
records review and inspection within 3 to 5 years of the effective date 
of the rule. This proposal would generally require the first records 
review and inspection to be accomplished no later than 5 years after 
the 14th year in service.
    The FAA realizes that the first inspection required 5 years after 
the 14th year in service may not be consistent with current operator 
maintenance schedules. As a result, the records reviews and inspections 
carried out by the Administrator or the Administrator's designee may 
significantly affect these maintenance schedules, because the reviews 
and inspections may not coincide with current maintenance schedules.
    In formulating this proposal, the FAA considered options for 
setting repeat intervals. Among those considered were the heavy 
maintenance check interval, heavy maintenance visit interval, or the 
``letter check'' (e.g., ``C'', ``D'', or ``E'') interval or other 
equivalent check interval an operator may use. The FAA reviewed 
variabilities in the parameters used by operators to carry out 
scheduled maintenance requirements such as flight hours, calendar time, 
or a combination of both. The FAA also considered the phasing and 
segmenting of heavy maintenance checks and found that the intervals 
varied from 1 to 27 years.
    In Air Transport Association of America (ATA) memorandum number 96-
AE-014, dated March 11, 1996, the Airworthiness Concern Coordination 
Task Force recommended that ``a `C' check compliance period (18 months) 
or `D' check period (5 years) be adopted for all rules unless it can be 
shown that a shorter time interval is required for safety reasons.'' A 
copy of this memorandum has been placed in the docket.
    Individual operator maintenance or inspection check intervals have 
been adjusted over the years based on service experience and the 
operational environment of the aircraft. The adjustment, for the most 
part, has been toward increasing the time between subsequent check 
intervals. Consequently, maintenance check intervals vary among 
operators. To comply with the AASA, the 5-year repetitive interval 
after the initial inspection, not withstanding the escalations, best 
helps accomplish the safety goal of the AASA.
    The FAA has determined that the best approach is to specify a fixed 
repeat interval when the Administrator will carry out records reviews 
and inspections of the affected airplanes. The FAA has chosen the 5-
year repeat interval to meet its obligations, as established in 49 
U.S.C. 44717.
    To reduce the burden on the operator, the record reviews and 
inspections could take place at any time before the deadlines specified 
in the proposal. This allows the inspections to coincide with an 
airplane's normally scheduled maintenance visit when structural 
components are accessible for inspection. However, if an operator's 
maintenance interval exceeds 5 years, the operator will be obligated 
sooner than the end of the interval to make the airplane available to 
the Administrator or the Administrator's designee for the records 
review and inspection required by this proposal. For many smaller 
airplanes, the maintenance visit intervals are less than 5 years. In 
those cases, the repetitive intervals of the aging airplane records 
reviews and inspections would not exceed 5 years.
    Conducting the inspections during normally scheduled maintenance 
visits will allow maximum use of the FAA's resources while minimizing 
the disruption to the operator. It also ensures that a significant 
portion of the airplane is accessible to the Administrator or the 
Administrator's designee and allows, to the extent

[[Page 16301]]

possible, a visible determination of compliance with aging aircraft 
requirements. Although it is the FAA's intent to carry out records 
reviews and inspections to the extent that the aircraft structure is 
accessible during the maintenance visit, the FAA may require additional 
access to determine that the maintenance of the airplane's age-
sensitive parts and components has been adequate and timely.
    The proposed rule specifies that airplanes already at their 25th 
year in service must be inspected within 3 years after the effective 
date of the rule. This earlier compliance time for the older airplanes 
will ensure that the oldest airplanes are inspected first and will 
distribute the workload for the initial inspections. The FAA estimates 
that 1,550 airplanes affected by this proposed rule would exceed 24 
years in service by 1998. The estimated number of airplanes that will 
be 15 years old by 1998 is 2,850. Therefore, the proposed rule provides 
for approximately 1,500 airplanes to be inspected within the first 3 
years following the effective date of the rule, followed by an 
approximately equal amount to be inspected in the subsequent 2 years.
    The proposed rule also would require the operator to notify the FAA 
60 days before the aircraft is available for the aging airplane records 
review and inspection. This would ensure that the Administrator or the 
Administrator's designee would be able to make the plans necessary to 
accomplish the aging airplane records review and inspection.

Records Review

    For the Administrator to fulfill his or her obligation under 49 
U.S.C. 44717, this proposal would require that certain records be made 
available by the operator. Operators are already required by existing 
regulations to maintain these records and reports. Although the 
proposal would require status lists and reports of specific maintenance 
actions, if needed, the FAA has the authority under exiting regulations 
to request all supporting documentation for the lists.
    This proposal would establish a new requirement for ``total years 
in service.'' The FAA has determined that this new requirement is 
essential for the Administrator and the operator to determine the 
compliance time for the initial and repetitive inspections. To meet 
this requirement, the operator would retain records validating when the 
initial certificate of airworthiness was issued for each airplane.
    In addition, the FAA is aware that an airframe's flight cycles are 
not currently being collected by operators of small airplanes under 
part 135. This proposal would require that the operator make certain 
records and reports available to the FAA during the proposed aging 
airplane records review inspection.

Damage-Tolerance-Based Inspections and Procedures

    A damage-tolerance-based inspection and procedure refers to ``an 
inspection program that specifies procedures, thresholds, and repeat 
intervals that have been developed using damage-tolerance principles.'' 
Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures are developed by a 
manufacturer or operator based on an engineering evaluation of likely 
sites where damage could occur, considering expected stress levels, 
material characteristics, and projected crack growth rates. Damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures identify inspection sites, 
specify inspection techniques; define thresholds for the initial 
inspection; and prescribe repeat inspection intervals. Test data and 
service experience are used to support the analysis.
    The most important information used to develop a damage-tolerance-
based inspection and procedure is derived analytically or by test, and 
the inspections are intended to anticipate locations where fatigue 
cracking might occur. Therefore, it is inappropriate to change damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures solely on service experience 
without a significant engineering evaluation to confirm that there are 
no areas subject to fatigue cracking other than those revealed by the 
service experience. The engineering evaluation should include 
considering the detailed design data of the airplane, which is under 
the control of the manufacturer. For this reason, all damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures should be developed under the 
technical direction of the type certificate holder for that airplane, 
with support from the operators when appropriate. However, the FAA 
would consider damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures 
submitted by any applicant for approval if they are based on tests and 
service-supported damage-tolerance evaluations for that airplane model.
    The damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures specified in 
this proposal can be developed using one of the following methods:
    (1) Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that comply 
with Sec. 25.571, Amendment 25-45 (43 FR 46238), or that comply with a 
subsequent amendment thereto;
    (2) Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures that comply 
with the damage-tolerance provisions for metallic structure listed in 
14 CFR 23.573, Amendment 23-45 (58 FR 42163), or that comply with a 
subsequent amendment thereto;
    (3) AC 91-56 ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large 
Transport Category Airplanes'' dated May 6, 1981;
    (4) Draft AC 91-MA ``Continued Airworthiness of Older Small 
Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Supplemental 
Inspection Programs.'' A notice of availability for this AC is 
published concurrently with this proposal; or
    (5) Any other method that the Administrator finds complies with the 
principles of damage tolerance.
    Although this proposed rule specifies dates by which damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures would be required, the 
thresholds for these inspections may occur much later. While the 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures would need to be 
developed within the regulatory timeframe proposed, the times when the 
inspections would be completed would depend on the damage-tolerance 
assessment.
    For newly certificated airplanes, damage-tolerance-based 
inspections necessary to prevent catastrophic failure must be included 
in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness required by 23.1529 or 25.1529.
    Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for airplanes 
certificated before the amendments that require damage tolerance as 
part of airplane type design may be approved through an amended or 
supplemental type certificate. Such a certificate would identify the 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures as an airworthiness 
limitation on the airplane.
    Damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures for certain older 
airplanes also may be approved by a Letter of Approval issued by the 
FAA Aircraft Certification Office cognizant of the type certificate. 
The Letter of Approval would place an operational requirement for the 
operator's affected airplanes.
    For some airplanes, the FAA has approved major structural 
modifications under a supplemental type certificate (STC). The original 
airplane manufacturer may not have sufficient technical data pertinent 
to these modifications to assist the airplane operators in conducting a 
damage-tolerance assessment of the modification. In these situations, 
the FAA expects the operator to work with the STC holder and the 
original airplane

[[Page 16302]]

manufacturer to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures for that modification. In some instances, the operator may 
not be able to work with the STC holder or manufacturer. These 
operators may elect to conduct their own damage-tolerance assessments. 
If an operator elects to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures in this fashion, competent engineering personnel, as well as 
inspection findings from the current maintenance or inspection program, 
should be used in conjunction with the airplane's design data base and 
model fleet experience. These data should be developed by the original 
manufacturer, and the STC holder should provide the basis for the 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures; however, the 
operator also can develop its own data. FAA-approved major structural 
repairs should be analyzed in the same manner as modifications 
accomplished under an STC. Such procedures ensure that damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures address each airplane 
affected by this proposal, including any modifications or repairs made 
to the basic airframe.
    The FAA is aware that for some currently operating airplanes it may 
be difficult to develop damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures. For example, the manufacturer may have gone out of 
business; technical data may not be adequate; the technical knowledge 
base may no longer be readily available; or the development of a 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures may not be 
economically viable. If any of these conditions exist and appropriate 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures cannot be developed 
those airplanes would not be eligible for operation under part 121, 
129, or 135 after the dates specified in the proposal.
    Non-damage-tolerance-based SIPs based on AC 91-60 have been 
mandated by ADs on the following airplanes: Douglas DC-3 and DC-6; 
Convair 240, 340, 440, 580, and 600 series; Lockheed Electra; and the 
Fokker F-27. Although inspections and procedures based on AC No. 91-60 
address known service difficulties, they do not anticipate the 
possibility of future fatigue cracks that could be predicted through 
the use of damage-tolerance principles. Some inspection programs 
developed in accordance with AC No. 91-60 do not qualify as damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures because they are either 
based solely on service experience or they may combine partial damage-
tolerance assessments with service experience. For these reasons, the 
proposed rule would not allow continued use of inspection programs 
based on AC No. 91-60 alone. Instead, it proposes to require damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures to supplement or replace 
existing inspection programs based on AC No. 91-60 no later than 
December 20, 2010.

Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR)

    Section 44717 of 49 U.S.C. allows the Administrator to delegate the 
aging aircraft records reviews and inspections to properly qualified 
private persons as provided under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(B) and (C). The 
FAA normally delegates similar authority to individuals under 49 U.S.C. 
44702(d). Those delegations are contained in part 183. Because of the 
large number of airplanes (over 3,000) that would have to be inspected 
in a short period of time (5 years) and an anticipated growth of the 
aging fleet, the FAA proposes to permit such records reviews and 
inspections to be accomplished by a DAR authorized under part 183.
    This proposal would revise current Sec. 183.33 to permit DARs to 
conduct the reviews and inspections necessary to determine the 
continued effectiveness of airworthiness certificates, including the 
proposed reviews and inspections. The FAA would issue guidelines to its 
aviation safety inspectors and DARs on how to monitor and conduct 
records reviews and inspections in compliance with this proposed rule.

Proposed Appendixes

    The proposed appendixes list the FAA-established design-life goals 
of several airplane types that are commonly used in scheduled service 
to assist in implementing this proposal.
    For airplane models listed in the proposed appendix to part 121 and 
for airplane models initially certificated to carry 10 or more 
passengers located in the proposed appendix to part 129 and the 
proposed appendix to part 135, the proposal could effectively delay the 
implementation date of damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures for these aircraft from 4 years after the effective date of 
the rule to the time the aircraft reaches its design-life goal.
    However, for airplane models initially certificated to carry nine 
or fewer passengers listed in the proposed appendixes to part 129 and 
part 135, the proposal requires damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures sooner than December 20, 2010.
    The airplane models with 10 or more passenger seats listed in the 
proposed appendixes have been certificated with limits on either the 
structure or the maintenance program, or they have had subsequent 
structural analysis and testing. These limits are considered adequate 
to ensure the safety of these airplanes until they reach the listed 
design-life goal.
    Early small airplane regulations did not consider fatigue until 
1956, and then only on pressurized fuselages. With the exception of the 
Fairchild Model SA227-TT, the passenger airplanes with nine or fewer 
seats included in the proposed appendixes to part 129 and part 135 were 
initially certificated in the United States without any consideration 
being given to wing or empennage fatigue. However, the airworthiness 
authorities of the United Kingdom and Australia required fatigue 
evaluation on these airplanes before allowing operation in their 
countries. The airplane models listed in the proposed appendixes have 
been used consistently in scheduled commuter service in the United 
States for the past several years, and many of the highest-time 
airplanes have accumulated a number of flight hours approaching or 
exceeding the limits set by the airworthiness authorities of these 
other countries.
    Most airplanes with a capacity for nine or fewer passengers were 
not listed in the appendixes because these airplanes are not commonly 
used in U.S. commuter operations and tend to have lower fleet times. 
Most were designed with sufficiently low stresses to allow them to 
operate safely without the need for damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures before December 20, 2010.
    However, if at a later date the FAA learns of specific airplanes 
with nine or fewer passenger seats commonly being used in commuter 
service with flight hours approaching or exceeding the limits set by 
the airworthiness authorities of other countries, the FAA will consider 
future rulemaking to add those models to the proposed appendixes.
    A description of the airplanes in the proposed appendixes and their 
associated design-life goals are listed below. The FAA has reviewed the 
assessments that resulted in the life limit requirements described 
below, and has determined that those requirements appropriately, if not 
conservatively, reflect the times in the aircraft's service lives when 
significant maintenance must be performed on the critical structures to 
maintain the level of safety required for air transportation.

[[Page 16303]]

Beech 99 (All Models)

    The Beech 99 is an unpressurized, 17-seat airplane configured for 
15 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Beech 99 initially was 
certificated in 1968 under part 23, Amendment No. 3, and is listed on 
type certificate data sheet (TCDS) A14CE. Special conditions were 
imposed on the Beech 99 to require fatigue validation testing of the 
wing and carry-through structure. In 1990, Beech Aircraft Company 
issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 2297 to require replacement of 
the entire outboard wing and the entire wing center section after 
46,000 hours. This retirement time is based on full-scale fatigue 
testing.

Beech 1900 (All Models)

    The Beech 1900, 1900C, and 1900D are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes 
configured for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The 1900 and 1900C 
were initially certificated under Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
(SFAR) No. 41 in 1983, and the Beech 1900D was initially certificated 
in the commuter category in 1991. All models are listed on TCDS A24CE. 
All three models have certified life limits of 45,000 hours for the 
empennage listed in the Airworthiness Limitations sections of their 
maintenance manuals.

Beech 300, 300LW, B300, and B300C

    The Beech 300, 300LW, B300, and B300C are 15-seat airplanes 
configured for 13 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Beech 300 and 
300LW were initially certificated under SFAR No. 41 in 1988, and the 
Beech B300 and B300C were initially certificated in the commuter 
category in 1989. All models are listed on TCDS A24CE. All four models 
have certified 30,000-hour life limits for the empennage listed in the 
Airworthiness Limitations sections of their maintenance manuals.

BAe Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201

    The BAe Jetstream 3101 and 3201 are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes 
configured for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Jetstream 3101 
was initially certificated under SFAR No. 41 in 1982 and is listed on 
TCDS A21EU. The Jetstream 3201 was initially certificated in the 
commuter category in 1988 and is listed on TCDS A56EU. Both airplanes 
have certified life limits of 30,000 landings for the wing and 
empennage listed in the Airworthiness Limitations sections of their 
maintenance manuals. For flights of 1 hour in length, this equates to a 
30,000-hour limit.

Cessna 402

    The Cessna 402 is a small, unpressurized, 10-seat airplane 
configured for 8 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The Cessna 402 was 
initially certificated in 1956, the Cessna 402A and 402B in 1969, and 
the Cessna 402C in 1978. They are listed on TCDS A7CE and were 
certificated in the United States without fatigue requirements. The 
402, 402A, and 402B are subjected to AD No. 79-10-15, which mandates a 
400-hour repetitive inspection for fatigue cracks on critical 
components of the wing structure. The proposed appendixes list a 
design-life goal of 12,000 hours for these aircraft, based on recent 
Cessna Aircraft Company calculations. The appendix lists a design-life 
goal of 7,700 hours for the Cessna 402C, based on fatigue limits set on 
the wing structure by the Airworthiness Authorities of Australia and 
the United Kingdom.

De Havilland DHC-6 (all models)

    The de Havilland DHC-6 is an unpressurized, 24-seat airplane 
configured for 22 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The DHC-6 was 
initially certificated in 1966 under Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 3, 
Amendment No. 8, and in 1969 under SFAR No. 23, and is listed on TCDS 
A9EA. Transport Canada, designated as the airworthiness authority of 
the country of design by ICAO for the continued airworthiness of the 
DHC-6, issued an AD that is mandatory in Canada and imposes service 
life limits on the airplanes listed in the de Havilland Structural 
Components Service Life Limits Manual, PSM 1-6-11, Revision 4, dated 
May 31, 1996. This Canadian AD, issued in September 1996, mandates the 
retirement of the airplane at 66,000 hours.

Dornier DO-228 (all models)

    The Dornier DO-228 is an unpressurized, 21-seat airplane configured 
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The DO-228-100 and DO-228-200 
were initially certificated in 1984, the DO-228-101 and DO-228-201 in 
1985, and the DO-228-202 in 1986 under part 23, Amendment No. 23, and 
SFAR No. 41C. The DO-228-212 was certificated in the commuter category 
in 1990. All are listed on TCDS A16EU. The Airplane Maintenance Manual 
for the DO-228-100/-101 and DO-228-200/-201/-202/-212 includes 
Airworthiness Limitation section 05-05-00, which specifies mandatory 
airplane replacement times. The DO-228-100 and DO-228-200 have a 
fatigue life of 42,800 hours; the DO-228-101 and DO-228-201 have a 
fatigue life of 32,800 hours; and the DO-228-202 has a fatigue life of 
29,600 hours. The fatigue life for the DO-228-212 is 26,400 hours for 
all serial numbers except 155, and serial numbers 191 and higher; and 
42,800 hours for serial number 155 and serial numbers 191 and higher.

Embraer EMB-110

    The Embraer EMB-110 is a pressurized, 21-seat airplane configured 
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The EMB-110 was initially 
certificated under SFAR No. 41A in 1978 and is listed on TCDS A21SO. 
The EMB-110 was initially certificated with a 30,000-hour life limit on 
the wing and carry-through structure. This limit is listed in Note 3 of 
TCDS A21SO.

Fairchild Metro SA227

    The Fairchild Metro SA227 series includes the SA227-AT, -TT, -AC, -
BC, -PC, -CC, and -DD airplanes. The SA227-AT is a 16-seat airplane 
configured for 14 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was initially 
certificated under SFAR No. 41C in 1981. The SA227-TT is an 11-seat 
airplane configured for 9 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was 
initially certificated under SFAR No. 41B in 1981. Both models are 
listed on TCDS A5SW and have 35,000-hour certified life limits on their 
empennages.
    The SA227-AC, -BC, and -PC are pressurized, 22-seat airplanes 
configured for 20 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. They were 
initially certificated under SFAR No. 41C in 1981, 1989, and 1985, 
respectively. All three models are listed on TCDS A8SW and have a 
35,000-hour certified empennage life.
    The SA227-CC and -DC are pressurized, 21-seat airplanes configured 
for 19 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. They were initially 
certificated in the commuter category of part 23 in 1990. Both models 
are listed on TCDS A18SW and have 35,000-hour certified empennage life 
limits.

Fairchild Metro SA226-TC

    The SA226-TC is a pressurized, 22-seat airplane configured for 20 
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. It was initially certificated under 
part 23, Amendment No. 6, in 1970, and later certificated under SFAR 
No. 41C in 1982. It is listed on TCDS A8SW and has a 35,000-hour 
certified empennage life limit.

[[Page 16304]]

Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A MK III (all models)

    The Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A MK III Trislander is an 
unpressurized, 18-seat airplane configured for 16 passenger seats and 2 
pilot seats. The BN-2A MK III was initially certificated in 1971 under 
part 23, Amendment No. 8, and is listed on TCDS A29EU. The wing is 
limited to 23,900 hours at initial certification, assuming one landing 
per flight hour. For shorter flights, the wing is limited to 20,480 
hours. This notice proposes the more conservative number.

Piper Navajo and PA-31 Series

    The Piper Navajo and PA-31 series airplanes are 7- to 11-seat 
airplanes with seating configurations of 5 to 9 passenger seats and 2 
pilot seats. Those airplanes listed in the appendixes are capable of 
carrying six or more passenger seats and have been used in commuter 
service in significant numbers for several years. There are pressurized 
and unpressurized versions and models powered by piston or by 
turbopropeller engines. The unpressurized versions are listed on TCDS 
A20SO, and the pressurized versions are listed on TCDS A8EA. The 
unpressurized versions were certificated in the United States under 
older regulations that did not require fatigue substantiation, and the 
pressurized versions have no fatigue certification of the wing 
structure and no fatigue limits on the pressurized cabin.
    The Civil Airworthiness Authorities (CAA) of Australia and the 
United Kingdom required fatigue substantiation of these airplanes as a 
condition for their initial certification. The design-life goals listed 
in the appendixes represent limits certified by the Australian CAA. The 
limits for unpressurized models are based on the fatigue limits of the 
wing spar lower cap, and the limits for the pressurized models are 
based on the pressurized cabin.

Short Brothers SD3-30

    The Short Brothers SD3-30 is a 32-seat airplane configured for 30 
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in the 
United States in 1976 under part 25, Amendment No. 30. The manufacturer 
has limited the maintenance program to 57,600-flight hours contingent 
on the successful completion of a mid-life inspection at 28,800 hours, 
as defined in the airplane maintenance manual.

Short Brothers SD3-60

    The Short Brothers SD3-60 is a 41-seat airplane configured for 39 
passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in the 
United States in 1982 under a United Kingdom certification basis that 
is equivalent to part 25, Amendment No. 34. The manufacturer has 
limited the maintenance program to 28,800 hours, as defined in the 
airplane maintenance manual.

Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa

    The Short Brothers SD3-Sherpa is a 32-seat airplane configured for 
30 passenger seats and 2 pilot seats. The SD3-30 was certificated in 
the United States in 1990 under a United Kingdom certification basis 
and to the additional validation requirements of part 25, Amendment No. 
35. The manufacturer has limited the maintenance program to 40,000 
hours, as defined in the airplane maintenance manual.

Related Activity

    Concurrent with this proposal, the FAA is issuing two Notices of 
Availability of ACs. The first, AC No. 91-MA, ``Continued Airworthiness 
of Older Small Transport and Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of 
Supplemental Inspection Programs,'' provides an acceptable means, but 
not the only means, to comply with the proposed damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures. The second, AC No. 120-XX, ``Aging Airplane 
Records Reviews and Inspections,'' provides guidance regarding how an 
operator complies with this proposal.
    There are other initiatives being considered by the FAA to address 
Aging Aircraft issues. The FAA has received a recommendation from the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on rulemaking in the area 
of repair assessment of pressurized fuselages. The proposal would 
require a repair assessment for the pressurized fuselages of Airbus 
A300; Boeing 707/720, 727, 737, and 747; Douglas DC-8, DC-9/MD-80, and 
DC-10; British Aerospace BAC 1-11; Fokker F-28; and Lockheed L10-11 
airplanes. The recommendation currently is being reviewed within the 
FAA, and publication of an NPRM is anticipated in the near future.
    In addition, the FAA has found that some operators do not have a 
programmatic approach in place to appropriately address airplane 
corrosion. A rulemaking effort is being considered that would require 
development and implementation of a corrosion prevention and control 
program for all airplanes used in air transportation. The FAA 
anticipates publication of rulemaking on this subject in 1998.
    On December 20, 1995, the FAA issued the final rule, ``Commuter 
Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements'' (60 
FR 65832), also known as the ``Commuter Rule,'' to address commuter air 
operations in the United States. That rulemaking requires that all 
airplanes used in scheduled passenger service capable of carrying 10 or 
more passengers meet specific performance requirements by December 20, 
2010. For some older airplanes, significant modifications would be 
necessary to meet those new requirements. That rulemaking provided an 
extended compliance date to give operators time to decide whether to 
retrofit those airplanes or phase them out of scheduled service. 
Because development of damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures may be difficult for some airplanes currently operating in 
scheduled service, the FAA is proposing December 20, 2010, as a 
compliance date for this rulemaking.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 119.3

    This section would be revised to include the definition of ``years 
in service.''

Section 121.368

    Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will 
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide 
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for 
operation in air transportation.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a certificate holder from 
operating an airplane after a date specified in the section unless the 
Administrator has completed the aging aircraft records review and 
inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a 
certificate holder must ensure its airplanes are inspected. Aging 
airplanes are divided into three categories for these inspections to 
ensure that the oldest aircraft are inspected first. For those 
airplanes that will have exceeded 24 years in service, the first 
records review and inspection would be required no later than 3 years 
after the effective date of the proposed rule. For those airplanes 
exceeding 14 but not 24 years in service at the time the proposed rule 
becomes effective, the first records review and inspection would be 
required no later than 5 years after the effective date of the proposed 
rule. Finally, airplanes that will exceed 14 years in service 
subsequent to the proposed rule's effective date would be required to

[[Page 16305]]

undergo the first records review and inspection no later than 5 years 
after their 14th year in service. All aging airplane records reviews 
and inspections specified in this section would need to be repeated at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve 
90-day extensions on the thresholds and repeat intervals of aging 
aircraft records reviews and inspections to accommodate unforeseen 
scheduling conflicts.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require a certificate holder to make 
an affected airplane and certain associated records available for 
review and inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require a certificate holder to notify 
the Administrator at least 60 days before the airplane and its 
associated records would be made available for review and inspection.

Section 121.370a

    Proposed paragraph (a) would require certificate holders to ensure 
that, subject to certain limited exceptions, the maintenance programs 
for airplanes operating under part 121 include damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures within 4 years after the effective date of 
the rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would permit operators of airplanes listed 
in appendix M to part 121 to operate these airplanes without non-
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their maintenance 
programs until reaching a design-life goal specified in the appendix, 
or 4 years after the effective date of the rule, whichever occurs 
later. However, no aircraft may operate without damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures after December 20, 2010.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit operators of airplanes that 
have non-damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures already 
mandated by ADs to continue to operate those airplanes until December 
20, 2010. After that date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures as part of their maintenance programs 
to be eligible to operate those airplanes under part 121.

Part 121, Appendix N

    This appendix lists the airplanes and the design-life goals that 
are referenced in proposed Sec. 121.370a.

Section 129.1

    Paragraph (a) would update the reference to section 402 of the 
repealed and recodified FAA Act of 1958.
    Paragraph (b) would clarify that proposed Secs. 129.16 and 129.20 
also apply to operations of U.S.-registered aircraft operated solely 
outside the United States.

Section 129.16

    This proposed section is similar to proposed Sec. 121.370a.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require foreign air carriers or 
foreign persons who operate U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes that 
were initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats to 
include damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their 
maintenance programs within 4 years of the effective date of the 
proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require foreign air carriers or 
foreign persons who operate U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes that 
were initially type certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats to 
include damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their 
maintenance programs before December 20, 2010.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit foreign air carriers or foreign 
persons to operate U.S.-registered airplanes of the type listed in 
appendix B to part 129 without damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures in their maintenance programs until reaching a design-life 
goal specified in the appendix, or 4 years after the effective date of 
the proposed rule, whichever occurs later. However, no airplane may be 
operated without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures 
after December 20, 2010.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would permit foreign air carriers or foreign 
persons to operate U.S.-registered airplanes that have non-damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures already mandated by ADs to 
continue to operate those airplanes until December 20, 2010. After that 
date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures as part of their maintenance programs to be eligible to 
operate those airplanes under part 129.

Section 129.33

    This proposed section is similar to proposed Sec. 121.368.
    Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will 
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide 
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for 
operation in air transportation.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a foreign air carrier or 
foreign person from operating a U.S.-registered airplane after a date 
specified in the section unless the Administrator has completed the 
aging aircraft records review and inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a 
foreign air carrier or foreign person must ensure its U.S.-registered 
multiengine airplanes are inspected. Aging airplanes are divided into 
three categories for these inspections to ensure that the oldest 
airplanes are inspected first. For those airplanes that will have 
exceeded 24 years in service, the first records review and inspection 
would be required no later than 3 years after the effective date of the 
proposed rule. For those airplanes exceeding 14 but not 24 years in 
service at the time the proposed rule becomes effective, the first 
records review and inspection would be required no later than 5 years 
after the effective date of the proposed rule. Finally, airplanes that 
will exceed 14 years in service subsequent to the proposed rule's 
effective date would be required to undergo the first records review 
and inspection no later than 5 years after the 14th year in service. 
All aging airplanes records reviews and inspections specified in this 
section would need to be repeated at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve 
90-day extensions on the thresholds and repeat intervals of aging 
airplane records review and inspection to accommodate unforeseen 
scheduling conflicts.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require a foreign air carrier or 
foreign person to make an affected airplane and certain associated 
records available for review and inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require a foreign air carrier or 
foreign person to notify the Administrator at least 60 days before the 
airplane and its associated records would be made available for review 
and inspection.

Part 129, Appendix B

    This appendix would list the airplanes and the design-life goals 
that are referenced in proposed Sec. 129.16.

Section 135.168

    This proposed section is similar to proposed Secs. 121.370a and 
129.16.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require operators of multiengine 
airplanes operating in scheduled service that were initially type 
certificated with 10 or more passenger seats to include damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures in their inspection programs 
within 4 years of the effective date of the proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require operators of multiengine 
airplanes in

[[Page 16306]]

scheduled service that were initially type certificated with nine or 
fewer passenger seats to include damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures in their inspection programs before December 20, 2010.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit operators of airplanes listed 
in appendix F to part 135 to operate these airplanes in scheduled 
service without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures in 
their inspection programs until reaching a design-life goal specified 
in the appendix, or 4 years after the effective date of the proposed 
rule, whichever occurs later. However, no airplane may be operated 
without damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures after 
December 20, 2010.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would permit operators of airplanes that 
have non-damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures already 
mandated by ADs to continue to operate those airplanes until December 
20, 2010. After that date, the operator must have damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures as part of their inspection programs 
to be eligible to operate those airplanes under part 135.

Section 135.422

    The proposed section is similar to proposed Secs. 121.368 and 
129.20.
    Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that the Administrator will 
conduct the records reviews and inspections as necessary to decide 
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for 
operation in air transportation.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit a certificate holder from 
operating a multiengine airplane in scheduled operations after a date 
specified in the section unless the Administrator has completed the 
aging airplane records reviews and inspections.
    Proposed paragraph (b) also would set forth the times by which a 
certificate holder must ensure its airplanes are inspected. Aging 
airplanes are divided into three categories for these inspections to 
ensure that the oldest aircraft are inspected first. For those 
airplanes that will have exceeded 24 years in service, the first 
records review and inspection would be required no later than 3 years 
after the effective date of the proposed rule. For those airplanes 
exceeding 14 but not 24 years in service at the time the proposed rule 
becomes effective, the first records review and inspection would be 
required no later than 5 years after the effective date of the proposed 
rule. Finally, airplanes that will exceed 14 years in service 
subsequent to the proposed rule's effective date would be required to 
undergo the first records review and inspection no later than 5 years 
after their 14th year in service. All aging airplane records reviews 
and inspections specified in this section would need to be repeated at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the Administrator to approve 
90-day extensions on the threshold and repeat intervals of the aging 
airplane records reviews and inspections to accommodate unforeseen 
scheduling conflicts.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require a certificate holder to make 
an affected airplane and certain associated records available for 
review and inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require a certificate holder to notify 
the Administrator at least 60 days before the airplane and its 
associated records would be made available for review and inspection.

Part 135, Appendix G

    This appendix lists the airplanes and the design-life goals that 
are referenced in proposed Sec. 135.168.

Section 183.33

    Paragraph (a) would expand the authority of DARs to permit them to 
make findings necessary to determine the continuing effectiveness of 
airworthiness certificates by conducting the record reviews and 
inspections required by proposed Secs. 121.368, 129.20, and 135.422.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains information collections that are subject to 
review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13). This title, description, and respondent description of the annual 
burden are shown below.
    Title: Aging Aircraft Safety.
    Description: The FAA proposes to require all airplanes operated 
under part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operated 
under part 129, and all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled 
operations under part 135 to undergo records reviews and inspections by 
the Administrator after their 14th year in service to ensure that the 
maintenance of these airplanes' age-sensitive parts and components has 
been adequate and timely. The FAA also proposes to permit certain 
representatives of the Administrator to conduct these inspections. The 
proposed rule also would prohibit operation of these airplanes after 
specified deadlines unless damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures are included in the maintenance or inspection program.
    This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the 
AASA of 1991. It would ensure the continuing airworthiness of the 
preponderance of aging airplanes operating in air transportation by: 
(1) Mandating aging aircraft records reviews and inspections for all of 
the airplanes described above, and (2) applying modern damage-tolerance 
analyses and inspection techniques to older airplane structures that 
were certificated before such techniques were available.
    Description of Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit 
organizations.
    This proposal would constitute a recordkeeping burden for part 135 
operators. Airframe flight cycles are not currently required to be 
collected by operators of small aircraft under part 135. This proposal 
would require the operator to record and maintain flight cycle 
information on their aircraft. This information is necessary to allow 
the FAA and the operator to accurately assess the fatigue condition of 
the airplane. Under part 135, a total of 209 airplanes would be 
affected. It is estimated that the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements would take 30 minutes per airplane, per month, at an 
estimated cost of $20.00 per hour. The estimate of the total annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden would be $25,080.00.
    The agency solicits public comment on the information collection 
requirements to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
(4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirement by August 2, 1999, and should direct 
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden 
associated with

[[Page 16307]]

this proposal has been submitted to OMB for review. The FAA will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public of the 
approval numbers and expiration date.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to 
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that 
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Finally, the 
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects 
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these 
assessments, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: (1) Would 
generate benefits justifying its costs and is not ``significant'' as 
defined in Executive Order 12866; (2) would be ``significant'' as 
defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures; (3) would have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) would not 
restrain international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, 
are summarized below.

Description of Costs

    The proposed rule would generate primary costs to those scheduled 
operators of multiengine airplanes not currently subject to mandatory 
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures. Additional costs may 
be incurred by manufacturers who participate in the development of 
these procedures for the affected airplane models. In addition to the 
costs for development and implementation of new inspections and 
procedures, the rule would also impose costs related to the additional 
FAA physical inspections and records reviews mandated by the Congress 
to assure the continued airworthiness of aging airplanes. These costs 
would be incurred by both categories of operators of aging airplanes: 
(1) Those who currently have damage-tolerance based inspections and 
procedures, and (2) those who would be required to develop such 
procedures under the proposed rule. Finally, the FAA itself would incur 
costs in conducting these inspections and records reviews, and in 
reviewing and approving the operator's inspections and procedures.
    It should be noted that the attributed costs of this proposal do 
not include the expense of making repairs that may be found necessary 
during either the operator's damage tolerance based inspections or the 
oversight inspections conducted by the FAA. While the agency recognizes 
that such repairs may constitute a significant expense, the costs of 
such repairs is not attributed to this proposed rule because existing 
FAA regulations require that repairs be made as necessary to assure the 
airworthiness of the airplane.
    It is also noted that this evaluation focuses on existing airplanes 
and does not directly address the costs that the proposed rule would 
eventually (15 years after production) impose on new production 
airplanes, primarily because such costs (particularly their present 
value) would constitute an insignificant proportion of the costs 
represented in this study.

Development and Implementation Costs

    The development and implementation costs of the inspections and 
procedures are calculated from a 1996 data collection of the fleet that 
would be affected. Approximately 1,190 airplanes were identified as 
being potentially subject to the requirements for development and 
implementation of the procedures and inspections under the proposed 
rule. The airplanes were then aggregated into 55 make-model groups 
consistent with the airplane groupings that would be covered under each 
individual inspection procedure document. Cost factors, ranging from .3 
to 1.0, were then assigned to each airplane model group. These factors 
represent estimates of the proportion of full development costs that 
would be incurred for each airplane model group; recognizing that full 
program development costs for some models would be reduced either due 
to similarities between certain models or because some models already 
had a non-damage-tolerance based supplemental inspection program. 
Applying these cost factors produced the cost equivalence of 47 full 
SIP development efforts for the 55 models.
    The methodology used to estimate the likely costs of the proposal 
first computed the costs that would be incurred: (1) If it were 
economically viable for every affected airplane in the database to meet 
the requirements of the proposed rule, and (2) if every existing, 
affected airplane continued to operate throughout the study period 
(year 2018). Following these calculations, the evaluation then 
estimates: (1) The number of airplanes and models where compliance 
would not, in fact, be economically viable, (2) the costs that would, 
instead, be incurred as a result of that inability, and (3) the costs 
that would not be incurred due to the retirement of airplanes from 
scheduled service during the study period for reasons unrelated to the 
proposed rule.
    Data were collected and aggregated concerning the average airplane 
weight in each airplane-model group, the average and maximum ages of 
the airplanes, the average numbers of seats, the counts of airplanes, 
whether or not there was a design life goal based on an imposed life 
limit of a major structural component, and whether each model grouping 
was already in compliance with a non-damage-tolerance based program as 
defined in Sec. 91.60. These data are used as controls or factors in 
the calculations that follow.
    Under the proposal, the affected airplanes (15 years or older) 
would be generally subject to a mandated inspection program within 4 
years after the effective date of the rule (the year 2002.) However, in 
an effort to reduce the economic impact, the proposal would delay the 
required compliance dates for those airplane models that meet any of 
several conditions. Compliance would be delayed for airplanes with 9 or 
fewer passenger seats until the year 2010. Airplanes that have an FAA 
defined design life goal would not be required to have a damage-
tolerance based inspection and procedures program until they had 
reached their design life goal, or until the year 2010, whichever 
occurs first. Similarly, compliance could be delayed up until the year 
2010 for those models required by airworthiness directive to be 
maintained under a non-damage-tolerance based program. Based on these 
criteria, along with airplane age, the expected date of compliance for 
each group model fleet was projected.
    Based on engineering estimates, the cost methodology employs a 
functional estimate (dependent on the size of the airplane) of the time 
needed to develop the program for each model. This function produces a 
range between 10,311 and 25,776 hours necessary to develop the program 
for each model group. Approximately 841,000 engineering hours would be 
required to produce inspections and procedures for all affected models. 
Based on an assumed, fully burdened engineering rate of $95 per hour 
1, the SIP development cost estimates for the various model 
groups range between $980,000 and $2.45 million per model group. The 
total development cost, assuming full development for every

[[Page 16308]]

model group sums to $79.9 million. These costs were then reduced by the 
factors described above to account for related model efficiencies and 
for models with partially compliant programs in place. The application 
of these factors reduced the range of costs to a level between $310,000 
and $2.45 million per group, with a total potential development cost 
estimate of $67.8 million. Again, at this point in the methodology, the 
estimates assume that the inspections and procedures would actually be 
developed for all affected models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  The rate for contract services was estimated by FAA field 
engineers, and it is believed to be higher than the cost that most 
parties will actually incur. The contract rate was used in order to 
be responsive to small entities that may have to rely on outside 
resources to develop their program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For some airplane models, the FAA expects that the development work 
would uncover the need for model-specific structural modifications, 
either to make certain areas of the airplane inspectable or to replace 
structural elements that are determined to be uninspectable and subject 
to critical fatigue damage. Absent the engineering development work 
itself, estimates of the extent and magnitude of these modifications 
are inexact. As such, the FAA has employed a cost estimate that it 
considers to be on the high side of feasible costs.
    Similar to the development costs, the evaluation assumes a 
functional estimate of the likely structural modification costs for 
each airplane based on the size of the airplane. Separate functions 
were employed for airplanes certificated under Part 25 and for those 
airplanes certificated under either Part 23 or CAR, based on the logic 
that the older and smaller airplanes were more likely to require 
modifications for inspectability. The cost estimates of the likely 
modifications range from $10,200 to $168,800 per affected airplane 
depending on airplane size and certification basis. (It should be noted 
that these costs are per airplane, whereas the inspection and procedure 
development costs are per model group.)
    In the absence of more specific information, the evaluation assumes 
that one-half 2 of all affected models would require 
structural modifications as a result of the findings from the 
inspections and procedures development. The unit modification cost 
estimates from above were multiplied by the numbers of airplanes in 
each model group and then by one-half. These products were then summed 
across all models to yield a total potential modification cost of $65.0 
million for the affected fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The estimate of ``one-half of all affected models'' is based 
upon expert judgment. The FAA requests public comment and supporting 
background regarding this estimate .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third major cost component of the development and 
implementation requirement involves conducting the actual inspections 
identified in the program for each model. For each model group, the 
evaluation assumes that the program directed inspections would begin 
when the fleet leader for that group reached 20 years of age or at the 
date the inspections and procedures were due, whichever occurred later. 
Under this logic, program directed inspections would begin anywhere 
between the years 2002 and 2014, depending on the characteristics of 
the individual airplane model group.
    Again, based on engineering estimates, the cost methodology employs 
a functional model (dependent on the size of the airplane) of the 
expected number of critical locations that would need to be inspected 
on each airplane. It was assumed that each location would require four 
hours of inspection and that the burdened (including overhead) labor 
rate for that work would cost $55 per hour. These estimates produce a 
likely inspection cost ranging between $6,000 and $30,000 per airplane 
per inspection. Similar to the estimates of modification costs, these 
costs cannot be precisely estimated in the absence of the actual 
inspection and procedures development work for each model, and as such, 
the FAA has used what it considers to be high-end estimates.
    In addition to the actual inspection work itself, the evaluation 
considers the incremental airplane downtime that would be necessitated 
by the additional work caused under this proposal. The evaluation 
assumes that each 40 hours of work caused by this proposal would 
require one additional day of airplane downtime.3 The 
economic cost of downtime was computed under the assumption that the 
average productive return on capital is equal to 7 percent of the value 
of that capital per year. Downtime costs were calculated as the product 
of the number of additional downtime days, divided by 365 days per 
year, times the average estimated value of the airplane at the year the 
program would be required, times 7 percent. This produced a unit 
downtime cost per airplane, per inspection ranging between $63 and 
$7,181 depending on the age and size of the airplane involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rate of incremental downtime per unit of required 
additional work varies widely depending on the resources that are 
available at different maintenance facilities, the different types 
and sizes of airplanes involved, and the concomitant maintenance 
that is being performed on the airplane during the same maintenance 
period. Essentially, the amount of downtime is a question of how 
much parallel work can be conducted on the airplane at one time. 
This calculation is an attempt to be responsive to industry by not 
assuming that incremental work could always be done during the time 
that other maintenance was being performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers of inspections that could be expected throughout the 
study period (year 2018) were computed based on the factors: (1) The 
number of years between the year the program would be due and the year 
2018, (2) the annual number of hours that each airplane would fly 
(ranging between 858 and 1154 hours per year 4, depending on 
airplane size), and (3) an assumed inspection interval of every 4,000 
hours. Finally the unit labor and downtime costs related to the 
operator inspections were multiplied by the numbers of airplanes in 
each model and by the expected numbers of inspections for that model 
during the study period. These products were then summed to represent 
the total potential operator inspection cost of the proposal: $33.5 
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The annual flight hours were based on a regression of 
aircraft by number of seats and flight hours from page IX-22 of the 
1995 FAA Aviation Forecasts. To avoid the appearances of excess 
precision and to account for the operating differences between 
transport category and small commuter airplanes, the results were 
aggregated into two broad categories: airplanes with 9 seats or 
less, and airplanes with 10 seats or more. The assumed inspection 
interval of 4,000 hours was estimated by FAA field engineering 
staff, based on their projections of what would be found to be 
necessary when the supplemental inspection programs are developed. 
This number is an aggregated simplification since, especially for 
larger airplanes, it is expected that different areas of an airplane 
will have different inspection intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the next step, the three major component costs of the 
development and implementation requirement were summed. The $67.8 
million for developing the inspections and procedures, the $65.0 
million for structural modifications, and the $33.5 million for 
operator inspections produced a total potential cost of $166.3 million. 
At this point, however, the evaluation methodology recognizes that the 
potential unit costs of the proposal would not be realized for all 
models. For some airplane models, the potential unit costs of the 
proposal could constitute significant proportions of, or actually 
exceed, the economic values of the airplanes involved.
    For each airplane model group, the potential costs of compliance 
were compared to the estimated economic value of that group in the year 
the inspections and procedures would be due. In cases where the 
potential compliance cost would exceed 50 percent of the group value, 
the methodology assumes that the

[[Page 16309]]

inspections and procedures would not be developed and implemented, and 
the related compliance costs would not be incurred. Instead, the 
affected 34 models would be retired or transferred out of scheduled 
service, and the attributed costs of the proposal for these models 
would be a 50 percent reduction in their economic value. Failure to 
comply with the rule would not ground an airplane and eliminate its 
value, but instead, would preclude its being used in scheduled 
passenger service. The airplane could still be used for cargo or on-
demand service under part 135. This methodology produces a potential 
cost of $109.1 million for those models where compliance would be 
economically feasible, and an attributed $33.6 million in reduced value 
for the models that could not reasonably comply. Total potential costs 
under this assumption equal $142.7 million.
    As noted at the beginning of this section, the $142.7 million 
estimate was computed under the scenario whereby, external to the 
effects of the proposed rule, all of the affected 1,190 airplanes that 
exist today would continue to fly through the end of the study period, 
year 2018. In fact, some significant proportion of these costs would 
never be incurred due to normal rotation and retirement of the affected 
airplanes. The replacement cycle for the airplanes subject to this 
proposal varies widely within the industry. For some mainstream 
scheduled commuter carriers, it is common practice that airplanes are 
routinely replaced due to economic practicalities at a stage where few 
if any of the costs of this proposal would be incurred. Conversely, the 
economics of some smaller or niche carriers are such that airplanes may 
continue to fly for 40 years or more. In the absence of more specific 
projections, the evaluation incorporates the consensus of FAA field 
engineers associated with this proposal that at least one-third of the 
potential $142.7 million costs would not be incurred, leaving a 
projected cost of $95.1 million. The FAA solicits comments on this 
particular estimate.
    Two relatively minor additions are necessary to compute the full 
expected cost of developing and implementing the inspections and 
procedures. First, the new inspections and procedures for each airplane 
model would have to be incorporated into the existing maintenance 
program of each affected operator. Based on the projected models where 
full compliance would be feasible, the FAA estimates that there would 
be 91 unique model/operator combinations whereby the additional 
inspections and procedures would have to be incorporated. The analysis 
assumes that this would require 80 hours of work per model/operator 
combination at a labor rate of $55 per hour, producing an incorporation 
cost of $440,400. Added to the $95.1 million cost above, this produces 
a total operator-manufacturer cost of $95.5 million.
    As an additional perspective, the total present value cost of the 
$80,910,897 to all operators is equivalent to a twenty-year, annualized 
cost stream of $7,637,416, at 7 percent per year.
    Similarly, the FAA would incur costs to review and approve: (1) The 
inspections and procedures for each model, and (2) their incorporation 
into the existing maintenance programs for each model/operator 
combination. The costs to review the inspections and procedures 
documents are estimated at $184,800, consisting of 160 hours of review 
at $55 per hour for each of the 21 programs to be developed. The costs 
for review of incorporating these procedures are projected at $200,200, 
consisting of 40 hours of review at $55 per hour for each of the 91 
expected model/operator combinations. Adding these two figures produces 
a projected cost of $385,000 to the FAA for reviews related to the 
development and implementation of the inspections and procedures.

Costs of FAA and/or DAR Inspections

    The proposed rule would also necessitate that the FAA inspect all 
airplanes that are, or due to this proposal would be, subject to a 
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures requirement to 
determine their compliance with the subject programs. These inspections 
could begin at the start of an airplane's 15th year and would repeat at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years. Three categories of costs are 
associated with this provision: (1) The direct costs of the inspectors, 
(2) the personnel costs incurred by the operator to prepare for the 
inspections, and (3) the incremental airplane downtime caused by the 
inspections.
    Using the dataset described in the previous section, the FAA 
estimates that there are 2,850 airplanes age 15 and older that are 
either currently subject to inspections and procedures requirement as a 
result of airworthiness directive or would be as a result of the 
proposed rule. For the purposes of calculation, the evaluation assumes 
that this number would remain essentially steady over the study period. 
Higher or lower forecasts of aging airplane fleet size would have a 
direct relationship to the cost estimates presented here.
    The number of person hours required per inspection was estimated as 
a function of airplane size, ranging linearly from 24 person hours for 
an airplane of 50,000 pounds or less, up to a maximum of 120 person 
hours for airplanes of 200,000 pounds or more. In addition, it was 
assumed that for every individual hour of actual on-site inspection, an 
additional one-half hour of ancillary or overhead activity would be 
required. At a labor rate of $55 per hour, the direct inspector costs 
would range between $1,980 and $9,900 per airplane, per inspection, 
depending on airplane size. These unit costs were multiplied by the 
count of airplanes in each weight category and were summed to produce a 
total inspector cost of $18.7 million for the fleet of affected 
airplanes age 15 and over. Since each airplane must be inspected every 
five years, the average annual cost would be one-fifth of that total, 
or $3.7 million.
    The proposed rule would specifically empower designated 
airworthiness representatives (DAR's) to conduct the records reviews 
and maintenance inspections required under this proposal. Operators who 
choose to engage a DAR for the necessary reviews and inspections would 
directly bear the costs of that work. Conversely, operators who choose 
to rely on FAA inspectors may lose a degree of control over scheduling 
and availability but would not bear the direct costs of the 
inspections. In the absence of more specific information, this analysis 
assumes that one-half of the work would be accomplished by DAR's, and 
as such, the burden of this expense would be evenly divided between the 
operators and the FAA.
    The second component of these costs concerns the time spent by 
operator personnel in their preparations to make the aircraft and its 
associated records available for inspection and review. The evaluation 
assumes that operator personnel would expend one-fourth as much time 
preparing for the inspections as the inspectors would to conduct them 
(ranging from 6 to 30 hours per airplane inspection, depending on 
airplane size). Again assuming a burdened labor rate of $55 per hour, 
the projected cost of operator personnel would total $3.1 million for 
all affected airplanes over five years, or $624,000 per year.
    The third cost component consists of the incremental airplane 
downtime necessitated by the additional inspections. Depending on 
airplane size, the estimated additional downtime is projected to range 
between approximately .7 and 1.6 days per airplane inspection. Parallel 
to the downtime cost estimations calculated

[[Page 16310]]

above for the operator inspections and procedures (7 percent annual 
value of capital), the analysis projects an economic valuation for 
these costs ranging from $118 to $2,671 per airplane, per inspection. 
Multiplying these unit costs by the numbers of airplanes in each size 
category produces a $3.7 million expense for the affected fleet every 
five years and an annual expense of $744,000.
    The combined cost of the three components for FAA and DAR 
inspections would total $3,238,218 per year for the operators of 
affected airplanes, and $1,870,902 per year for the FAA (based on the 
above assumption that one-half of the inspections would be conducted by 
DAR's and borne by the operators). Over the 20 year study period, these 
costs would total $64.8 million ($32.1 million present value) for 
operators, and $37.4 million ($18.5 million present value) for the FAA.

Combined Costs

    The table below summarizes both the standard and present value 
costs of the proposal. The table shows a combined proposal cost of $198 
million with a present value of $99 million.

                                         Summary of Projected NPRM Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        For         For FAA/DAR
                         Straight costs                             development   inspection and       Total
                                                                  and  implement      review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To operators of airplanes that need program.....................     $95,524,573      $4,383,547     $99,908,120
Airplanes with program in place.................................               0      60,380,819      60,380,819
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Operator subtotal...........................................      95,524,573      64,764,366     160,288,939
To the FAA......................................................         385,000      37,418,040      37,803,040
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      95,909,573     102,182,406     198,091,979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      For SIP       For FAA/DAR
                       Present value costs                          development   inspection and       Total
                                                                   and implement      review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To operators of airplanes that need program.....................     $48,849,466      $2,170,064     $51,019,530
Airplanes with program in place.................................               0      29,891,367      29,891,367
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Operator subtotal...........................................      48,849,466      32,061,431      80,910,897
To the FAA......................................................         188,856      18,523,703      18,712,559
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      49,038,322      50,585,134      99,623,455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Benefits

    The structural properties of materials change as a result of the 
prolonged and/or repeated application of stress on that material. 
Fatigue is the term used to describe this inevitable weakening. After 
some duration of cyclic stress, the material will fail under the 
applied load because of fatigue. In critical structural elements, this 
can result in a catastrophic failure of the airplane.
    One manifestation of fatigue in materials is cracking. It is not 
practical to detect fatigue cracks below a certain size. It is 
possible, however, to initiate inspections at a point in time, and to 
repeat those inspections at an interval, whereby a crack that can be 
detected will be detected and repaired before it can grow to a size 
where the residual strength of the structure is jeopardized.
    FAA regulations addressing fatigue have evolved over time. Prior to 
1956, airplanes were originally certificated without any specific 
consideration being given to metal fatigue. Later, airplanes were 
designed to meet fail-safe criteria with regard to fatigue 
requirements. ``Fail-safe'' means that the structure has been evaluated 
to assure that catastrophic failure of the airplane is not probable 
after fatigue failure or obvious partial failure of a single, principle 
structural element. Other airplanes were certificated with design-life 
limits on the entire airplane or some major structural component (e.g., 
wing, empennage, fuselage) under the ``safe-life'' concept whereby the 
structure has been evaluated to be able to withstand the repeated loads 
at the variable magnitudes expected during its service life without 
detectable cracks. Other airplanes have a form of supplemental 
inspection procedures specifically aimed at detecting metal fatigue or 
corrosion but which are derived from service history and the analysis 
of fleet leader experience rather than damage-tolerance based 
engineering analysis.
    All of the airplanes that would be required to eventually implement 
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures under this proposal 
fall into one of the categories described above. And even where some 
fatigue related evaluation and assurance was made at the time the 
airplane was designed and built, those assurances were never intended 
to be valid after the airplane exceeded the maximum number of flight 
hours assumed by the designer. Left unchecked, it is not a question of 
whether the repeated loadings on aircraft will produce a major 
structural failure, but rather, when. More than 29 percent of the 
airplanes under this proposal are already 20 years old or older; 14 
percent are over 30 years old; and 7 percent of the airplanes are over 
40 years old. Under existing procedures, the FAA cannot assure the 
continuing airworthiness of these airplanes, and that constitutes an 
unacceptable risk to air transportation.
    The FAA has extensively deliberated on how to mitigate this risk 
and respond to the Congressional mandate. Technical experts and 
academic leaders were consulted, and the costs and benefits have been 
evaluated for numerous alternative approaches. The FAA believes that 
the damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures in this proposal 
are the best approach to assure the continued safety of the subject 
fleet while striking the most cost effective balance of fully 
responding to the law, minimizing overall costs, and minimizing the 
impact on small entities.
    The purpose of this proposal is to assure the continued structural 
airworthiness of air carrier aircraft as they continue in service. In 
this context,

[[Page 16311]]

the rule does not increase intended safety; instead, it maintains the 
level of safety established at the time each model's type design was 
approved by the FAA. In the absence of this or a similar proposal, the 
FAA would be unable to determine critical aspects of air transportation 
safety as the affected airplanes age. Absent the ability to make this 
determination, the agency would be forced to require these aircraft to 
be retired at some arbitrary age.
    There are, then, two principal benefits of the proposal. The first 
is that the FAA and the industry would be able to monitor the 
airworthiness of the affected aircraft as they age, and either take 
timely corrective action to maintain their continued airworthiness or 
retire them from service before they become unairworthy. The second 
benefit is that the aircraft would be able to stay in service longer 
because their continued airworthiness would be monitored, rather than 
the aircraft being retired at an arbitrary age.
    There are clear safety benefits of this proposal, but it is not 
possible to reasonably estimate the numbers of accidents that the 
proposed rule would prevent, primarily because the FAA would take 
preventive action before an accident pattern due to age emerged.
    It is possible, however, to provide a sense of scale by estimating 
the years of extended service the proposal would have to provide the 
affected fleet of aircraft to make benefits exceed the related costs. 
For example, the cost calculations project that it would be 
economically viable for 927 airplanes to comply with the damage-
tolerance based inspection and procedures requirements of the proposal. 
At the respective times that these requirements would be due, the 
affected airplanes would have a cumulative estimated value of $649 
million 5, with a present value of $321 million. By 
comparison, the present value cost of compliance for all of the 
airplanes subject to the proposed requirement is $51 million. If it is 
assumed that the average annual value of capital is 7 percent of its 
worth, then extending the useful life of the subject fleet by one year 
would be worth 7 percent of $321 million, or $22.5 million (again, 
present value). Accordingly, the projected costs of this provision 
would be recovered in 2.27 years of extended useful life ($51 million 
cost divided by $22.5 million annual benefit = 2.27 years). Note that 
the assumed timing of the ``counter case'' retirement of the affected 
models would, in turn, change the period necessary to recover the 
costs. If it is assumed that, in the absence of this proposed rule, no 
retirement action would have been taken until 5 years after the 
proposed rule would require SIP development, then the respective value 
of the subject fleet at that time would be lower ($188 million--present 
value), causing the annual value of extended useful life to be lower 
($13.1 million), and finally requiring more time (3.9 years) to recover 
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The cumulative value of $649 million represents the resale 
value of the subject airplanes. This number was calculated using a 
regression model that projects the future value of an airplane as a 
function of its size and age at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

    The FAA is unable to quantify the expected benefits of the proposal 
on the basis of historical accident rates that would be reduced. 
However, the proposed actions are necessary to ensure the continuing 
airworthiness of aging airplanes and the FAA finds that the benefits of 
the proposed rule would justify its costs.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

1. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered

    As more fully described in paragraph 2, below, this proposal is 
required by statute. The agency is considering actions specified in 
this proposed rule to prevent aviation accidents resulting from 
structural failure caused by deterioration associated with the aging 
process.
    FAA regulations addressing structural design have evolved over 
time. Prior to 1956, airplanes were certificated considering the 
strength of the structure only. No specific consideration was given to 
metal fatigue. Since 1956, the FAA has incrementally changed its 
regulations to address fatigue; initially requiring fail-safe or safe-
life designs, and currently requiring damage tolerance designs on new 
transport and commuter airplanes. Damage tolerance represents the most 
modern approach to continued structural integrity.
    Fail-safe means that the structure has been evaluated to assure 
that catastrophic failure of the airplane is not probable after fatigue 
failure or obvious partial failure of a single principle structural 
element. Fail safe designs usually consist of redundant (multiple load 
path) structures that have no set design life limits.
    Safe-life means that the structure has been evaluated to be able to 
withstand the repeated loads at the variable magnitudes expected during 
its service life without the development of critical cracks. Safe life 
designs usually consist of single load path structure that have an 
established retirement life on one or more major structural components 
(e.g., wing, empennage, fuselage).
    Certain airplanes rely on supplemental inspection procedures 
specifically aimed at detecting metal fatigue or corrosion, but which 
are derived from service history and the analysis of fleet leader 
experience rather than damage-tolerance based engineering analysis.
    All of the airplanes that would be required to eventually implement 
damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures under this proposal, 
fall into one of the categories described above. This includes aircraft 
where fatigue related evaluations and assurances were made at the time 
when the airplane was designed and built. Those assurances were never 
intended to be valid after the airplane exceeded the maximum number of 
flight hours assumed by the designer. More than 29 percent of the 
airplanes under this proposal are already 20 years old or older; 14 
percent are over 30 years old; and 7 percent of the airplanes are over 
40 years old. Under existing regulations, the continuing airworthiness 
of these airplanes cannot be assured, and that constitutes an 
unacceptable risk to air transportation.

2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 
Proposed Rule

    The objective of the proposed rule is to ensure the continuing 
airworthiness of aging airplanes operating in air transportation: (1) 
By applying modern damage-tolerance analysis and inspection techniques 
to older airplane structures that were certificated before such 
techniques were available, and (2) through mandatory aging-aircraft 
records reviews and inspections to be performed by the FAA.
    This proposal represents a critical step toward compliance with the 
Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991. In October of 1991, Congress enacted 
Title IV of Public Law 102-143, the ``Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 
1991,'' to address aging aircraft concerns. The act was subsequently 
recodified as 49 U.S.C. 44717.
    Section 44717 of Title 49 instructs the Administrator to 
``prescribe regulations

[[Page 16312]]

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 purpose of these inspections would be 
to ``enable the Administrator to decide whether the aircraft is in safe 
condition and maintained properly for operation in air 
transportation.'' The law specifies that these inspections and reviews 
must be carried out as part of each aircraft's heavy maintenance check 
conducted ``after the 14th year in which the aircraft has been in 
service.'' It also states that the air carrier must ``demonstrate to 
the Administrator, as part of the inspection, that maintenance of the 
aircraft's age-sensitive parts and components has been adequate and 
timely enough to ensure the highest degree of safety.''
    Section 44717 further states that the rule issued by the 
Administrator must require an air carrier to make its aircraft, as well 
as any records about the aircraft that the Administrator may require to 
carry out the review, available for inspection as necessary to comply 
with the rule. It also states that the Administrator must establish 
procedures to be followed for carrying out such an inspection.

3. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes or Types of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the 
Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for 
Preparation of the Report or Record

    In order for the FAA to fulfill its obligation under 49 U.S.C. 
44717, this proposal would require that certain records be made 
available by the operator. Most of the records that would be required 
under this proposal are currently required by other regulations. The 
proposed rule would constitute a minor additional recordkeeping burden 
for part 135 operators, many of which are small. Airframe flight cycles 
are not currently required to be collected by operators of small 
aircraft under part 135. This proposal would require operators to 
record and maintain flight cycle information on their aircraft. This 
information is necessary to allow the FAA and the operator to 
accurately assess the fatigue condition of the airplane.
    Under part 135, a total of 209 airplanes would be affected. The FAA 
estimates that the reporting and recordkeeping requirements would take 
someone with basic clerk skills 30 minutes per airplane, per month, at 
a cost rate of $20.00 per hour. These factors translate into an annual 
recordkeeping cost of $120 per airplane. The projected total annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden for all part 135 operators would be 
$25,080.

4. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant 
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rule

    The FAA is unaware of any federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.

5. A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply

    The proposed rule would apply to the operators of all airplanes 
operated under 14 CFR part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine 
airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129, and all multiengine airplanes 
used in scheduled operations under 14 CFR part 135. Standard industrial 
classification coding does not precisely coincide with the subsets of 
operators who could be affected by the proposed rule. Nevertheless, the 
following distributions of employment size and estimated receipts for 
all scheduled air transportation firms (SIC Code 4512) are 
representative of the operators who would be affected by the proposed 
rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
              Employment category                Number      receipts
                                                of firms    ($1,000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4...........................................       153        $193,166
5-9...........................................        57         145,131
10-19.........................................        56         198,105
20-99.........................................       107       1,347,711
100-499.......................................        74       3,137,624
500+..........................................        73     112,163,942
                                               -------------------------
    Totals....................................       520     117,185,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on existing operator/airplane distributions, the FAA 
estimates that the proposed rule could eventually affect 226 operators 
of the subject airplanes. The agency has also estimated the numbers of 
subject airplanes that each operator uses and has categorized the 
operators by fleet size. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Note that the airplanes included here are only those subject 
to the proposed rule. It is possible that these operators may 
operate additional airplanes in services not included in the rule; 
e.g., on-demand, commuter cargo, or single engine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Count of
                  Subject airplanes operated                   operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10......................................................       137
11 to 20.....................................................        34
21 to 30.....................................................        16
31 to 40.....................................................        10
41 to 50.....................................................         7
50 Plus......................................................        22
                                                              ----------
  Total......................................................       226
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Regulatory Flexibility Cost Analysis

    The proposed rule contains two major cost provisions: (1) the 
development and implementation of new damage-tolerance based 
inspections and procedures, primarily for smaller airplanes, and (2) 
the additional FAA physical inspections and records reviews mandated by 
Congress to assure the continued airworthiness of all aging airplanes. 
The table below summarizes the derivation of the expected annualized 
costs per airplane for both provisions based on the categories of 
airplanes that would be affected.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This analysis, like the full regulatory evaluation, assigns 
all of the costs to develop the damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures to the operators. It is likely that some of these 
costs may be borne by the manufacturers of current, major models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table shows that the present value of the estimated cost of the 
proposal to develop and implement damage-tolerance based inspections 
and procedures is $48.8 million. Applying this value to the 1,190 
affected airplanes produces an average present value cost

[[Page 16313]]

per airplane of $41,050. As detailed above in the cost methodology 
section of the regulatory evaluation, the actual costs for any 
particular airplane may vary from this average cost.
    In addition to the total cost per airplane, it is also useful to 
consider the annualized equivalent of this cost; that is to say, the 
annual future payments that would be necessary to equal the present 
value cost of $41,050. Such payments are a function of: (1) The assumed 
interest rate, and (2) the time period over which the costs would be 
borne. This analysis applies a 7 percent interest rate. As for the time 
period, the proposed rule would require that the supplemental 
inspection programs be developed between the years 2002 and 2010, 
depending on the characteristics of the individual airplane. For 
illustration purposes, this analysis assumes that, on average, the 
program development costs would be borne over a period of ten years. 
Based on these two assumptions, the ten-year annualized cost of program 
development and implementation is estimated at $5,845 per airplane.
    In addition to the costs to develop the damage-tolerance based 
inspection procedures, those airplanes over 15 years old would also be 
subject to the costs associated with the proposed requirement for 
additional FAA inspections and record reviews. Parallel to the 
methodology described above, the operators of these airplanes would 
incur an additional present value cost of $3,827 per airplane, and an 
annualized cost of $361 per airplane (over the entire 20-year study 
period.) 8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Present
                                            Present value                  value                    Annualized
                                                cost        Airplanes     average       Years        cost per
                                                                            cost                     airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Models That Need Inspec's and
 Procedures:
    Develop and implement costs..........     $48,849,466        1,190      $41,050           10       $5,844.60
    FAA/DAR inspection costs.............       2,170,064          567        3,827           20          361.24
For Models That Have Inspec's and
 Procedures:
    FAA/DAR inspection costs.............      29,891,367        2,283       13,093           20        1,235.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the costs of additional FAA inspections and records 
reviews would also be borne by the operators of those airplanes over 15 
years old which already have damage-tolerance based inspections and 
procedures. The estimated present value of these costs is $29.9 
million, distributed over 2,283 airplanes. These factors produce a 
present value estimated cost per airplane of $13,093, and a 20-year 
annualized cost of $1,236. The average inspection cost for these 
airplanes is significantly higher than for those airplanes that would 
need to have damage-tolerance based inspection programs developed 
because the airplanes with such programs in place are generally much 
larger.
    Using the three separate cost-per-airplane factors described above, 
a crosstabulation was performed to determine the counts of airplanes 
that each existing operator employs by cost impact category; that is to 
say: (1) Whether the airplane currently has or would have to have an 
inspection program developed, and additionally (2) whether or not the 
airplane is over 15 years old. While the analysis cannot predict which 
operators will actually be flying which specific airplanes 10 or 15 
years into the future, the methodology described here shows the 
distributional effects of these costs on the fleet as it is now 
composed. If the future fleet contains more airplanes over 15 years 
old, higher costs would be incurred.
    The unit annualized costs per airplane for each provision were 
applied to the dataset of operators and counts of airplanes in each 
category. The costs were then accumulated to estimate the average 
annualized impact on each operator. The following table summarizes 
these computations. Costs are categorized by size of operator, as 
defined by the current number of subject airplanes operated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Minimum       Maximum       Average
              Number of airplanes operated                  Count of     annualized    annualized    annualized
                                                            operators       cost          cost          cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10.................................................           137            $0       $61,697       $13,149
11 to 20................................................            34             0       117,550        45,159
21 to 30................................................            16             0       185,091        76,273
31 to 40................................................            10        48,924       201,967       160,378
41 to 50................................................             7        29,223       146.115        74,498
50 plus.................................................            22             0       412,030       149,953
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................................................           226             0       412,030        44,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each category of operators, the table presents the projected 
minimum, maximum, and average annualized cost per operator. Minimum 
costs per operator range as low as zero in those cases: (1) where all 
of an operator's airplanes are models that already have a damage-
tolerance based inspection program, and (2) where none of the 
operator's airplanes is over 14 years old.
    As an additional perspective, the annualized equivalent of the 
$80,910,897 projected total present value cost to all operators is 
$7,637,416 (at 7% over 20 years.) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The costs to develop and implement a damage-tolerance-based 
program are largely front-loaded. By comparison, the costs of the 
additional FAA inspections and records reviews would continue 
relatively evenly over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, it is noted that the cost figures above are based on 
averages. The actual cost impacts as well as the timing and duration of 
those costs could vary significantly across individual operators. As 
explained elsewhere in this notice, the FAA recognizes that the 
development of damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures may be 
technically or economically

[[Page 16314]]

impracticable for some airplane models.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This cost discussion is meant to be responsive to the needs 
of small business and to the Small Business Administration. 
Currently the FAA is trying to establish standards for ``significant 
cost''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Description of Alternatives

    The FAA has considered several alternative approaches to this 
proposed rulemaking and has attempted to minimize the potential 
economic impact of the proposal, especially the impact on the operation 
of aircraft most likely to be used by small entities, while meeting the 
agency's primary responsibility for aviation safety and its particular 
obligation under 49 U.S.C. 44717 to ensure the continuing airworthiness 
of aging aircraft. The primary alternatives of the proposal can be 
categorized along three broad questions:
     Which aircraft and which aircraft operations should be 
included in this proposal?
     What compliance timetable should be prescribed in meeting 
the proposed requirements?
     And, how rigorous should the requirements be?
A. Aircraft Included in the Proposal
    As proposed, this rule would apply to all airplanes operated under 
part 121, all U.S.-registered multiengine airplanes operated under part 
129, and all multiengine airplanes used in scheduled operations under 
part 135. This proposed rule would not cover helicopters, single engine 
airplanes operated under part 135 or part 129, airplanes used in cargo 
operations under part 135, or airplanes used in unscheduled (on-demand) 
operations under part 135. Section 44717 of Title 49 applies to ``each 
aircraft an air carrier uses to provide air transportation.'' As such, 
the statute makes no exception for aircraft used by small entity air 
carriers to provide air transportation. Because this proposal does not 
include all aircraft described in the statute, the FAA is considering 
future rulemaking to address the remaining aircraft.
    The aircraft and operations omitted from this proposal are not 
exclusively operated by small entities, but the FAA recognizes that 
they are more likely to be operated by small entities than, for 
example, large transport category airplanes in scheduled service. It 
should be recognized, however, that the problem addressed by Section 
44717, the safety of aging aircraft, does not depend on whether the 
entity operating the aircraft is large or small.
B. Compliance Timetable
    In general, the proposed rule would require that damage-tolerance 
based inspections and procedures be developed and implemented within 
four years of the effective date of the rule. The FAA recognizes that 
additional compliance time can reduce the burden on small and large 
entities, and the agency has made every effort to extend the compliance 
period in those cases where it would be reasonable to do so. 
Accordingly, compliance under this proposal could be delayed for 
airplane models with 9 or fewer passenger seats until the year 2010. 
Airplanes that have an FAA defined design life goal would not be 
required to have damage-tolerance based inspections and procedures 
until they had reached their design life goal, or until the year 2010, 
whichever occurs first. Similarly, compliance could be delayed up until 
the year 2010 for those models currently required by airworthiness 
directive to be maintained under a non damage-tolerance based 
inspection program.
C. Rigor of Requirements
    As noted in Subsection 1, above, FAA regulations addressing 
structural design have evolved over time. Non damage-tolerance based 
supplemental inspection programs, based on Advisory Circular 91-60, 
have been mandated by airworthiness directives for several existing 
models. Those inspections and procedures address known service 
experience problems, but they do not anticipate the possibility of 
future fatigue cracks that could be predicted through the use of 
damage-tolerance based principles. Evidence to date suggests that when 
all critical structures are included, damage-tolerance based 
inspections and procedures provide the best approach to address 
aircraft fatigue. As such, this proposal would require that all of the 
airplanes subject to this rule, including those with existing service 
based procedures, meet this higher level of assessment and inspection 
by the year 2010. Obviously, the non damage-tolerance based program 
would induce lower costs but with a concomitant reduction in safety 
assurance.
    In attempting to strike a permissible balance, it is important to 
note that this proposed rule would not mandate the most rigorous level 
of inspection procedures and analysis presently available. The FAA has 
published a proposed rule for future certifications of transport 
category airplanes (part 25) that would require the use of ``initial 
flaw'' consideration in the damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of 
structure for those airplanes. Under that proposal, the inspection 
thresholds for certain critical structure would have to be established 
based on crack growth analyses or tests assuming that the structure 
contains an initial flaw of the maximum probable size that could exist 
as a result of either manufacturing or service induced damage. The FAA 
holds that ``initial flaw'' consideration is an appropriate regulatory 
requirement for newly certificated transport category airplanes. By 
comparison, the existing aging airplanes under this proposed rule would 
be better served by addressing ``initial flaw'' procedures in advisory 
circular material, thereby maximizing the flexibility of operators to 
consider the best equivalent means of compliance for their particular 
airplane models.

8. Compliance Assistance

    In its efforts to assist small entities and other affected parties 
in complying with the proposed rule, the FAA is publishing an advisory 
circular, ``Continued Airworthiness of Older Small Transport and 
Commuter Airplanes; Establishment of Supplemental Inspection 
Programs.'' A notice of availability for this circular will be 
published concurrently with the proposed rule. This circular will 
detail acceptable means of compliance with the proposed rule.
    In addition, the FAA has undertaken a research program to develop a 
simplified damage-tolerance based methodology, directly applicable to 
commuter sized airplanes. The results of this work will be available in 
the public domain and could be used by small manufacturers or 
designated engineering representatives (DERs) to aid their development 
of the inspections needed to comply with the proposed rule. Again, 
however, the benefits of a simplified damage-tolerance based 
methodology for smaller airplanes would be realized by both small and 
large air carriers.
    The estimated cost to the government to develop the generic 
methodology is $4 million. To date, approximately $2.2 million has been 
spent and work is expected to be completed in fiscal year 2000. By 
funding the development of a generic damage tolerance methodology 
applicable to the entire commuter fleet, the FAA intends to reduce the 
costs to small entities and other operators subject to the proposed 
rule. It should be noted that the cost estimates in the economic 
analysis above reflect the full costs of implementing the proposed rule 
and do not account for the possible reductions in costs that could be 
afforded by this research.

[[Page 16315]]

Trade Impact Assessment

    The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign 
countries and the import of foreign goods and services into the United 
States.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The provisions of this proposed rule would not constitute a barrier 
to international trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services 
to foreign countries and the import of foreign goods and services into 
the United States.

International Compatibility

    When this proposal becomes a final rule, the FAA intends to 
recommend that the ICAO and the JAA consider making similar changes to 
their recommended practices and requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment

    Based on these estimates, the FAA does not consider the effects of 
this proposed rule sufficient to trigger the requirements of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or to be a ``major'' rulemaking for the 
purposes of the Congressional review requirements under the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The FAA requests comments 
on its cost estimates with respect to those statutes.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in 14 CFR 
in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the 
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than 
aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she 
considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to all 
airplanes under part 121 and many airplanes under part 135, it could, 
if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein 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 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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 Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend parts 119, 121, 129, 135, and 183 of 
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 119, 121, 129, 135, 
and 183) as follows:

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    1. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

    2. Section 119.3 is amended by adding the definition of ``years in 
service'' after the definition of ``When common carriage is not 
involved or operations not involving common carriage'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 119.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Years in service means the calendar time elapsed since an airplane 
was issued its first U.S. or first foreign airworthiness certificate.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

    3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

    4. Section 121.368 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 121.368  Aging airplane records reviews and inspections.

    (a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and 
requirements necessary for the certificate holder to 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. The Administrator reviews these 
records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide whether an 
airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation in 
air transportation.
    (b) No certificate holder may operate an airplane under this part 
after the dates specified herein unless the Administrator has notified 
the certificate holder that the Administrator has completed the aging 
airplane record reviews and inspections.
    (1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the 
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective 
date of the rule] and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service but not 
24 years in service on [the effective date of the rule], no later than 
[5 years after the effective date of the rule] and thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on 
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start 
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 5 years.
    (c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a 
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to 
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) The certificate holder must make available to the Administrator 
each airplane for which a records review and inspection is required 
under this section, in a condition for inspection specified by the 
Administrator, together with the following records:
    (1) Total years in service;
    (2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
    (3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;

[[Page 16316]]

    (4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this 
section;
    (5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
    (6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that 
are required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
    (7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time 
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under 
which the airplane is maintained;
    (8) Current status of the following, including the method of 
compliance:
    (i) Airworthiness directives;
    (ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
    (iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 121.370a.
    (9) A list of major structural alterations; and
    (10) A report of major structural repairs and the current 
inspection status for those repairs.
    (e) Each certificate holder must notify the Administrator at least 
60 days before the date on which the airplane and airplane records will 
be available for review and inspection.
    5. Section 121.370 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 121.370a  Supplemental inspections.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate 
holder may operate an airplane under this part after [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule] unless the maintenance program for that 
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    (b) A certificate holder may operate an airplane listed in appendix 
M to this part as follows:
    (1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal listed in appendix M to this part before [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that 
airplane until [4 years after the effective date of the rule]; after 
that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the maintenance 
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures.
    (2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal listed in appendix M to this part on or after [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that 
airplane until the date the airplane's time in service reaches the 
design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner. 
After that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the 
maintenance program for that airplane includes the damage-tolerance-
based inspections and procedures.
    (c) A certificate holder may operate an airplane for which an 
airworthiness directive requires the maintenance program to include 
non-damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspections and procedures 
until December 20, 2010; after that date, the certificate holder may 
not operate the airplane unless the maintenance program for that 
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    6. Appendix N to part 121 is added to read as follows:

                Appendix N to Part 121--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Type       Design-
         Airplane type             Number of     certificate   life goal
                                     seats        data sheet      (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beech Aircraft Co.:
    --Beech 99 (all models)....  15+2           A14CE             46,000
    --Beech 1900 and 1900C.....  19+2           A24CE             45,000
    --Beech 300 and 300LW......  13+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech B300 and B300C.....  15+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech 1900D..............  19+2           A24CE             45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
    --BAe Jetstream 3101.......  19+2           A21EU             30,000
    --BAe Jetstream 3201.......  19+2           A56EU             30,000
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
    --DHC-6....................  22+2           A9EA              33,000
Dornier GmbH:
    --Dornier 228-100 and -200.  19+2           A16EU             42,800
    --Dornier 228-101 and -201.  19+2           A16EU             32,800
    --Dornier 228-202..........  19+2           A16EU             29,600
    --Dornier 228-212 (Except    19+2           A16EU             26,400
     SN 155 & 191 and up).
    --Dornier 228-212 (SN 155    19+2           A16EU             42,800
     and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
 Aeronautica (Embraer):
    Embraer EMB-110............  19+2           A21SO             30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
    --SA226-TC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-AT.................  14+2           A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-TT.................  9+2            A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-AC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-PC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-BC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-CC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
    --SA227-DC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman:
    PBN BN-2 Mk III (all         16+2           A29EU             20,480
     models).
Short Brothers Ltd.:
    --SD3-30...................  39+2           A41EU             57,600
    --SD3-60...................  39+2           A41EU             28,800
    --SD3-Sherpa...............  39+2           A41EU             40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16317]]

PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF 
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE

    7. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40104-40105, 40113, 40119, 44701-
44702, 44712, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906.

    8. Section 129.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 129.1  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part 
prescribes rules governing the operation within the United States of 
each foreign air carrier holding a permit issued by the Civil 
Aeronautics Board or the Department of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 
41301 through 41306 (formerly section 402 of the Federal Aviation Act 
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1372), as amended), or other appropriate 
economic or exemption authority issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board 
or the Department of Transportation.
    (b) Sections 129.14, 129.16, and 129.20 also apply to U.S.-
registered aircraft operated solely outside the United States in common 
carriage by a foreign person or foreign air carrier. For the purpose of 
this part, a foreign person is any person, not a citizen of the United 
States, who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage 
solely outside the United States.
    9. Section 129.16 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 129.16  Supplemental inspections for U.S.-registered aircraft.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no foreign air 
carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered multiengine 
airplane initially type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats 
under this part after [4 years after the effective date of this rule] 
unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no foreign air 
carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered multiengine 
airplane initially type certificated with nine or fewer passenger seats 
under this part after December 20, 2010, unless the maintenance program 
for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and 
procedures.
    (c) A foreign air carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-
registered airplane listed in appendix B to this part as follows:
    (1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal listed in appendix B to this part before [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the foreign air carrier or foreign person 
may operate that airplane until [4 years after the effective date of 
the rule]; after that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the 
maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures.
    (2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal listed in appendix B to this part on or after [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the foreign air carrier or foreign person 
may operate that airplane until the date the time-in-service of the 
airplane reaches the design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, 
whichever occurs sooner. After that date, the airplane may not be 
operated unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    (d) A foreign air carrier or foreign person may operate a U.S.-
registered airplane for which an airworthiness directive requires the 
maintenance program to include non-damage-tolerance-based supplemental 
inspections and procedures until December 20, 2010. After that date, 
the foreign air carrier or foreign person may not operate the airplane 
unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes damage-
tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    10. Section 129.33 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 129.33  Aging airplane records reviews and inspections for U.S.-
registered aircraft.

    (a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and 
requirements necessary for a foreign air carrier or foreign person to 
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. The Administrator 
reviews these records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide 
whether an airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for 
operation in air transportation.
    (b) After the dates specified herein, no foreign air carrier or 
foreign person may operate a U.S.-registered airplane under this part 
unless the Administrator has notified the foreign air carrier or 
foreign person that the Administrator has completed the aging airplane 
record reviews and inspections.
    (1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the 
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective 
date of the rule], and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service, but not 
24 years in service, on [the effective date of the rule], no later than 
[5 years after the effective date of the rule], and thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on 
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start 
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 5 years.
    (c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a 
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to 
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) The foreign air carrier or foreign person must make available 
to the Administrator each U.S.-registered airplane for which a records 
review and inspection is required under this section, in a condition 
for inspection specified by the Administrator, together with the 
following records:
    (1) Total years in service;
    (2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
    (3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
    (4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this 
section;
    (5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
    (6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that 
are required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
    (7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time 
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under 
which the airplane is maintained;
    (8) Current status of the following, including the method of 
compliance:
    (i) Airworthiness directives;
    (ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
    (iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 121.370 of this 
chapter.
    (9) A list of major structural alterations; and
    (10) A report of major structural repairs and the current 
inspection status for these repairs.
    (e) Each foreign air carrier or foreign person must notify the 
Administrator at least 60 days before the date on which the airplane 
and airplane records will be available for inspection and review.
    11. Appendix B to part 129 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 16318]]



                Appendix B to Part 129--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Type       Design-
         Airplane type             Number of     certificate   life goal
                                     seats        data sheet      (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beech Aircraft Co.:
    --Beech 99 (all models)....  15+2           A14CE             46,000
    --Beech 1900 and 1900C.....  19+2           A24CE             45,000
    --Beech 300 and 300LW......  13+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech B300 and B300C.....  15+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech 1900D..............  19+2           A24CE             45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
    --BAe Jetstream 3101.......  19+2           A21EU             30,000
    --BAe Jetstream 3201.......  19+2           A56EU             30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
    --Cessna 402 Series (all     8+2            A7CE              12,000
     models except 402C).
    --Cessna 402C..............  8+2            A7CE               7,000
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
    --DHC-6....................  22+2           A9EA              33,000
Dornier GmbH:
    --Dornier 228-100 and -200.  19+2           A16EU             42,800
    --Dornier 228-101 and -201.  19+2           A16EU             32,800
    --Dornier 228-202..........  19+2            A16EU            29,600
    --Dornier 228-212 (Except    19+2           A16EU             26,400
     SN 155 & 191 and up).
    --Dornier 228-212 (SN 155    19+2           A16EU             42,800
     and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
 Aeronautica (Embraer):
    Embraer EMB-110............  19+2           A21SO             30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
    --SA226-TC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-AT.................  14+2           A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-TT.................  9+2            A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-AC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-PC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-BC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-CC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
    --SA227-DC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman:
    PBN BN-2 Mk III (all         16+2           A29EU             20,480
     models).
Piper Aircraft Co.:
    --PA 31 Navajo.............  6+2            A20SO             11,000
    --PA 31-300 Navajo.........  6+2            A20SO             15,500
    --PA 31P Pressurized Navajo  6+2            A8EA              14,000
    --PA 31T Cheyenne and        7+2            A8EA              12,000
     Cheyenne II.
    --PA 31-350 Chieftain and    9+2            A20SO             13,000
     (T-1020).
    --PA 31-325 Navajo CR......  9+2            A20SO             11,000
    --PA 31T2 Cheyenne II XL...  5+2            A8EA              11,400
    --PA 31T3 (T-1040) without   9+2            A8EA              17,400
     tip tanks.
    --PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip  9+2            A8EA              13,800
     tanks.
Short Brothers Ltd.:
    --SD3-30...................  39+2           A41EU             57,600
    --SD3-60...................  39+2           A41EU             28,800
    --SD3-Sherpa...............  39+2           A41EU             40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

    12. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

    13. Section 135.168 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 135.168  Supplemental inspections.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate 
holder may operate a multiengine airplane initially type certificated 
with 10 or more passenger seats in scheduled operations under this part 
after [4 years after the effective date of this rule], unless the 
inspection program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based 
inspections and procedures.
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no certificate 
holder may operate a multiengine airplane initially type certificated 
with nine or fewer passenger seats in scheduled operation under this 
part after December 20, 2010, unless the inspection program for that 
airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    (c) A certificate holder may operate an airplane listed in appendix 
F to this part as follows:
    (1) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal listed in appendix F to this part before [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that 
airplane until [4 years after the effective date of the rule]; after 
that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the inspection 
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures.
    (2) If the time in service of the airplane reaches the design-life 
goal

[[Page 16319]]

listed in appendix F to this part on or after [4 years after the 
effective date of the rule], the certificate holder may operate that 
airplane until the date the time-in-service of the airplane reaches the 
design-life goal or until December 20, 2010, whichever occurs sooner. 
After that date, the airplane may not be operated unless the inspection 
program for that airplane includes damage-tolerance-based inspections 
and procedures.
    (d) A certificate holder may operate an airplane for which an 
airworthiness directive requires the inspection program to include non-
damage-tolerance-based supplemental inspections and procedures until 
December 20, 2010; after that date, the holder may not operate the 
airplane unless the inspection program for that airplane includes 
damage-tolerance-based inspections and procedures.
    14. Section 135.422 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 135.422  Aging airplane records reviews and inspections.

    (a) Applicability. This section identifies the records and 
requirements necessary for the certificate holder operating a 
multiengine airplane in scheduled operations to 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. The Administrator reviews these 
records and conducts the inspections necessary to decide whether an 
airplane is in safe condition and maintained properly for operation in 
air transportation.
    (b) After the dates specified herein, no certificate holder may 
operate a multiengine airplane under this part in scheduled operation 
unless the Administrator has notified the certificate holder that the 
Administrator has completed the aging airplane records reviews and 
inspections.
    (1) For an airplane that has exceeded 24 years in service on [the 
effective date of the rule], no later than [3 years after the effective 
date of the rule], and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (2) For an airplane that has exceeded 14 years in service, but not 
24 years in service, on [the effective date of the rule], no later than 
[5 years after the effective date of the rule], and thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years.
    (3) For an airplane that has not exceeded 14 years in service on 
[the effective date of the rule], no later than 5 years after the start 
of the airplane's 15th year in service and thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 5 years.
    (c) In the event of an unforeseen scheduling conflict for a 
specific airplane, the Administrator may approve an extension of up to 
90 days beyond a date specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) The certificate holder must make available to the Administrator 
each airplane for which a records review and inspection is required 
under this section, in a condition for inspection specified by the 
Administrator, together with the following records:
    (1) Total years in service;
    (2) Total flight hours of the airframe;
    (3) Total flight cycles of the airframe;
    (4) Date of the last records review and inspection required by this 
section;
    (5) Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe;
    (6) Time since the last overhaul of all structural components that 
are required to be overhauled on a specific time basis;
    (7) Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time 
since the last inspection required by the inspection program under 
which the airplane is maintained;
    (8) Current status of the following, including the method of 
compliance:
    (i) Airworthiness directives;
    (ii) Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs; and
    (iii) Inspections and procedures required by Sec. 135.168.
    (9) A list of major structural alterations; and
    (10) A report of major structural repairs and the current 
inspection status for these repairs.
    (e) Each certificate holder must notify the Administrator at least 
60 days before the date on which the airplane and airplane records will 
be available for inspection and review.
    15. Appendix G to part 135 is added to read as follows:

                Appendix G to Part 135--Design-Life Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Type       Design-
         Airplane type             Number of     certificate   life goal
                                     seats        data sheet      (hrs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beech Aircraft Co.:
    --Beech 99 (all models)....  15+2           A14CE             46,000
    --Beech 1900 and 1900C.....  19+2           A24CE             45,000
    --Beech 300 and 300LW......  13+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech B300 and B300C.....  15+2           A24CE             30,000
    --Beech 1900D..............  19+2           A24CE             45,000
British Aerospace Ltd.:
    --BAe Jetstream 3101.......  19+2           A21EU             30,000
    --BAe Jetstream 3201.......  19+2           A56EU             30,000
Cessna Aircraft Co.:
    --Cessna 402 Series (all     8+2            A7CE              12,000
     models except 402C).
    --Cessna 402C..............  8+2            A7CE               7,700
De Havilland Aircraft Co.:
    --DHC-6....................  22+2           A9EA              33,000
Dornier GmbH:
    --Dornier 228-100 and -200.  19+2           A16EU             42,800
    --Dornier 228-101 and -201.  19+2           A16EU             32,800
    --Dornier 228-202..........  19+2            A16EU            29,600
    --Dornier 228-212 (Except    19+2           A16EU             26,400
     SN 155 & 191 and up).
    --Dornier 228-212 (SN 155    19+2           A16EU             42,800
     and 191 and up).
Empresa Brasileira de
 Aeronautica (Embraer):
    Embraer EMB-110............  19+2           A21SO             30,000
Fairchild Aircraft Company:
    --SA226-TC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000

[[Page 16320]]

 
    --SA227-AT.................  14+2           A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-TT.................  9+2            A5SW              35,000
    --SA227-AC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-PC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-BC.................  20+2           A8SW              35,000
    --SA227-CC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
    --SA227-DC.................  19+2           A18SW             35,000
Pilatus Britten-Norman:
    PBN BN-2 Mk III (all         16+2           A29EU             20,480
     models).
Piper Aircraft Co.:
    --PA 31 Navajo.............  6+2            A20SO             11,000
    --PA 31-300 Navajo.........  6+2            A20SO             15,500
    --PA 31P Pressurized Navajo  6+2            A8EA              14,000
    --PA 31T Cheyenne and        7+2            A8EA              12,000
     Cheyenne II.
    --PA 31-350 Chieftain and    9+2            A20SO             13,000
     (T-1020).
    --PA 31-325 Navajo CR......  9+2            A20SO             11,000
    --PA 31T2 Cheyenne II XL...  9+2            A20SO             11,400
    --PA 31T3 (T-1040) without   9+2            A8EA              17,400
     tip tanks.
    --PA 31T3 (T-1040) with tip  9+2            A8EA              13,800
     tanks.
Short Brothers Ltd.:             .............
    --SD3-30...................  39+2           A41EU             57,600
    --SD3-60...................  39+2           A41EU             28,800
    --SD3-Sherpa...............  39+2           A41EU             40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 183--REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

    16. The authority citation for part 183 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44702, 
45303.

    17. Section 183.33 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 183.33  Designated Airworthiness Representative

* * * * *
    (a) Perform examination, inspection, and testing services necessary 
to the issuance of, and to determine the continuing effectiveness of 
certificates, including issuing certificates, as authorized by the 
Director, Flight Standards Service, in the area of maintenance, or as 
authorized by the Director, Aircraft Certification Service, in the 
areas of manufacturing and engineering.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 1999.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-7443 Filed 4-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P