[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2098-2110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-492]



[[Page 2097]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 43 and 45



Safe Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 2098]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 43 and 45

[Docket No.: FAA-2000-8017; Amendment No. 43-38 and 45-23]
RIN 2120-AH11


Safe Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action responds to the Wendell H. Ford Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century by requiring that all persons who 
remove any life-limited aircraft part safely control that pat. The 
disposition must deter the installation of that part after it has 
reached its life limit. The rule will reduce the risk of life-limited 
parts being used beyond their life limits. This rule also requires that 
type certificate and design approval holders of life-limited parts 
provide instructions on how to mark a part indicating its current 
status, when requested by persons removing such a part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective April 15, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Michaels, Flight Standards Service, 
AFS-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7501, facsimile (202) 267-
5115, or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the Federal 
Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov.su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us [email protected].

Background

    The FAA has found life-limited parts that exceeded their life-
limits installed on type-certificated products during accident 
investigations and in routine surveillance. Although such installation 
of life-limited parts violates existing FAA regulations, concerns have 
arisen regarding the disposition of these life-limited parts when they 
have reached their life limits.
    Concerns over the use of life-limited aircraft parts led Congress 
to pass a law requiring the safe disposition of these parts. The 
Wendell H. Ford Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public 
Law 106-181), added section 44725 to Title 49, United States Code, as 
follows:

Sec. 44725. Life-limited Aircraft Parts

    IN GENERAL--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require the 
safe disposition of life-limited parts removed from an aircraft. The 
rulemking proceeding shall ensure that the disposition deter 
installation on an aircraft of a life-limited part that has reached 
or exceeded its life limits.
    (b) SAFE DISPOSITION--For the purposes of this section, safe 
disposition includes any of the following methods:
    (1) The part may be segregated under circumstances that preclude 
its installation on an aircraft.
    (2) The part may be permanently marked to indicate its used life 
status.
    (3) The part may be destroyed in any manner calculated to 
prevent reinstallation in an aircraft.
    (4) The part may be marked, if practicable, to include the 
recordation of hours, cycles, or other airworthiness information. If 
the parts are marked with cycles or hours of usage, that information 
must be updated every time the part is removed from service or when 
the part is retired from service.
    (5) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
    (c) * * *
    (d) PRIOR-REMOVED LIFE-LIMITED PARTS--No rule issued under 
subsection (a) shall require the marking of parts removed from 
aircraft before the effective date of the rules issued under 
subsection (a), nor shall any such rule forbid the installation of 
an otherwise airworthy life-limited part.
    This rule carries out the requirements of section 44725.

Current Requirements

    The type design of an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 
includes the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), which 
includes the Airworthiness Limitations that describe life limits for 
parts installed on the product. See, for instance, 14 CFR 21.3(c) and 
21.50.
    In order for an aviation product to comply with its type design, 
the life-limited parts installed on it must fall within the acceptable 
ranges described in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. For this reason, installation 
of a life-limited part after the mandatory replacement time has been 
reached would be a violation of the maintenance regulations. Section 
43.13(b) requires that maintenance work be completed so that the 
product worked on ``will be at least equal to its original or properly 
altered condition.* * *'' The product is not at least equal to its 
original or properly altered condition if a life-limited part has 
reached or exceeded its life limit.
    Existing regulations require that specific markings be placed on 
all life-limited parts at the time of manufacture. This includes 
permanently marking the part with a part number (or equivalent) and a 
serial number (or equivalent). See 14 CFR 45.14.
    Persons who install parts must have adequate information to 
determine a part's current life status. In particular, documentation 
problems may mislead an installer concerning the life remaining for a 
life-limited part. This rule further provides for the data needs of 
subsequent installers to ensure they know the life remaining on a part 
and prevent the part being used beyond its life limit.
    Existing regulations provide for records on life-limited parts that 
are installed on aircraft. The regulations require that each owner or 
operator under Sec. 91.417(a)(2)(ii) and each certificate holder under

[[Page 2099]]

Sec. 121.380(a)(2)(iii) or Sec. 135.439(a)(2)(ii), maintain records 
showing ``the current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, 
engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.'' These regulations do not 
govern the disposition of the part when it is removed from the 
aircraft. If the part is intended to be reinstalled, however, a record 
of the life status of the part will be needed at the time of 
reinstallation to show that the part is within its life limit and to 
create the required record under Secs. 91.417(a)(2)(ii), 
121.380(a)(2)(iii), or 135.439(a)(2)(ii), as applicable. Therefore, 
when a life-limited part is removed from an aircraft and that part is 
intended to be reinstalled in an aircraft, industry practice is to make 
a record of the part's current status at the time of removal. Repair 
stations, air carriers, and fixed base operators (FBO's) have systems 
in place to keep accurate records of such parts to ensure that they can 
reinstall the parts and have the required records to show that the part 
is airworthy.
    If the part is not intended to be reinstalled, however, under 
existing regulations and practice there is no record required or 
routinely made when a part is removed from an aircraft. The part may be 
at the end of its life limit and not eligible for installation. Or, the 
part may not have reached the end of its life limit, but is so close 
that reinstallation would not be practicable. In these cases industry 
practices vary. For instance, the part might be put in a bin and later 
sold as scrap metal, it might be used as a training aid, or it might be 
mutilated.
    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice No. 00-11, proposed 
procedures for carrying out the statute. 65 FR 58878 (October 2, 2000).

Discussion of Comments and Section by Section Analysis

    Thirty-nine commenters provided comments on the proposed rule. The 
commenters included industry associations, air carriers, manufacturers, 
repair stations, representatives of employees, a foreign civil air 
authority, and individuals.
    The FAA has made changes to the final rule in response to the 
comments. The comments are discussed below along with the provisions of 
the final rule. First we discuss comments not specific to one section, 
then we discuss more specific comments organized by section. The final 
rule as adopted is described below.

General Comments

    Comment: Some commenters urge that the statute ``requires the safe 
disposition of life-limited parts that have reached or exceeded their 
life limits.'' Comment 33 at 4,\1\ emphasis in original. Some 
commenters state that the statute was intended to apply only when the 
part has reached or exceeded its life limit, not each time during the 
life of the part that it is removed from an aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation 
of the statute. In paraphrasing the statute the commenters omitted the 
end of the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence of 
section 44725(a). Those portions have meaning, however. Section 
44725(a) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The documents in the electronic docket are numbered in the 
order in which they were posted.

    The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require the safe disposition of 
life-limited parts removed from an aircraft. The rulemaking 
proceeding shall ensure that the disposition deter installation on 
an aircraft of a life-limited part that has reached or exceeded its 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
life limits.

    The first sentence does not apply only to parts that have reached 
or exceeded their life limit. It requires safe disposition of all life-
limited parts that are removed from aircraft. Note that one method of 
safe disposition permitted in section 44725(b)(4) is updating the 
marking on a part ``every time the part is removed form service or when 
the part is retired from service.'' This shows that the safe 
disposition of parts must occur every time the part is removed, not 
just when the part has reached the end of its life limit or is retired 
from service.
    The second sentence in section 44725(a) requires that the rule 
deter use of parts beyond their life limits. This does not mean that 
safe disposition is only required when parts reach their life limits. 
Indeed, no one can determine whether a part has reached the end of its 
life unless it has been properly disposed of each time it is removed 
from an aircraft during its life, ensuring that its current life status 
is accurately reflected in marking or other records. The NPRM, and the 
final rule, deter the use of parts beyond their life limits by 
requiring accurate records each time the part is removed from a type 
certificated product.
    Further, it is FAA's experience that most parts that are retired 
from service have not reached or exceeded their life limits. They may 
have a few hours or cycles left, and are not considered to have enough 
life left to make it practical to reinstall them. These parts now often 
are treated as scrap or discarded. If the FAA were to agree with the 
commenters that the statute does not apply to such parts, these parts 
could continue to be placed in the scrap bin with no accurate life 
status on their markings or other records. The FAA has seen instances 
in which parts sent for scrap have been reinstalled on aircraft. 
However, if the part were returned to service, it soon would reach or 
exceed its life limit. The rule deters use of such parts beyond their 
life limits by ensuring that the current life status accompanies the 
part and informs the next user about the life status of that part.
    We note also if FAA were to agree with the commenters that the 
statute does not apply to parts that are retired from service before 
they have reached their life limits, the statute would apply to very 
few parts. The FAA does not believe Congress intended the statute to be 
almost a nullity.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that FAA add to Sec. 43.5, 
Approval for return to service after maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, a new paragraph (d) stating, 
``The records for life-limited parts show that any such part is 
serviceable and the remaining life is identified.''
    FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with this recommendation as 
this is covered in other portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
which require that records contain ``the current status of life-limited 
parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and applicant.'' See 
Secs. 91.417(a)(2)(ii), 121.380(a)(2)(iii), and 135.439(a)(2)(ii).
    Comment: One commenter states that air carriers will have to change 
their existing record keeping system. Another states that FAA form 
8130-3, Airworthiness, Approval Tag, should be used rather than 
creating a new system.
    FAA Response: FAA has added new Sec. 43.10(c)(1) that permits the 
part to be controlled using any record keeping system that 
substantiates the part number, serial number, and current status. The 
FAA recognizes that many current systems already meet the requirements 
of the rule.
    Comment: One commenter states that the rule should apply to ``all 
life-limited parts at the time of return to service after the effective 
date.'' Another commenter states that the rule should state clearly 
that it is the installer's responsibility to ensure the part is 
serviceable before it is installed.
    FAA Response: Section 44725 of the statute specifically requires 
the safe disposition of life-limited parts at the time of removal. The 
FAA agrees that it is the installer's responsibility to determine 
airworthiness before returning a part to service. This rule assists the 
installer by ensuring that an

[[Page 2100]]

accurate record is made at the time of removal.
    Comment: One commenter states that the rule does not define 
responsible persons as certificated persons. Two commenters expressed 
concerns that non-certificated persons and owners/operators are subject 
to the proposed rule.
    FAA Response: The rule does not apply only to certificated persons 
that remove parts; it applies to all persons that remove parts. The 
same safety considerations apply whether the remover is a certificated 
person or not.

Section by Section Comments

Sec. 43.1(c)  Applicability

    Proposal: We proposed a new paragraph (c) in the applicability 
section of part 43 to include persons who remove, store, and 
disposition life-limited parts from a type-certificated product.
    Comment: Some commenters state that currently the FAA rules do not 
consider removal of parts as maintenance. They state that including 
proposed Sec. 43.10 in part 43 will make these activities maintenance 
and will require that persons who remove, segregate, and disposition 
life-limited parts be certificated by the FAA. Another commenter states 
that removal, segregation, and disposing of parts are already standard 
maintenance practices. Another commenter feels that Sec. 43.1, 
Applicability, is not needed because proper management of parts is 
already a part of maintenance.
    FAA Response: The NPRM did not address under what circumstances 
removal, segregation, and disposition of life-limited parts is part of 
maintenance. The NPRM did not propose that all removal, segregation, 
and dispositioning must be done by a certificated person. Indeed, the 
NPRM proposed to expand the applicability of part 43 to clearly cover 
these tasks in all cases, by adding Sec. 43.1(c).
    We note that removal, segregation, and dispositioning of parts is 
closely related to maintenance, and often is considered to be 
maintenance. See In the Matter of Stambaugh's Air Service, Inc., FAA 
Order No. 2001-7 (2001), in which the removal of an engine from a 
Boeing 737, not for the purpose of performing other maintenance on the 
aircraft or engine, was itself considered to be maintenance. Proper 
removal procedures must be used in order to ensure the continued 
airworthiness of not only the parts removed but also adjacent parts or 
assemblies. Maintenance manuals have maintenance instructions for 
proper disassembly and removal procedures to be used in maintaining the 
aircraft. To maintain the current status of a life-limited part 
required by regulation, parts must be controlled from the time they are 
originally installed new through subsequent installations. These 
controls include maintaining accurate records, proper storage, and 
approved procedures used for installation and/or removal of the parts.
    In any event, this rulemaking does not address under what 
circumstances removal of a part is considered to be maintenance and 
must be done by a certificated person, and when removal is not 
maintenance. This rulemaking does provide that whenever a life-limited 
part is removed from a type certificated product, the remover must 
control the part in accordance with this rule.
    New Sec. 43.1(c): We changed the wording to be parallel with other 
Sec. 43.1 paragraphs.

Sec. 43.10  Disposition of Life-Limited Aircraft Parts

    Proposal: We proposed adding a new section (Sec. 43.10) to part 43 
to incorporate the new legislation.
    Comment: No comments were received on creating a new Sec. 43.10.
    New Sec. 43.10: This section carries out section 44725.

Sec. 43.10(a)  Definitions Used in This Section

    Proposal: Paragraph (a) proposed definitions for ``life-limited 
part'' and ``life status.''
    Comment: Seven commenters either oppose placing the definition of 
life-limited part in part 43, or suggest it be moved to part 1, 
Definitions and abbreviations.
    FAA Response: The definition was placed in part 43 as part of this 
rulemaking to better enhance the understanding of the requirements for 
life-limited parts.
    Comment: Two comments state that the rule applies to type 
certificated products not used in civil aviation and any civil aircraft 
with an airworthiness certificate.
    FAA Response: The FAA has no jurisdiction over products used for 
non-aviation purposes. If a product is used for a non-aviation purpose, 
removal of a part from that product is not governed by part 43 
regardless of whether the product also is type certificated for 
aviation purposes.
    Comment: One commenter states that the reference to the ``type 
certificate holder'' in the definition of ``life-limited part'' is not 
appropriate because some limitations are not included in the type 
certificate holder's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness.
    FAA Response: Under Sec. 21.31 life limits are considered to be 
part of the type design; specifically, they are part of the 
Airworthiness Limitations in the Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness in the type design. However, they may actually be 
published on the type data sheet, in the maintenance manual, or 
elsewhere, so it might not be obvious that they are part of the ICA. 
The FAA agrees with the commenter that this could create confusion. The 
new definition for life-limited part includes the reference to the type 
design, the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and the 
maintenance manual.
    Comment: One commenter asks for an explanation of what could be a 
mandatory replacement interval other than hours or cycles. Another 
commenter wants to add such terms as number of landings and flight 
cycles to the definition of ``life status.''
    FAA Response: The ICA may place limits on the part in such terms as 
calendar time, number of lifts on a heavy-lift helicopter, or number of 
allowed overhauls.
    Comment: One commenter states that the definition of life-limited 
part includes non-critical parts and asks whether this was intended.
    FAA Response: Yes, both the statute and the rule do not 
differentiate between critical and non-critical life-limited parts.
    New Sec. 43.10(a): This paragraph defines ``life-limited part'' to 
mean any part for which a mandatory replacement limit is specified in 
the type design, the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, or the 
maintenance manual. The ICA contains the airworthiness limitations, 
including life limits. It is considered to be part of the type design. 
See Sec. 21.31(c). The ICA may be published as part of the maintenance 
manual, however, or may appear on the type certificate data sheet or 
elsewhere. Thus the rule refers to the type design, the Instructions 
for Continued Airworthiness, and the maintenance manual. The rule also 
defines ``life status'' to mean the accumulated cycles, hours, or any 
other mandatory replacement limit of a life-limited part.

New Sec. 43.10(b)  Temporary Removal of Parts From Type-Certificated 
Products

    Proposal: This paragraph was not proposed in the NPRM.
    Comment: Some commenters appear to believe that the rule would 
apply when a life-limited part was temporarily

[[Page 2101]]

removed and then reinstalled. This would greatly increase the work of 
mechanics and others while they removed and reinstalled parts during 
maintenance.
    FAA Response: The FAA did not intend the rule to apply during 
temporary removal. The final rule provides an exception.
    New Sec. 43.10(b): This paragraph provides that when a life-limited 
part is temporarily removed and reinstalled for the purpose of 
performing maintenance, no disposition under this section is required 
under specified circumstances. Those circumstances include that the 
life status of the part has not changed; the removal and reinstallation 
is performed on the same serial numbered product; and that product does 
not accumulate time in service while the part is removed.
    This situation may occur, for instance, when a life-limited 
helicopter rotor blade is removed in order to maintain the hub and then 
reinstalled. The life status of the helicopter and the rotor blade have 
not changed. There is no purpose served by marking, tagging, or 
otherwise carrying out paragraph (c) of this section while the rotor 
blade is temporarily removed.

New Sec. 43.10(c)  Disposition of Parts Removed From Type-Certificated 
Products (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)) Temporary Text

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed requirements for the safe 
disposition of any life-limited part removed from a type-certificated 
product and provided methods to control these parts.
    Comment: A commenter states that covering both airworthy and 
unairworthy parts in this rule may restrict the use of airworthy parts. 
This would be inconsistent with section 44725(d), which provides that 
the rule may not forbid the installation of an airworthy part. The 
commenter believes this would be solved by permitting the use of 
component history cards rather than marking the parts.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the statute requires safe 
disposition only of unairworthy parts. As previously discussed, the 
statute applies to all life-limited parts that are removed from 
aircraft. The FAA agrees that the safety objective can be achieved by 
use of a record keeping system rather than marking each part, and the 
final rule provides for use of a record system.
    Comment: Two commenters feel that the new rule seems to mix 
airworthy parts with unairworthy parts. One commenter states Sec. 43.10 
is unclear in distinguishing between when a part fails, when it is 
removed and returned for service, and when it reaches its life limit.
    FAA Response: The intent of this rule is to control life-limited 
parts when removed from a type certificated product. The FAA added a 
section that specifically addresses parts being removed for maintenance 
purposes and reinstalled on the same product. If the removal is not 
temporary under paragraph (b), the person who removes the part has 
several options for disposing of the part, and will decide which option 
to use based on such factors as whether the part failed, was removed 
for service, or has reached its life limit.
    Comment: One commenter states that some aircraft may use the same 
part but have different life-limits, or the part may be life-limited in 
one application and not in another.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Manufacturers' instructions for 
certain parts require that the maintenance records include the type of 
aircraft on which the parts have been used. One example of this is when 
a particular helicopter manufacturer produces an identical tail rotor 
blade used on two different model helicopters. When the blades are used 
on the model with the lower life-limit, that becomes the retirement 
limit for the blade. This section requires that such a blade must be 
controlled under this section, regardless of how it has been used. If a 
person wishes to reinstall it later, they will need the history in 
sufficient detail to show that the part is eligible for installation.
    Comment: One commenter states that ``[a]lthough the maintenance 
provider will be required to mark the ``life status,'' there is no 
corresponding requirement for the owner/operator to provide `life 
status'.''
    FAA Response: Maintenance providers cannot return an aircraft to 
service without the appropriate records. Therefore, owner/operators 
routinely provide the necessary records to the maintenance providers. 
There is no need to add a rule to require that owner/operators provide 
the life status to the maintenance provider.
    Comment: Some commenters state that the rule should apply to 
owners/operators and not to removers.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The rule applies to persons 
removing parts because they are the persons who have the part 
physically available and have direct access to records that show the 
life that the part has accumulated. Also, in industry practice, persons 
who remove the parts generally have control over the disposition of the 
part, though they may consult with the owner/operator before deciding 
which method to use to control the part.
    Comment: Some commenters state that maintenance providers have ``no 
legal ownership rights, interest or authority in the life-limited part 
to take `possession' of that article.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the maintenance provider may need 
to consult with the owner/operator before determining which method to 
use to control the part. Maintenance providers do in fact have 
possession of the part, while they may not have title to the part. It 
is current industry practice for maintenance providers to mark, tag, or 
make record entries regarding the life status of a life-limited part 
when they remove it.
    Comment: Some commenters are concerned that the remover would be 
liable if the part were ever installed past its life limit.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. If the remover controls the 
part and transfers the records with the part in accordance with this 
rule, the remover has met his/her responsibilities under this rule. It 
is incumbent upon any person subsequently installing the part to 
determine its airworthiness prior to installation. For clarity, the 
proposed wording ``must prevent the part from being installed after it 
has reached its life limit'' has been changed to ``must deter the 
installation of the part after it has reached its life limit.''
    Comment: A number of commenters question the use of one disposition 
method over another in various situations. Some object to the 
requirement to mutilate or segregate parts; some state that industry 
practice is to have or use record keeping systems.
    FAA Response: The rule does not require any particular method in 
any particular situation as long as one of the methods is used. Each of 
these methods in this paragraph are part of current industry practice.
    New Sec. 43.10(c) introductory text: Paragraph (c) contains the 
requirements for controlling life-limited parts that are removed from 
type certification products. The six methods in the proposal to control 
the parts have been expanded to seven and subsequent paragraphs were 
resequenced for clarity.
    In accordance with the statute, this rule applies only to life-
limited aircraft parts removed after the effective date of this rule. 
Existing recordkeeping and storage regulations will continue to apply 
to the control of life-limited parts removed before the effective date 
of this rule.
    This paragraph provides that each person removing a life-limited 
part from

[[Page 2102]]

a type-certificated product must ensure that the part is controlling 
using one of the methods in this paragraph.
    The rule applies at the time of removal because that is when the 
statue requires the safe disposition to occur. Further, at the time of 
removal the records for the part's life status in its current 
installation are most readily available. For instance, the life status 
may have to be determined by referring to the aircraft records, 
determining when the part was first installed, and determining how many 
hours or cycles the aircraft was flown since the part was installed. If 
the part was stored after removal without its records being immediately 
updated, there would be more chance of confusion as to its current life 
status and less chance to determine at a later date what life had 
accumulated during its prior service. We note that current industry 
practice is to update the record for the part or to create a new record 
for the part at the time the part is removed.
    The rule applies to persons removing parts because they are the 
persons who have the part physically available and have direct access 
to the records that show the life the part has accumulated in its 
installation. Also, in industry practice the persons who remove parts 
generally have control over the disposition of the part, thought they 
may consult with the owner or operator before dispositioning the part.
    As discussed under the comments, the FAA considers this to be 
consistent with current industry practice. Often the owner or operator 
of an aircraft has no interest in parts that were removed, which the 
maintenance facility controls as it sees fit. At times, the owner may 
be given credit for a part that can be repaired, in exchange for a new 
part that can be installed immediately. The owner also may request that 
all parts that were removed be returned to the owner. The remover, in 
any event, is intimately involved in determining the disposition. The 
remover will determine, for instance, whether the part has useful life 
remaining, appears to be eligible for reinstallation as is, can be 
repaired to make it eligible, or is not capable of being repaired. This 
information is shared with the owner to inform the owner's decision on 
how to control the part. The new rule will simply take this current 
relationship to the next logical step of requiring the remover to use 
one of the disposition methods under this rule.
    The definition of ``person'' in part 1 includes both individuals 
and entities such as corporations. Repair stations and air carriers are 
``persons'' under part 1. Both the repair station or the air carrier, 
and the individual employed by the repair station or air carrier, are 
considered to be the remover of the part, and both are required to 
carry out the rule. This is similar to the case when maintenance is 
performed on aircraft. Both the air carrier and the mechanic working 
for the air carrier are considered to be conducting the maintenance, 
and both must comply with the maintenance regulations.
    The individual who removes the part need not be the same individual 
who implements the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (7). For 
example, an air carrier mechanic removing a part might not personally 
control the part in accordance with one of the methods described in 
paragraph (c)(1) through (7), but may give the part to the air 
carrier's material control department to disposition in accordance with 
the air carrier's procedures manual. The air carrier's procedures must 
ensure that the part is controlled using one of the methods in this 
section. The individual remover has carried out his/her duty under the 
rule by complying with his/her part of the air carrier's procedures.
    The rule applies each time a life-limited part is removed from a 
type certificated product. This is based on the FAA's interpretation of 
the statute, as discussed in the General Comments. It is also 
consistent with the need to maintain accurate records at each step in 
the part's life so that it can be determined whether a part has reached 
the end of its life.
    Because it is industry practice to maintain accurate records on 
parts the remover believes may be reinstalled, we expect that the 
impact of this rule will be mostly as to parts that they do not believe 
will be reinstalled. The remover may not believe the parts will be 
reinstalled because they have reached the end of their life limits. Or, 
the parts may not have technically reached their life limits and have a 
few hours or cycles left, but are not considered to have enough life 
left to make it practical to reinstall them. These parts now often are 
treated as scrap or discarded. The FAA has seen instances in which 
parts sent for scrap have been reinstalled on aircraft. If the part 
were returned to service, however, it soon would reach or exceed its 
life limit.
    This rule deters use of such parts beyond their life limits by 
ensuring that the current life status accompanies the part and informs 
the next user about the life status of that part.
    Note that the FAA did consider the implications of applying the 
rule only when the part has reached the end of its life limit. This 
would have excluded from safe disposition under the rule all those 
parts that are not at the end of their life limit but have so little 
time left that neither the remover nor the owner intend to reinstall 
them. The FAA's experience is that most parts are discarded at this 
stage, not at the exact end of their life limit. Under current 
regulations, such parts may be sold as scrap or otherwise not 
controlled. Without this rule the current situation would continue, in 
which such parts may be in the system without accurate records and 
subject to reuse.
    The FAA also considered the implications of applying the rule only 
to parts that are not intended for reinstallation. However, it is very 
difficult, sometimes impossible, to determine intent. Further, the 
remover's intent not to reinstall the part would not be relevant if the 
part were sold as scrap without updated records to show its current 
life status. A subsequent owner could be misled as to the current 
status of the part. Such a rule would be difficult to enforce and 
difficult to ensure that its safety benefits are realized.
    We note that we have expanded the list of acceptable methods of 
controlling a part to include recordkeeping systems. Under this rule, 
all methods that are not used to control life limited parts that are 
intended for reinstallation also acceptable for compliance with this 
rule. Therefore, the actual impact of the rule is minimal.
    The statute refers to safe disposition when a life-limited part is 
removed from an aircraft. However, many life-limited parts are not 
removed directly from the aircraft. Rather, the type certificated 
product is removed from the aircraft, and the life-limited part is then 
removed from the product. For instance, an engine may be removed from 
the aircraft and taken to a repair station for service. The repair 
station removes life-limited parts form the engine and determines how 
to control the parts, such as to reinstall them, to repair them, or to 
discard them. To carry out the full safety benefits of the statute and 
avoid confusion, the rule applies to parts removed from type 
certificated products. ``Product'' is defined in Sec. 21.1(b) to mean 
an aircraft, an aircraft engine, or a propeller.

New Sec. 43.10(c)(1)  Record Keeping System

    Proposal: This paragraph was not proposed in the NPRM.
    Comment: Some commenters state that record keeping systems that 
currently are used to control life-limited parts should be acceptable 
for compliance with this section.

[[Page 2103]]

    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Such systems are used by repair 
stations, air carriers, and fixed base operators to maintain accurate 
records of life-limited parts to ensure the airworthiness of the 
aircraft on which they are installed. When properly carried out these 
systems comply with the intent of the statute.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(1): This paragraph expressly permits the use of 
record keeping systems to control life-limited parts. The record 
keeping system must substantiate the part number, serial number, and 
current life status of the part. Each time the part is removed from a 
type certificated product, the record must be updated with the current 
life status. Many repair stations, air carriers, and fixed base 
operators have such systems in place now, and use them to control life-
limited parts. Some systems are electronic and others use paper.
    Note that the current life status of the part does not necessarily 
include the entire history of the part. While some record systems do 
contain the entire history, this rule requires only that the current 
status be in the record system. This will allow persons to determine 
what life is remaining on the part.

Sec. 43.10(c)(2)  Tag or Record Attached to Part (Proposed 
Sec. 43.10(b)(5)

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed that if it is impractical to mark 
the life-limited part, a tag may be attached to the part to record the 
life status.
    Comment: Two commenters request clarification of procedures to be 
used to issue a replacement tag. First, the commenters ask whether a 
new tag can be issued if a tag is lost and time in service cannot be 
determined. Second, the commenters suggest we require the tag have 
sufficient information to provide traceability back to the part if 
separated.
    FAA Response: In response to the first situation, if current status 
of the life-limited part cannot be established, the part is unairworthy 
and cannot be returned to service. In response to the second concern, 
the final rule specifies that the tag have the part number and serial 
number, which will allow the tag to be traced to the part. Further, the 
final rule provides for either updating the tag or making a new tag 
each time the part is removed. An Advisory Circular will be published 
when the rule is issued to highlight specific sections from the new 
rule and explain their intent in greater detail.
    Comment: Two commenters state that tagging has been used for years 
and is a standard industry practice. In addition, they state that the 
rule should not require that the same tag be updated each time the part 
is removed, because industry practice is to issue a new tag.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the use of tags has been an 
accepted industry practice for years. The final rule provides that 
either the tag can be updated or a new tag issued.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(2): This paragraph provides that a tag or other 
record may be attached to the part when it is removed. While the 
proposal only referred to a tag, many in the industry attach another 
record to the part (known by such names as a ``hard card'' or 
``historical record''). To avoid confusion the rule refers to a tag or 
other record attached to the part.
    The proposal called for use of a tag only when it is not practical 
to mark the part. However, after further evaluation the FAA has decided 
not to include this limitation. Tags and other attached records are 
widely used and accepted in the industry and provide the required level 
of safety. This rule will permit the continued use of such systems.
    The proposal called for the tag to be updated every time the part 
is removed. Some commenters point out that many people in industry do 
not save the tag for reuse, but issue a new tag. Further, such tags get 
damaged during use and new ones are created. Accordingly, the final 
rule provides for either updating the tag or creating a new one.
    The final rule provides that the current status, as well as the 
part number and serial number, must be on the tag or record.

Sec. 43.10(c)(3)  Non-Permanent Marking (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(4))

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed that the part may be marked, if 
practical, to include the life status. This marking was to be 
accomplished in accordance with the manufacturer's marking 
instructions, as required under proposed Sec. 45.14, to maintain the 
integrity of the part.
    Comment: Eight commenters suggest that proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(2) 
and (b)(4), regarding permanent and non-permanent marking, are similar 
and should be combined into one paragraph.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the proposed paragraphs are 
similar. The FAA, however, wants to emphasize that the options are 
different and likely to be used in different situations. Further, the 
paragraph on non-permanent marking now provides instructions for using 
another method if the mark is removed.
    Comment: Several commenters question where the procedures will be 
published to comply with proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(2), what tools would be 
required for marking of the part, and whether the manufacturer could 
charge for the part marking information.
    FAA Response: New Sec. 43.16 requires that the instructions may be 
provided to the requester or in a readily available document. The 
manufacturer will determine the type of marking device to be used for 
marking the part. The FAA has no regulatory authority to control 
whether a manufacturer chooses to charge for the information.
    Comment: One commenter has a concern that many products are no 
longer supported by the manufacturer and marking information would not 
be available.
    FAA Response: The rule provides alternate methods to be used for 
controlling a life-limited part. Tagging the part in accordance with 
new Sec. 34.10(c)(2) or using a record keeping system under new 
Sec. 43.10(c)(1) are acceptable means of compliance with the rule.
    Comment: One commenter states that the proposal contains a loophole 
in that a scrap dealer could remove a tag or non-permanent mark.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that if a part is transferred for the 
purpose of scrap without permanent markings or mutilation, the tag or 
other record could be removed from the part. The FAA recommends that 
before parts are transferred for the purpose of scrap, the part be 
mutilated or permanently marked, to deter subsequent installation.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(3): This paragraph provides for non-permanent 
marking of the part. The mark must be updated each time the part is 
removed from service. Further, if the mark is removed, another method 
may be used to control the part. For instance, the remover could then 
use a record keeping system to control the part.

Sec. 43.10(c)(4)  Permanent Marking (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(2))

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed that the part may be permanently 
and legibly marked, when practical, to indicate its life status.
    Comment: Several commenters have concerns that permanent marks 
could destroy the part's integrity.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. There are parts that cannot be marked 
for reasons such as the part's size, type of material, or specific 
application of the part. The FAA recognized that there are cases when 
marking is impractical or could destroy the part's integrity. Therefore 
tagging of the part, as well as other methods such as a record keeping 
system, is permitted under the rule.

[[Page 2104]]

    Comment: One commenter states that the proposed rule is not clear 
when a part should be permanently marked.
    FAA Response: The proposed rule did not mandate when a part should 
be permanently marked, only that parts be controlled in accordance with 
one of the options in the rule.
    Comment: One commenter asks whether a part can be tagged, if it was 
permanently marked multiple times and no space remains for additional 
marks? Another commenter has concerns with the proposed rule permitting 
different methods of marking each time the part was removed.
    FAA Response: The rule allows for various methods of permanent and 
non-permanent controls for life-limited parts. If the control method is 
changed, there must be a means to clearly identify the current life 
status of the part.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(4): This paragraph provides for permanently 
marking the part. The mark must be updated each time the part is 
removed from service. Unless the part is permanently removed from use 
on type certificated products, this permanent mark must be accomplished 
in accordance with the instructions under Sec. 45.16 in order to 
maintain the integrity of the part.

Sec. 43.10(c)(5)  Segregation (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(1))

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed that the part may be segregated 
from serviceable parts under circumstances to preclude its installation 
on a type certificated product, including maintaining a record of the 
serial number and current life status of the part.
    Comment: Some commenters state that the word ``serviceable'' is not 
appropriate, in that serviceable has no regulatory meaning.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. ``Serviceable'' may be used in 
different ways in the industry. The final rule does not use this term, 
it uses the term ``eligible for installation'' to avoid confusion.
    Comment: A commenter states that the rule should require the record 
also contain the part number.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. To fully identify the part, both the 
part number and the serial number are needed.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(5): This paragraph provides that the part may be 
segregated using methods that deter its installation on a type-
certificated product. These methods must include, at least, maintaining 
a record of the part number, serial number, and current life status, 
and ensuring the part is physically stored separately from parts that 
are currently eligible for installation.
    The rule uses the term ``physically stored separately'' instead of 
``stored separately'' for clarity. It is common industry practice, for 
instance, to have a separate bin for parts that have reached their 
current life limits, but whose life limits may be extended in the 
future. This may occur with a new design for a blade, for instance. 
Initially a lower life limit may be assigned, but experience may allow 
the FAA to approve a higher life limit for the blade. In the meantime, 
the repair station may segregate a blade that has reached the lower 
life limit in anticipation that the life limit will be extended. The 
blade is segregated to prevent it from being confused with another 
blade and being installed.

Sec. 43.10(c)(6)  Mutilation (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(3))

    Proposal: This paragraph proposed that the part may be destroyed in 
any manner that prevents installation in a type-certificated product.
    Comment: Some commenters state that the rule does not go far enough 
and it should be mandatory that parts are mutilated when they reach 
their life limit. There were also concerns that if the remover was not 
the owner of the part they could be sued for destroying personal 
property.
    FAA Response: The FAA has no regulatory authority to require a 
person to destroy their personal property. When Congress passed section 
44725, it provided other options for controlling the parts, such as 
segregation or marking parts. The remover of the part likely will 
consult the owner of the part to determine whether mutilation of the 
part is acceptable, or whether another of the acceptable methods should 
be used.
    The FAA considers this to be consistent with current industry 
practice. Often the owner or operator of an aircraft has no interest in 
parts that were removed, which the maintenance facility disposes of as 
it sees fit. Or, the owner may be involved in the decision as to how to 
control the parts. This rule does not change these scenarios. The 
person removing the part is responsible for controlling the part under 
this section, but may consult with the owner regarding which method to 
use.
    Comment: Several commenters express concerns that if parts were 
mutilated they would be usable for non-aviation purposes such as 
training aids or other commercial applications.
    FAA Response: The rule allows for persons dispositioning the parts 
to use other acceptable methods such as marking the part using a 
permanent or non-permanent method or tagging the part.
    Comment: Some commenters point out that the term used in the 
industry is ``mutilate'' rather than ``destroy.'' They indicate that 
``mutilate'' implies only rendering not repairable, but ``destroy'' 
implies a more extensive and expensive effort such as melting down the 
part.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees, and the final rule uses ``mutilate.''
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(6): This paragraph provides that the part may be 
mutilated to deter its installation in a type certificated product. The 
rule provides that the mutilation must render the part beyond repair 
and incapable of being reworked to provide the appearance of being 
airworthy.

Sec. 43.10(c)(7)  Other Methods (Proposed Sec. 43.10(b)(6))

    Proposal: This paragraph provided that any other method approved by 
the Administrator could be used.
    Comment: Two commenters have difficulty determining what other 
methods would be approved by the Administrator under proposed 
Sec. 43.10(b)(6).
    FAA Response: The final rule includes the additional method of 
using a record keeping system. The remover may request an alternate 
method of compliance. This permits the remover to develop another 
method of compliance not considered in this rulemaking.
    New Sec. 43.10(c)(7): This paragraph provides that the part may be 
controlled using any other method approved or accepted by the 
Administrator. The FAA cannot anticipate all possible methods of 
controlling parts, and will consider any methods that provide at least 
the same level of safety as those in this rule.

Sec. 43.10(d)  Transfer of Life-Limited Parts (Proposed Sec. 43.10(c))

    Proposal: This section proposed that each person removing a life-
limited part from segregation, other than for immediate installation, 
had to ensure the part was controlled using one of the methods in 
paragraph (b).
    The NPRM did not expressly state that records must be transferred 
with the part. However, the disposition methods that were proposed all 
inherently involved the record remaining with the part (except for 
destruction, in which case the record is no longer needed). Marking and 
tagging involves the record being physically attached to the part, 
which remains with the part. The NPRM permitted the part to be 
segregated without the record attached to the part, but provided in

[[Page 2105]]

proposed Sec. 43.10(c) that when the part is removed from segregation 
another dispositioning method must be used.
    Comment: Two commenters oppose the position that the person 
removing the part should be responsible even though they may not be the 
person that controls it, as in the case of a person working for a part 
121 or 145 operator.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognized in the preamble that the 
individual removing the part may not necessarily be the individual who 
controls it. The FAA understands that individuals working for 
certificated operators have responsibilities for performing specific 
functions, in which case the individual who removes the part would not 
necessarily be the individual who controls the part. The repair station 
or air carrier is also a person under part 1, and under the regulations 
is also considered the person who removes the part. The repair station 
or air carrier will have overall responsibility to ensure that the part 
is controlled properly under the rule. The individual who removes the 
part will be in compliance with this rule if the individual carries out 
his/her portion of the procedures of the repair station or air carrier.
    New Sec. 43.10(d): Paragraph (d) provides that each person who 
removes a life-limited part from a type certificated product and later 
sells or otherwise transfers that part must transfer with the part the 
mark, tag, or other record used to comply with this section, unless the 
part is mutilated before it is sold or transferred. This will ensure 
that the next user has an accurate record on which to base any decision 
to use the part.
    Note that this applies to all transfers, whether by sale or 
otherwise. thus,. when a repair station returns the part to the owner, 
the repair station must also transfer the record.

New Sec. 45.16  Marking of Life-Limited Parts (Proposed Sec. 45.14)

    Proposal: The NPRM proposed to add to Sec. 43.14, Identification 
and disposition of critical components, requiring producers of life-
limited parts to provide marking instructions upon request.
    Comment: One commenter states that the producers of parts should be 
required to provide marking information, not just on request. Some 
commenters state that the information should be in the Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness.
    FAA Response: The FAA partially agrees. The final rule gives the 
option of making the information available in readily available 
documents, such as the maintenance manual or the Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness. We anticipate that many type certificate 
holders and design approval holders will find this to be the most 
efficient way of providing the information.
    To require that all design approval holders of all life-limited 
parts provide marking information for each part without request may be 
excessive. There may be no interest in the industry to mark certain 
parts, given the other options for controlling the parts, and given 
that some parts may be out of production or not widely used. If the 
design approval holder never receives a request for marking information 
it need not develop such information.
    Comment: Some commenters state that, while the proposal was for the 
producer of a part to provide marking instructions, the producer may 
not be the person responsible for the design or production of the part. 
The manufacturer may have no ability to provide information on marking 
the parts.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The final rule provides that the 
holder of a type certificate or design approval must provide the 
marking instructions. Such persons have responsibility for the design 
and are in a position to determine whether and how a part can be marked 
without compromising its integrity.
    Comment: Some commenters state that the rule should make clear that 
marking a part is maintenance and must be done in accordance with part 
43.
    FAA Response: It does not appear that marking a part its 
maintenance within the definition in part 1. However, depending on the 
techniques used, marking may be an alteration of the part. If so, it 
must be conducted in accordance with part 43.
    Comment: Some commenters state that the mix of ``critical 
component'' in the title to Sec. 45.14 and ``life-limited part'' in the 
rule could cause confusion.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The final rule adds Sec. 45.16 to 
cover marking instructions for life-limited parts rather than amending 
Sec. 45.14.
    Comment: Several commenters point out technical problems with 
safely marking certain kinds of parts, such as certain metal parts or 
composite parts.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that not all parts can be marked 
without compromising the part's integrity. In that case the type 
certificate holder or design approval holder should state that the part 
should not be marked. The remover must then use another method to 
control the part.
    New Sec. 45.16: The FAA determined that the subject matter of 
Sec. 43.14 was sufficiently different than the current rule to warrant 
adding a new section.
    New Sec. 45.16 provides that when requested by a person required to 
comply with Sec. 43.10 of this chapter, each holder of a type 
certificate and each holder of a design approval for a life-limited 
part must provide marking instructions, or must state that the part 
cannot be practicably marked without compromising its integrity. This 
information may be provided by providing marking instructions in 
readily available documents, such as the maintenance manual or the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    While the proposed rule directed the producer of the part to 
provide the instructions, the final rule states that the holder of the 
type certificate or design approval must provide the instructions. 
Often the producer is the same person as the holder of the type 
certificate or the design approval. However, it is the holder of the 
type certificate or design approval that has the most direct knowledge 
of the engineering considerations involved in whether, and how, a part 
can be marked without compromising its integrity. Marking instructions 
will include such things as where on the part to locate the mark and 
what materials or methods to use.
    A type certificate under part 21 is a design approval. There are 
other design approvals issued by FAA, such as a Parts Manufacturing 
Approval (PMA) under Sec. 21.303 and a Technical Standard Order 
Authorization (TSOA) under part 21, subpart O. New Sec. 45.16 refers to 
both type certificate holders and design approval holders for emphasis.

Comments With Economic Implications

    Comment: One commenter extrapolated an industry-wide cost estimate 
of this rule based on its experience with its own numerous repair 
stations. As did a number of other commenters, this commenter 
interpreted the language of the NPRM to incorporate temporary removal 
of life-limited parts, which would require much more frequent 
application of the rule than the agency intended.
    FAA Response: The FAA asked this commenter to clarify his comment 
because it included an industry-wide cost estimate that used the same 
methodological approach the agency used, but which resulted in a much 
larger estimate. The commenter explained that his estimate was based on 
each removal of each life-limited part done in his repair stations, 
including temporary removals followed by reinstallation. Because 
removals to this extent were not intended by the agency,

[[Page 2106]]

the commenter was asked to revisit his estimate and to exclude 
temporary removals. When the commenter based his estimate on this 
clarification, he reduced his original estimate greatly, such that it 
approximated the FAA's NPRM estimate. The FAA clarified its NPRM 
language by adding a new Sec. 43.10(b) that excludes application of the 
rule from temporary removals of parts from type certificated products. 
The FAA believes that if its clarified language had been available to 
the commenter for his NPRM estimate, that estimate would have 
approximated the agency's NPRM estimate.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that 15 minutes, rather than the 
five minutes the FAA estimated, better approximates the actual average 
time required to comply with the new rule.
    FAA Response: While the agency cannot reject the commenter's 
estimate of his own average compliance time, the agency cannot agree 
that the commenter's extrapolation of that estimate to an industry-wide 
average better approximates the agency's estimate. The FAA's reasons 
for disagreeing are as follow:
    (a) The agency's industry-wide estimate was approximately 
replicated as noted in the response to the proceeding comment; and
    (b) The agency notes that appropriate use of record keeping 
systems--cited elsewhere in these comments and responses as enabling 
compliance and being in wide use--is very likely to result in nearly 
instantaneous compliance. This observation is particularly apt for 
automated systems.
    Comment: One commenter proposed the FAA's approach to estimation of 
benefits and costs be based on the total of, and the life statuses of, 
the life-limited parts in all aircraft affected by this rule.
    FAA Response: While the FAA appreciates the suggestion, for the 
following reasons, the suggested approach will not support useful 
estimation:
    Within the fleet of aircraft affected by this rule are many and 
various life-limited parts. Within its limited life, each such part 
will have reached some life status specific to itself. Each such part 
will have been installed at some time specific to its aircraft's 
requirements. There is no uniform, benchmark installation date for 
life-limited parts across the fleet of affected aircraft, and there is 
no uniform life status across the variety of life-limited parts. No 
useful estimate could be based on so many different moving targets.
    However, there is one characteristic all life-limited parts have in 
common: Each will be removed in a manner subject to this rule. Thus, 
FAA bases its analysis on its estimate of the frequency of annual 
industry-wide removals subject to this rule.
    Comment: One commenter addresses three distinct areas, as follows:
    (a) He--and other commenters--challenge the FAA's assumption that 
about 625,000 annual removals subject to this rule are most likely to 
be performed by about 5,000 certificated repair stations. The commenter 
asserts that each datum is an underestimate, and the agency's industry-
wide cost estimate is thus flawed.
    (b) He--and other commenters--challenge the FAA estimate of 
``potentially affected parties'' (as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act) and state that it should be raised from about 5,000 
repair stations to about 900,000 individuals who have the potential to 
remove life-limited parts. The commenter's total specifically includes 
``about 720,000'' pilots and ``about 150,000'' aviation mechanics.
    (c) This commenter also challenges the FAA's characterization of 
this rule in terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; a response to 
that comment is provided separately below.
    FAA Response:
    (a) The FAA disagrees with the commenter's statement that 625,000 
annual removals are an underestimate that distorts the agency's 
industry-wide cost estimate. As did other commenters noted above, this 
commenter read the NPRM to mean that temporary removals are subject to 
this rule. As noted above, for this final rule, the FAA clarified the 
NPRM language on which the commenter's statement was based.
    (b) The FAA disagrees with the commenter's estimate that 900,000 
parties will be ``potentially affected'' by this rule. The FAA 
understands the term ``potentially'' to have dimensions of duration and 
likelihood, in contrast to the commenter's apparent application of the 
term to all time and any likelihood. The FAA agrees with the commenter 
that entities other than repair stations may remove life-limited parts 
subject to this rule. However, the agency stands by its NPRM assertion 
that most removals will be carried out by employees of repair stations. 
The FAA's reasons for disagreeing with this comment are as follows:
    The commenter notes that there are about 150,000 FAA-certified 
mechanics in the United States. A clearer statement is that up to about 
as many as 150,000 individuals are actively employed as aviation 
mechanics.\2\ Of these individuals, few (according to the U.S. 
Department of Labor) are self-employed.\3\ Thus, the commenter's 
estimate of 150,000 individual mechanics subject to this rule reduces 
to a much smaller number of employers with Paperwork Reduction Act 
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Interview with the Professional Aviation Maintenance 
Association, June 2001.
    \3\ Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2000-2001 Edition, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians, at 
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos179.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the FAA stands by its NPRM assertion that most removals will 
be carried out by repair stations, for this final rule, the agency 
departs from its NPRM estimate of about 5,000 and adopts its most 
recent actual count of 4,489 repair stations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Gellman Research Associates, ``Active Part 145 Certificate 
Holders,'' as of September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although some aviation mechanics identify themselves as employees 
of air carriers or of fixed base operators instead of as employees of 
the repair stations that these entities operate, the FAA believes that 
the majority of all aviation mechanics are employed by certificated 
repair stations.\5\ However, the agency agrees with the commenter that 
entities other than certificated repair stations may perform removals. 
These other entities include air carriers, fixed base operators, 
aviation salvagers, and individual pilots. Each entity will be 
considered in turn below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Aviation Maintenance, 1999 and 2000 Annual Salary Surveys, 
at http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/amsalary99.htm, and follow-
up interviews with Aviation Maintenance management, June 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air Carriers: The FAA believes that certificated air carriers 
either themselves are operators of certificated repair stations or have 
their removals of life-limited parts performed by certificated repair 
stations. Thus, the agency believes that the addition of air carriers 
to its count of repair stations results in no change in its assumption 
that most removals are performed by certificated repair stations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fixed Base Operators: The FAA notes that some fixed base operators 
also are certificated repair stations. The agency believes that such 
fixed base operators are those most likely to remove life-limited 
parts. The agency believes that there may be a small net addition of 
non-repair station FBO's to the agency's count of repair stations. The 
agency is not able to estimate the size of this increment.
    Aircraft Salvagers: The FAA notes that salvagers remove life-
limited parts from aircraft that are sent for salvage.

[[Page 2107]]

The FAA believes that, as common business practice, most such salvagers 
are well aware of the maintenance status of most aircraft they buy to 
be salvaged. Further, the agency believes that while salvagers 
generally find it in their economic interest to bear the costs of 
removing and selling only those life-limited parts that have sufficient 
life demonstrably remaining to be eligible for immediate installation, 
salvagers also remove some life-limited parts that are not eligible for 
immediate installation but are deemed suitable for refurbishing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Salvaging Jetsam * * *'' The Wall Street Journal, 
September 6, 2000, and interviews with cognizant officers of Air 
Salvage of Dallas and of The Memphis Group, June 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the commenter cites FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 00-56 as his 
basis for his noting that 2,500 aviation broker/dealers are potentially 
affected parties, this AC provides for the development and maintenance 
of a list of that subset of these broker/dealers who agree voluntarily 
to conform to part 43. This list currently has 205 members. The agency 
believes that most of the parts removals by aircraft salvagers are most 
likely to be performed by members of this subset. Thus, the agency's 
final cost estimate adds this subset of 205 to its count of 4,489 
repair stations.
    Pilots: The commenter notes the existence of the large general 
aviation community and cites an estimate of about 720,000 pilots in the 
United States. The FAA notes that pilots who are not also aviation 
mechanics are permitted to perform preventive maintenance, but not 
maintenance. The FAA believes that very few, if any, life-limited parts 
are likely to be removed for any reason in the course of preventive 
maintenance. Thus, few pilots who are not also aviation mechanics are 
likely to perform removals that are subject to this rule.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter that pilots who are not also 
certificated mechanics may remove life-limited parts for subsequent re-
installation by an aviation mechanic. However, as noted above, 
temporary removals are not subject to this rule.
    To to commenter's remark about the large size of the general 
aviation community, the FAA responds that there are about 220,000 \8\ 
active general aviation aircraft in the United States. Of these, about 
150,000 \9\ are single engine piston airplanes. The FAA believes that 
most of these 150,000 airplanes have few life-limited parts. Further, 
in most cases, those life-limited parts are removed by a certificated 
mechanic, not the pilot. Thus. the likelihood that each of these 
720,000 individual pilots would remove a life-limited part from a 
general aviation aircraft during any one year is very small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 2000 GAMA Databook, General Aviation Fleet and Flight 
Activity. General Aviation Manufacturers' Association, at http://www.generalaviation.org/datasbook/2000/index.html.
    \9\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA stands by its NPRM estimate of 5,000 removers subject to 
this rule. The FAA is adding the 205 broker/dealers to the agency's 
most recent count of 4,489 repair stations, as well as adding some 
FBO's that are not certificated repair stations, and some self-employed 
certificated mechanics. The estimate of 5,000 stands as a ceiling 
estimate.
    Comment: The above commenter asserts that the FAA may not forbear 
from performing a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis on the grounds 
that the costs are owing to the law that prompts the rulemaking, and 
not to the rule by which the law is implemented.
    FAA Response: The NPRM analysis proposed that the average annual 
costs of compliance with this rule would be about $1,250 for the 1,500 
most involved repair stations and about $200 for the 3,500 least 
involved. Continuing analysis in support of this final rule, as its 
requirements have been clarified, suggests these costs are 
overestimates. For example, of the compliance options available, two 
are likely to require little or no additional cost. These are: (1) 
Controlling the part of means of a record keeping system that is 
updated at each removal and which substantiates the part number, serial 
number, and current life-status of the part; and (2) physical 
segregation of removed parts. Further, the option of mutilation may 
include sale of the mutilated part as scrap metal. Such a sale would 
offset some or all of any additional cost of this option. The agency 
has not attempted to rework its NPRM estimate in light of this further 
analysis and clarification.
    As the summary Regulatory Evaluation describes, the practice of 
most removers already approaches the requirements of this rule through 
the exercise of good shop practice, good business practice, following 
the guidance of AC's, and complying with those existing CFR's that 
indirectly constrain the disposition of life-limited parts. Thus, the 
FAA believes that no entity of any size subject to this rule will incur 
a significant cost burden.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office 
of Management and Budget for its review. The collection of information 
was approved and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0665. This final rule 
requires that each person who removes any life-limited aircraft part 
must safely control that part to deter its installation after it has 
reached its life limit. This rule also requires that type certificate 
and design approval holders of life-limited parts provide instructions 
on how to mark a part indicated its current status, when requested by 
persons removing such a part.
    Comments on the proposal have been addressed previously. In 
general, comments that dealt with the Paperwork Reduction Act also 
dealt with estimation of the cost burden.
    The likely respondents to this proposed information requirement are 
persons responsible for removing and dispositioning life-limited parts. 
The FAA stands by its NPRM estimate of 5,000 total responding entities. 
However, the agency has revised the composition of this total. In the 
proposal our estimate included 5,000 certificated repair stations as 
respondents. For the final rule, the 5,000 responding entities include 
4,489 certificated repair stations, 205 salvagers, an indeterminate 
number of fixed base operators that are not certificated repair 
stations, and an indeterminate number of self-employed certificated 
aviation mechanics will carry out the requirements of this rule.
    The FAA estimates each of 1,500 of the 5,000 entities noted above 
will perform 300 such procedures as an annual average. Each of the 
remaining 3,500 will average 50 procedures annually. Thus, the annual 
frequency of information requirements is 625,000 procedures.
    The FAA refined its NPRM estimate of annual burden, and has 
determined that there is no more than a minimal paperwork burden on any 
respondent. Both the proposal and the final rule estimate are based on 
625,000 annual removals subject to the rule. In the NPRM each removal 
was estimated to require record keeping and reporting requirements of 
five minutes duration, at $50 per hour. Thus for the NPRM, the total 
annual estimated burden of Public Law 106-181 was about $2,600,000, 
borne by a total of 5,000 respondents. In the final rule this estimate 
is decreased by an indeterminate amount because the rule is satisfied 
by the--
    (a) Control for safe-disposition of life limited parts through the 
appropriate use of record keeping systems that are known in wide use; 
and
    (b) Physical segregation of life-limited parts that have little or 
no remaining

[[Page 2108]]

capacity as airworthy parts. Many certificated operators and air 
agencies are known to make use of this method of control.
    While a respondent may find it useful to satisfy the rule by one or 
more of the remaining options, the FAA believes that neither case above 
is likely to result in an additional Paperwork Reduction Act burden.
    Further, the option of mutilation is likely to reduce the NPRM 
estimate. This option may include the sale of the mutilated part as 
scrap metal. Such a sale would offset some of all of any additional 
cost of this option.
    Because FAA has not attempted to determine the preference ranking 
by respondents of the options permitted under this rule, it has no 
basis by which to estimate the amount the choice of these options will 
decrease the NPRM estimate. Thus, the NPRM estimate should be 
considered to be a ceiling cost.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal Regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determined 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies 
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles of the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires the consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more, in any one year (adjusted for inflation).
    However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-
specified analyses are not required. If it is determined that the 
expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full 
evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included 
in the evaluation.
    Consistent with Department of Transportation policies and 
procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations, 
this rule is deemed to have a minimal impact, and does not warrant a 
full evaluation. The FAA has reviewed the comments generated by the 
NPRM regarding this rule, and has refined its NPRM analysis, and finds 
no justification to change its determination of minimal impact.

Expected Benefits

    This rule will increase safety benefits by decreasing the 
possibility of installation into a type-certificated product of life-
limited parts that have reached their life-limits. While no existing 
FAA rule specifies the safe disposition of a life-limited part that is 
not intended, permissibly, to be re-installed, in general, current 
industry shop and business practices already inhibit such installation. 
These practices generally reflect the direction and guidance of 
numerous, distinct current FAA regulatory and advisory publications. 
The agency has not attempted to quantify the incremental safety 
benefits of this rule.

Expected Costs

    It is the FAA's intent that this rulemaking would specify only the 
requirements necessary to bring industry into compliance with Public 
Law 106-181. Thus, the FAA expects that additional compliance costs 
will be attributable to the regulation and not to the rule.
    The implementation of the legislation that directs this rule adds 
to existing requirements, and consequently to costs, by requiring that 
each person removing a life-limited part from a type-certificated 
product must control the disposition of that part by record keeping, 
marking, tagging, segregating, mutilating, or any other approved or 
accepted method that deters the installation of that life-limited part 
that has reached its life limit. However, as above, although no 
existing FAA rule specifies the safe disposition of a life-limited part 
that is not intended, permissibly, to be re-installed, in general, 
current industry shop and business practices already inhibit such 
installation. Also as above, these practices generally reflect the 
direction and guidance of numerous, distinct current FAA regulatory and 
advisory publications.
    The cost estimate for this final rule refines the NPRM estimate and 
revises it downward by an indeterminate amount. The NPRM estimate 
assumed that about 5,000 business entities would perform almost all of 
the activities subject to this rule. Of these entities, about 1,500 
would perform about 300 rule-subject removals annually, while the 
remaining 3,500 would perform about 50. Each removal was assumed to 
require an additional 5 minutes at $50 per hour. Thus, each larger 
remover would incur an additional annual cost of about $1,250. Annual 
costs for each smaller remover would be about $200. Each amount was 
given in 2001 dollars.
    This final rule estimate departs from those assumptions and 
estimates for two reasons, as follow:
    (a) The rule is satisfied by the safe-disposition of life limited 
parts through the use of record keeping systems that are known to be in 
wide use.
    (b) The rule is satisfied by the physical segregation of life-
limited parts that have little or no remaining capacity as airworthy 
parts. Many certificated operators and air agencies are known to make 
use of this method of control.
    While a remover may find it useful to satisfy the rule by one or 
more of its other options, the FAA believes that neither case above is 
likely to result in additional cost. In fact, a respondent may well 
have a record keeping system in place and also physically segregate 
parts as appropriate. Further, the option of mutilation may include the 
sale of the mutilated part as scrap metal. Such a sale would offset 
some or all of any additional cost of this option.
    Because FAA has not attempted to determine the preference ranking 
by respondents of the options permitted under this rule, it has no 
basis by which to estimate the amount the choice of these options will 
decrease the NPRM estimate. Thus, the NPRM estimate should be 
considered to be a ceiling cost.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale

[[Page 2109]]

of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject 
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement 
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear.
    This final rule estimate was refined and reduced from the NPRM 
estimate. The earlier estimate resulted in 1,500 larger removers each 
incurring an additional annual cost of about $1,250. Additional annual 
costs for each of the 3,500 smaller removers were estimated about $200. 
Each amount was given in 2001 dollars.
    As noted previously, these NPRM estimates must be taken as ceiling 
estimates because of the--
    (a) Existing use of compliant record keeping systems,
    (b) Existing practice of physically segregating life-limited parts 
that have little or no remaining capacity as airworthy parts, and
    (c) Likelihood that some or all of the costs of the option of 
mutilation will be offset by the sale of the mutilated part as scrap 
metal.
    As stated previously, the agency has made no attempt to estimate 
the amount by which these factors reduce the NPRM estimates.
    Because this rule imposes no more than minimal economic effects on 
removers of any size, whether small or large, the FAA certifies that it 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    The FAA has determined the potential effect of this rule will be 
minimal and, in accordance with the above statute and policy, holds 
that this rule will not result in an impact on international trade by 
companies doing business in or with the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, enacted as Public Law 
104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to curb the 
practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and 
tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to 
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal 
mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 
one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.''
    This rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
analytical requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 do not apply.

Regulations Affecting Interstate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting interstate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. The FAA received no 
comments on whether there is justification for applying the rule 
differently in interstate operations in Alaska. Because this rule has a 
minor impact on current operations, including that it applies only to 
the subsequent use of these life-limited aircraft parts, it will not 
affect interstate aviation in Alaska. Accordingly, FAA has determined 
that there is no need to apply the rule differently in interstate 
operations in Alaska.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action would 
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, we determined that this rulemaking would not have federalism 
implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of this rule has been assessed in accordance with 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1 It has been determined 
that the rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of 
the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 43

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited parts, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 45

    Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND 
ALTERATION

    1. Revise the authority citation for part 43 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44703, 44705, 44707, 
44711, 44713, 44717, 44725.

    2. Add Sec. 43.1(c) to read as follows:


[[Page 2110]]




Sec. 43.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) This part applies to all life-limited parts that are removed 
from a type certificated product, segregated, or controlled as provided 
in Sec. 43.10.

    3. Add Sec. 43.10 to read as follows:


Sec. 43.10  Disposition of life-limited aircraft parts.

    (a) Definitions used in this section. For the purposes of this 
section the following definitions apply.
    Life-limited part means any part for which a mandatory replacement 
limit is specified in the type design, the Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness, or the maintenance manual.
    Life status means the accumulated cycles, hours, or any other 
mandatory replacement limit of a life-limited part.
    (b) Temporary removal of parts from type-certificated products. 
When a life-limited part is temporarily removed and reinstalled for the 
purpose of performing maintenance, no disposition under paragraph (c) 
of this section is required if--
    (1) The life status of the part has not changed;
    (2) The removal and reinstallation is performed on the same serial 
numbered product; and
    (3) That product does not accumulate time in service while the part 
is removed.
    (c) Disposition of parts removed from type-certificated products. 
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, after April 15, 
2002 each person who removes a life-limited part from a type-
certificated product must ensure that the part is controlled using one 
of the methods in this paragraph. The method must deter the 
installation of the part after it has reached its life limit. 
Acceptable methods include:
    (1) Record keeping system. The part may be controlled using a 
record keeping system that substantiates the part number, serial 
number, and current life status of the part. Each time the part is 
removed from a type certificated product, the record must be updated 
with the current life status. This system may include electronic, 
paper, or other means of record keeping.
    (2) Tag or record attached to part. A tag or other record may be 
attached to the part. The tag or record must include the part number, 
serial number, and current life status of the part. Each time the part 
is removed from a type certificated product, either a new tag or record 
must be created, or the existing tag or record must be updated with the 
current life status.
    (3) Non-permanent marking. The part may be legibly marked using a 
non-permanent method showing its current life status. The life status 
must be updated each time the part is removed from a type certificated 
product, or if the mark is removed, another method in this section may 
be used. The mark must be accomplished in accordance with the 
instructions under Sec. 45.16 of this chapter in order to maintain the 
integrity of the part.
    (4) Permanent marking. The part may be legibly marked using a 
permanent method showing its current life status. The life status must 
be updated each time the part is removed from a type certificated 
product. Unless the part is permanently removed from use on type 
certificated products, this permanent mark must be accomplished in 
accordance with the instructions under Sec. 45.16 of this chapter in 
order to maintain the integrity of the part.
    (5) Segregation. The part may be segregated using methods that 
deter its installation on a type-certificated product. These methods 
must include, at least--
    (i) Maintaining a record of the part number, serial number, and 
current life status, and
    (ii) Ensuring the part is physically stored separately from parts 
that are currently eligible for installation.
    (6) Mutilation. The part may be mutilated to deter its installation 
in a type certificated produce. The mutilation must render the part 
beyond repair and incapable of being reworked to appear to be 
airworthy.
    (7) Other methods. Any other method approved or accepted by the 
FAA.
    (d) Transfer of life-limited parts. Each person who removes a life-
limited part from a type certificated product and later sells or 
otherwise transfers that part must transfer with the part the mark, 
tag, or other record used to comply with this section, unless the part 
is mutilated before it is sold or transferred.

    4. The authority citation for part 45 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 44109, 40113-40114, 44101-
44105, 44107-44108, 44110-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-
44713, 44725, 45302-45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.


    5. Add Sec. 45.16 to read as follows:


Sec. 45.16  Marking of life-limited parts.

    When requested by a person required to comply with Sec. 43.10 of 
this chapter, the holder of a type certificate or design approval for a 
life-limited part must provide marking instructions, or must state that 
the part cannot be practicably marked without compromising its 
integrity. Compliance with this paragraph may be made by providing 
marking instructions in readily available documents, such as the 
maintenance manual or the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2002.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-492 Filed 1-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M