[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64730-64798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28407]



[[Page 64729]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 25, 33, 121, 135



Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-engine Airplanes; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 64730]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 25, 33, 121, 135

[Docket No. FAA-2002-6717; Notice No. 03-11]
RIN 2120-AI03


Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-engine Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to issue regulations governing the design, 
maintenance, and operation of airplanes and engines for flights that go 
beyond certain distances from an adequate airport. This proposal would 
extend some requirements that previously applied only to two-engine 
airplanes to airplanes with more than two-engines. The proposed rule 
implements existing policy, industry best practices and 
recommendations, and international standards to ensure that long-range 
flights will operate safely.

DATES: Send your comments on or before January 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2002-
6717 by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov. including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric vanOpstal, Flight Standards 
Service, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-3774; facsimile (202) 267-5229.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited. The FAA invites interested 
persons to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting 
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to 
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impact that might 
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful 
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the 
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask 
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Regulatory Notices

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

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 five 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 of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the 
Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Background

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has long-standing 
regulations that restrict the operations of two-engine air carrier 
airplanes operated under part 121, Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR). Under current regulations these airplanes may not 
be operated on routes that lie more than sixty minutes from an airport 
unless authorized by the Administrator. The premise for these 
restrictions was that two-engine airplanes were less safe than three 
and four engine airplanes particularly over very long distances.

History of ETOPS

    In the 1980s, a new generation of very reliable, two engine 
airplanes came into service and changed the underlying premise that 
restricted the operations of these airplanes. The airline industry 
sought to take advantage of the

[[Page 64731]]

improvements in reliability, range, and payload capabilities that these 
new airplanes offered. Beginning in 1985, the FAA allowed air carriers 
to operate certain twin-engine airplanes on routes that included points 
more than sixty-minutes from an adequate airport under a formal program 
known as Extended Range Operation with Two Engine Airplanes 
(``ETOPS''). The regulatory basis of ETOPS was the deviation authority 
contained in 14 CFR section 121.161. With the cooperation of the 
airlines, manufacturers, and other interested groups, the FAA carefully 
controlled and monitored this new type of flight operation.

Historical Documents

Advisory Circulars 120-42 and 120-42A

    In support of ETOPS, the FAA issued two Advisory Circulars (AC) 
120-42 and 120-42A in 1985 and 1988 respectively. These two AC 
documents have been the basis for type design and operational practices 
for ETOPS to date. Initially, the FAA set a maximum approval of 120 
minutes from an airport for ETOPS. During the nascent stage of ETOPS, 
air carriers gained significant service experience; the safety and 
efficiency of ETOPS became apparent. In 1988, the FAA increased that 
approval to 180 minutes based on demonstrated safety record of these 
operations.

Deviation Authority From Sec.  121.161 Prior to ETOPS

    Since the 1970s, the FAA has authorized two-engine operations on 
routes up to 75 minutes away from an airport exclusively in the 
Caribbean. These were not considered ETOPS flights. These flights were 
approved by the FAA as deviations under section 121.161, but were 
authorized before a formal ETOPS program was developed. These 
deviations were approved after a safety evaluation of the areas of 
operation, the airplanes, and the operators conducting them.

207 Minute ETOPS

    In March 1999, the Air Transport Association (ATA) asked the FAA to 
extend the 180-minute ETOPS authorization an additional fifteen percent 
to 207-minutes. The FAA published the ATA letter and asked for comments 
(64 FR 22667, April 27, 1999). Several commenters suggested that the 
FAA should formalize ETOPS in the regulations rather than continuing to 
rely on the deviation authority in section 121.161 and advisory 
materials. In January 2000, the FAA approved 207 minute ETOPS and 
stated its intent to task an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC) Working Group to study the issues and to recommend regulations 
for ETOPS (65 FR 3522, January 21, 2000). In this same notice, the FAA 
solicited comments from the public on its decision to approve 207 
minute ETOPS.

Polar Operations Letter

    The increasing use of Polar flights, while creating economic 
benefits, has brought new challenges to extended operations such as 
climactic extremes. Due to these new challenges and to the increasing 
similarity among all long-range operations, experience began to show 
that ETOPS requirements and processes are generally applicable to all 
long-range operations including those by three and four engine 
airplanes and would improve their safety.

Harmonization With International Standards

Related International Activity
    Two related activities should be noted. First, the Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA) of European nations has chartered a working group 
that is also developing standards and guidance material for extended 
operations. In ongoing efforts of both the FAA and JAA to coordinate 
regulatory requirements, one of the ARAC ETOPS Working Group tasks was 
to ``harmonize * * * standardized requirements across national 
boundaries and regulatory bodies.'' Toward that end, there are 
representatives who are members of both the ARAC ETOPS Working Group 
and the JAA Working Group. Also, the two groups met together twice in 
Europe to facilitate joint action and harmonization. Second, the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Air Navigation 
Commission (ANC) Operations Panel has decided to develop standards and 
recommended practices (SARPS) for extended range operations. In May of 
2001, the ARAC ETOPS Working Group held one of its meetings in 
Montreal, Quebec, Canada (ICAO's headquarters city) for the purpose of 
briefing members of the ANC and ICAO Air Navigation Bureau staff.

ARAC ETOPS Working Group Task Statement

    The FAA established the ARAC ETOPS Working Group through a notice 
in the Federal Register at 65 FR 37447, dated June 14, 2000. It was 
given the following tasks:
    1. Review the existing policy and requirements found in Advisory 
Circular (AC) 120-42A, applicable ETOPS special conditions, and policy 
memorandums and notices, for certification and operational regulations 
and guidance material for ETOPS approvals up to 180 minutes.
    2. Develop comprehensive ETOPS airworthiness standards for 14 CFR 
parts 25, 33, 121, and 135, as appropriate, to codify the existing 
policies and practices.
    3. Develop ETOPS requirements for operations in excess of 180 
minutes up to whatever extent that may be justified. Develop those 
requirements such that incremental approvals up to a maximum may be 
approved.
    4. Develop standardized requirements for extended range operations 
for all airplanes, regardless of the number of engines, including all 
turbojet and turbopropeller commercial twin-engine airplanes (business 
jets), excluding reciprocating engine powered commercial airplanes. 
This effort should establish criteria for diversion times up to 180 
minutes that is consistent with existing ETOPS policy and procedures. 
It should also develop criteria for diversion times beyond 180 minutes 
that is consistent with the ETOPS criteria developed by the Working 
Group.
    5. Develop additional guidance and/or advisory material as the ARAC 
finds appropriate.
    6. Harmonize such standardized requirements across national 
boundaries and regulatory bodies.
    7. Any proposal to increase the safety requirements for existing 
ETOPS approvals up to 207 minutes must contain data defining the unsafe 
conditions that would warrant the safety requirements.
    8. The Working Group will provide briefings to the Transport 
Airplane and Engine Issues group.
    9. The recommendations should consider the comments received as a 
result of the April 27, 1999 and January 21, 2000 Federal Register 
notices.
    10. Within one year of publication of the ARAC task in the Federal 
Register, submit recommendations to the FAA in the form of a proposed 
rule.

Formation and Membership of the ETOPS Working Group

Formation
    Following the formal tasking notice in the Federal Register, the 
ARAC organized an ETOPS Working Group.
Membership
    The ETOPS Working Group consisted of over 50 representatives of 
U.S. and foreign airlines, aircraft and engine manufacturers, pilots' 
unions, industry groups, air disaster support groups, and

[[Page 64732]]

representatives from the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the FAA.
    In accordance with the task statement and the Working Group's work 
plan approved by the ARAC Air Carrier Operations Issues Group on August 
15, 2000, the Working Group reviewed existing ETOPS documents and 
developed a risk assessment method for ETOPS and other long-range 
flights. The risk assessment method is comprised of three parts: a loss 
of thrust model; a system safety analysis using the FAR/JAR 25.1309 
process; and an operational assessment assuring that pertinent 
operational considerations are taken into account.
    On the basis of the risk model and their review of long-range 
operations, the Working Group used the following general concepts as 
the basis for proposed regulations and advisory material.
    [sbull] Special considerations must be given for extended range 
flights to prevent the need for a diversion and to protect the airplane 
and passengers during the diversion when it cannot be prevented;
    [sbull] Airplanes must be designed and built for the intended 
mission.
    [sbull] Airplanes must be designed, manufactured, and maintained at 
a level that ensures the original reliability throughout the life of 
the airplane.
    [sbull] When engine reliability reaches a certain level, as 
measured by the In Flight Shut Down (IFSD) rate (IFSD=0.01/1,000 
hours), the risk of independent failures leading to loss of all thrust 
is not significant enough to require limiting the allowed time from an 
airport and other limiting factors come into play.
    [sbull] For part 121 air carrier operations, ETOPS should be 
defined as flights more than 60 minutes from an adequate airport for 
two-engine airplanes and more than 180 minutes from an adequate airport 
for air carrier airplanes with more than two engines. For part 135 
operations ETOPS should be defined as flights more than 180 minutes 
from an adequate airport.
    [sbull] Because of extreme climactic conditions certain ETOPS 
requirements should be applied to Polar operations even if those 
operations would not otherwise be considered ETOPS
    [sbull] Part 135 operations have unique considerations
    Improvements in airplane engine and system reliability have reached 
a point that they may no longer be the constraining factor on the long-
range flight operations. The Working Group found, however, and the FAA 
agrees, that it would be prudent for two-engine airplanes to remain 
within 180 minutes of an adequate airport whenever possible. There is a 
positive correlation between risk and diversion length. Thus the FAA 
believes that diversion lengths should be kept to a minimum.

ARAC ETOPS Working Group Concept General Observations

    As already noted, the working group acknowledged that the 
reliability of aircraft engines and systems has improved to the point 
that it may not be limiting to the operation. The Working Group 
recommended that two-engine airplanes should be approved in many cases 
for 180 minutes ETOPS and ETOPS beyond 180 minutes may be appropriate 
in some situations. The Working Group recommended that airplanes with 
more than two engines should be approved for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes 
in many cases. Even though engine reliability has significantly 
improved, diversions are sometimes necessary for reasons that are 
unrelated to the number of engines on an aircraft and their 
reliability, such as passenger illness or other occurrences.
    Regarding extended range operations by jet-powered airplanes under 
part 135, FAA policy for many years has permitted such flights up to 
180 minutes from an airport, without additional ETOPS-like 
requirements. Operational experience has validated that policy, and the 
Working Group proposal continues existing policy and provides for 
flights with longer diversion times with appropriate additional 
requirements.
    Regarding extended range operations by air carrier airplanes with 
more than two engines, those flights have been conducted without any 
ETOPS-like requirements since the air carrier jet era began. The 
Working Group's proposals would ensure the continued safety of those 
flights by adding requirements in areas that are not dependent upon the 
number of engines on the airplane, such as cargo fire protection 
duration.
    The ETOPS Working Group has proposed regulations and guidance 
material in three specific areas: Type Design (parts 25 and 33); part 
121 Operations; and part 135 Operations.

General Discussion of the Proposal

FAA Approach to the ARAC Recommendations

    In developing this proposal the FAA has accepted ARAC 
recommendations without change where possible. The FAA made changes for 
clarity, to correct for incomplete ARAC recommendations, to ensure that 
requirements are legally sufficient, and to make improvements in style 
of presentation. The FAA provides explanation in this notice for any 
substantial differences with the ARAC recommendation.

General Issues

Terminology--Extended Operations (ETOPS)
    This proposal has two primary objectives: (1) To create new 
regulations and amend existing regulations for the design, maintenance, 
and operation of aircraft used in ETOPS; thus far ETOPS has been 
allowed by the FAA's discretionary authority and supported by an 
Advisory Circular and; (2) To apply the lessons learned from ETOPS to 
all airplanes that are operated in Extended Operations (ETOPS) 
regardless of the number of engines. The acronym ETOPS would apply to 
all airplanes in Extended Operations and not just twin-engine 
airplanes. These rules would apply equally to airplanes operating over 
oceanic areas or routes entirely over land.
Risk Model
    Item 3 of the ARAC tasking was to ``develop ETOPS requirements for 
operations in excess of 180 minutes up to whatever extent that may be 
justified.'' At the early ARAC ETOPS Working Group meetings, the FAA 
presented a new risk model for assessing risk on an ETOPS flight. The 
new approach for assessing the overall risk of critical thrust loss on 
an ETOPS flight considers such factors as the length of the flight and 
engine reliability in addition to the more traditional maximum 
diversion time.
    The ARAC ETOPS Working Group adopted the FAA's proposed risk model 
and further developed it to apply it to three and four engine 
airplanes. It did this by including the corresponding engine failure 
rate that would be required to achieve an equivalent risk of critical 
thrust loss due to independent failures on three and four engine 
airplanes. We will now summarize the risk model used in the development 
of this proposed rule.
    The basic premise that the FAA used in developing its risk model is 
that ETOPS service experience is excellent and that any changes to 
allow further expansion of ETOPS need to preserve this record. With 
this premise in mind, the basic objective is to define a risk model 
that would allow an expansion of two engine airplane operations to use 
the same routes as three and four engine airplanes with no substantial 
change in the overall risk.

[[Page 64733]]

    Currently, we manage dual engine shut down risk on two engine 
airplanes by limiting the maximum allowable diversion distance and 
requiring a low engine in-flight shutdown rate. This is a one-
dimensional risk model in that with a constant in-flight shutdown rate, 
the existing ETOPS requirements and policy consider only the maximum 
distance that an operator may plan a route from an enroute diversion 
airport. It assumes that there is a constant risk during the course of 
a flight with no consideration of how the actual diversion times vary 
along the track as different alternate airports come into and out of 
range of the airplane. This approach also does not consider the 
increase in overall risk that is created by increasing an airplane's 
range, and thus time aloft, by adding fuel. Further, this model 
provides no means to assess the effect on overall risk with changes 
with engine failure rates. Actual ETOPS involve continuously changing 
distances to alternates. Current ETOPS limits on maximum diversion time 
don't represent real world risk because diversions can occur anywhere 
along the track, not just at the maximum point. The new ETOPS risk 
model adopted for the development of this new proposed rule is based on 
the introduction of a ``two dimensional'' model to replace the ``one 
dimensional'' maximum diversion time/distance model currently in use.
    The new ETOPS Exposure Index is a simplified form of several risk 
equations that have been developed over the past forty years. All share 
similar characteristics. The ARAC ETOPS Working Group compared several 
different mathematical representations for allowable risk versus engine 
failure rate. Each showed that an engine failure rate on the order of 
0.01 per 1,000 engine flight hours was adequate to allow diversion 
times for two engine airplanes that for all practical purposes could be 
considered as unrestricted.
    The new risk model consists of a comparative risk index based on a 
combination of range, average diversion distance, and engine failure 
rate. Independent cause dual engine shut down risk is driven by the 
footprint area of the route multiplied by the engine failure rate (E) 
squared. The footprint area is defined as the route length (L) 
multiplied by the average diversion distance (D). Note that the engine 
shut down rate is squared to account for loss of first engine and then 
loss of second engine. Therefore, we define ``ETOPS Exposure Index'' 
(EEI) as a function of:
    [sbull] Footprint Area (Route Length x Average Diversion Distance) 
(L x D) and
    [sbull] E2 (Engine Failure Rate Squared)

EEI = L x D x E2

    The ETOPS Exposure Index can be used as an evaluation tool to 
assess risk of ETOPS operations due to independent engine failure 
causes. Assuming the following values for each of the terms of the 
equation:
    [sbull] Route Length = 5500 nautical miles,
    [sbull] Average Distance for 180 minute ETOPS = 800 nautical miles, 
and
    [sbull] Engine failure rate at the current required level = 0.02 
shutdowns/1,000 engine-hours or 50,000 hours time between shutdowns.
    The EEI would then be:

EEI = 5500 x 800 x 0.022 = 1760

    With the ETOPS Exposure Index fixed at this level, longer flights 
and greater maximum diversion distances can be offset by decreased 
engine failure rate. In other words, as E becomes smaller, L and/or D 
can increase appropriately. An engine failure rate of one-half the 
current requirement (E = 0.01/1,000 engine-hours) would allow a four 
times increase in ``footprint'' area.

EEI = L x D x E2
EEI = 5500 x 800 x 0.022 = 1760 equals
EEI = 5500 x 3200 x 0.012 = 1760 equals
EEI = 11,000 x 1600 x 0.012 = 1760

In other words, with an engine failure rate that is one-half the 
current requirement for 180 minute ETOPS we could allow four times the 
average diversion distance or a combination of increased route length 
and average diversion distance with no change in the current ETOPS 
risk.
    For a two engine airplane, engine failure rate has the biggest 
impact on ETOPS risk because the factor is squared. A reduction in the 
engine failure rate has a large impact on the size of an allowable 
footprint area for the same risk. Using the ETOPS Exposure Index 
concept with a reduction in the engine failure rate standard allows the 
development of ETOPS rules for two engine airplanes that minimize 
restrictions on airline operations while maintaining the current 
excellent ETOPS safety record.
    Current in-service engines are capable of achieving better than 
100,000 hours time between shutdowns (.01/1,000 engine-hours), or 
double the current ETOPS reliability standard. This represents two in-
flight shutdowns in the entire life of a typical transport airplane. It 
is not reasonable to expect that two in-flight shutdowns due to 
independent causes in the entire life of a typical transport airplane 
would occur on the same flight.
    With an IFSD rate of 0.01/1,000 hours, the probability of complete 
loss of thrust due to independent failures will be sufficiently low so 
that the main focus of long-range operational safety can be on reducing 
the possibility of other risk factors.
    We emphasize that this risk model represents a good tool for 
evaluating the risk of critical thrust loss due to ``independent'' 
failure causes. The biggest threat to long-range operational safety 
continues to be the loss of thrust from multiple engines resulting 
from:

Common Cause Multiple Failures
Cascading Multiple Failures
Fuel Exhaustion

These threats are common to all long-range operations, regardless of 
the number of engines on the airplane.
    Examples of common cause multiple failure events:

Eastern Airlines L1011 nearly lost all engines after improper 
installation of engine magnetic chip detectors.
B-747 volcanic ash cloud encounter during volcanic eruption in Alaska--
All engines severely damaged by ash.

    Example of potential cascading failure:
Worn-out second engine fails after application of higher power 
following failure of first engine

    Examples of Fuel Exhaustion events:

Air Canada 767--No power landing into Gimli, Canada
Air Transat A330--No power landing in the Azores

    Sources of Common Cause and Cascading Failures:

Common Design Faults
    Hardware
    Software
Environmental Exposures
    Weather
    Volcanic Ash Clouds
    Bird Strikes
    High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)
    Lightning
    Simultaneous Maintenance on More than One Engine
    Contaminated Fuel

    Sources of Fuel Exhaustion:
Operational Errors
    Fuel System Mismanagement
    Fuel Loading Errors
Misleading Fuel Quantity Indications
Misleading Fuel Loading Procedures particularly during a non-normal 
(MEL) dispatch

    Constant awareness of potential sources of common cause failures, 
cascading failures, and fuel exhaustion is the key to continued long-
range operational safety. This awareness, growing from operating 
experience, is the basis for continued ETOPS safety. ETOPS safety 
enhancements focus on defining methods to prevent potential threats 
caused by known sources.
    Examples of Common Cause/Cascading Failure Prevention Strategies:


[[Page 64734]]


1. No single person performing simultaneous engine maintenance or 
servicing
2. Conservative fuel loading requirements
3. Intense rain/hail ingestion engine design requirements
4. Constant adherence to established ETOPS procedures without exception
5. Robust engine condition monitoring program

The FAA incorporated prevention strategies for these types of failures 
into airworthiness requirements and ETOPS policy as we learned of them. 
This proposal would codify those prevention strategies for known 
sources of common cause, cascading and fuel exhaustion failures that 
have not been incorporated into the regulations.
    The ARAC ETOPS Working Group also looked at how the new risk model 
could be applied to airplanes with more than two engines. For these 
types of airplanes, the working group had to decide what a critical 
loss of thrust was in order to determine the impact that engine failure 
rate would have on overall risk. For a two-engine airplane, the risk 
model assumes that a loss of both engines is a critical thrust loss. 
This is because there is a general expectation that the result of such 
an occurrence would be a catastrophic loss of the airplane; though 
there are examples of safe landings following the loss of both engines. 
The working group applied a similar approach to define a critical 
thrust loss for airplanes with more than two engines.
    The operating rules contained in 14 CFR part 121 have minimum 
performance requirements with two engines inoperative for airplanes 
that have more than two engines. Using this as a guide, the working 
group assumed that critical thrust loss for both three and four engine 
airplanes would be three engines. If three engines fail on either kind 
of airplane, there is a general expectation that the result would be a 
catastrophic loss of the airplane. In other words, the risk model 
assumes the fourth engine on a four-engine airplane provides no 
additional safety benefit compared to the loss of all engines on a 
three-engine airplane. As is the case for two-engine airplanes, there 
are examples where a flight crew was able to safely land a four-engine 
airplane following the loss of three of the engines. However, the ETOPS 
risk model makes the conservative assumption that this would result in 
loss of the airplane.
    This assumption for three and four engine airplanes changes the 
risk model equations so that for these types of airplanes, the 
probability of the loss of three engines would be much more remote than 
the loss of both engines on a two engine airplane. Under this 
assumption there is a higher probability of losing three engines on a 
four-engine airplane than on a three-engine airplane. The following 
example illustrates the concept. A three-engine and a four-engine 
airplane are in-flight. Both airplanes suffer the loss of two-engines 
due to independent causes but can reach a diversion airport. However 
the loss of an additional engine for either airplane at this point 
would be catastrophic for the airplane. The three-engine airplane has a 
single engine that could possibly fail while the four-engine airplane 
has two engines that could possibly fail. In this unlikely situation, 
the four-engine airplane is at greater risk because the probability of 
experiencing an engine failure event increases with the number of 
engines. Assuming that the engine failure rate is the same for each 
type of airplane, a four-engine airplane would have twice the 
probability of losing one of the two remaining engines than the three-
engine airplane would have of losing the one remaining engine.
    Using the available risk model equations with these considerations, 
the ARAC ETOPS Working Group determined that the in-flight shutdown 
rate for a three engine airplane would be approximately 0.2 shutdowns 
per 1,000 engine-hours to have an equivalent risk of critical thrust 
loss compared to a two engine airplane with an in-flight shutdown rate 
of 0.01 per 1,000 engine-hours. On a four-engine airplane, the 
equivalent in-flight shutdown rate would be 0.1 per 1,000 engine-hours.
    Because these rates are so high compared to the failure rates 
currently achieved by today's turbine engines, the FAA does not 
consider it necessary to specify in-flight shutdown rates for three and 
four engine airplanes other than as part of an operator's propulsion 
system monitoring program. Under these programs, the operator must 
notify the FAA and take corrective action if these rates are exceeded.
In-flight Shutdown (IFSD) Rate
    Propulsion system monitoring is vital to ensure safe ETOPS flights. 
A propulsion system monitoring program is intended to detect adverse 
trends, to identify potential problems, and to establish criteria for 
when corrective action may be necessary. The certificate holder would 
have to ensure that its ETOPS airplanes have In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD) 
rates commensurate with the world fleet's operation for that airplane 
type. Propulsion system monitoring at the operator level has been 
accomplished via the guidance of AC 120-42A which defined specific IFSD 
rates for ETOPS.
    Propulsion system problems and IFSD may be caused by type design 
deficiencies, ineffective maintenance or operational procedures. It is 
very important to identify the root cause of events so that appropriate 
corrective action may be determined. The diverse causes of propulsion 
system problems require different solutions. For example, type design 
problems may affect the world fleet of aircraft. If an individual 
certificate holder experiences a problem caused by a type design issue, 
it may not be appropriate for the FAA to reduce or withdraw the 
particular operator's ETOPS authority. However, maintenance or 
operational problems may be wholly, or partially, the responsibility of 
the certificate holder. If a certificate holder has an unacceptable 
IFSD rate risk attributed to maintenance or operational practices, then 
action carefully tailored to that certificate holder may be required.
    The FAA does not use IFSD rate as the sole means to determine a 
certificate holder's ETOPS authority. The FAA considers the 12-month 
rolling average standard that occurs for a mature fleet after the 
commencement of ETOPS. A high IFSD rate could be due to the limited 
number of engine operating hours used as the denominator for the rate 
calculation or a small fleet. The effect may be an IFSD rate jump well 
above the standard rate due to a single IFSD event. The underlying 
causes for such a jump in the rate will have to be considered by the 
Administrator. Conversely, there may be occasions when a single ETOPS 
event may warrant corrective action even though the overall IFSD rate 
is not exceeded. In such a case, the cause would be certificate holder 
specific and may require changes to their operational, dispatch or 
maintenance procedures.
Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) Document
    The use of a CMP document has been in the ETOPS criteria from AC 
120-42, and later 120-42A, from the very first ETOPS airplane 
approvals. The CMP document defines airplane and propulsion system 
design configurations, maintenance procedures, and operational 
procedures required to comply with the ETOPS requirements that are not 
already a part of the original type design approved by the original 
issuance of the airplane and engine type certificates.
    The CMP document is comprised of service bulletins, service 
letters,

[[Page 64735]]

maintenance manual references, and other pertinent documents which 
define the alterations, maintenance or operational requirements and 
limitations that the FAA requires to make an airplane type design 
suitable for ETOPS. The CMP is an amendment to the airplane type design 
defined in 14 CFR 21.31. The initial CMP approval, as a change to the 
type design, is analogous to other type design approvals for specific 
operations such as Category III autoland approval for autopilot systems 
that could involve design changes to a previously certified system.
    After ETOPS approval, the CMP may be modified by any airworthiness 
directives (ADs) issued in accordance with part 39 that supersede 
existing CMP requirements. CMP document requirements will not increase 
except by AD.
    Misconceptions about the criteria for revising CMP documents 
generated some of the biggest discussions in the ARAC ETOPS Working 
Group meetings. The FAA approved airplanes for ETOPS under the original 
AC 120-42 between 1985 and 1989 without a defined propulsion system 
reliability standard. The approach used in AC 120-42 to assess the 
suitability of an airplane-engine combination for ETOPS was to use a 
``fix all problems'' approach. This process involved identifying the 
causes of propulsion system problems in service on the candidate 
airplane and including identified corrective actions into an approved 
CMP document as a condition for ETOPS approval. This was an ongoing 
process and the FAA conducted regular reviews to determine additional 
corrective actions as new problems occurred in service. As a result, 
the FAA routinely required the airplane manufacturer to revise the CMP 
documents during this period.
    The ``fix all problems'' approach to airplane propulsion system 
assessment was carried over into the revised AC 120-42A at the end of 
1988, and continues on in this notice in proposed part 25 Appendix L 
paragraph II(a)(ii). However, revision A of the AC added a propulsion 
system reliability standard as a provision for ETOPS type design 
approval that did not exist in the original AC. With an established 
propulsion system reliability standard, the FAA now had a gauge to 
monitor the safety of the approved ETOPS fleet without a need to 
continually update the CMP as new problems occurred. Also, several 
ETOPS operators began objecting to the FAA requiring them to 
continually upgrade existing ETOPS approved airplanes without any input 
to the changes being required.
    The FAA recognized that our previous practice of requiring upgrades 
to already approved airplanes without prior public review created an 
undue burden on operators. As a result, the FAA changed its approval 
process for revisions to CMP documents. The FAA documented this change 
in an internal memorandum signed by the managers of the Transport 
Airplane Directorate, and the Engine and Propeller Directorate on April 
3, 1990. In that memo, the directorate managers noted that the AC gave 
them the responsibility for the continuing airworthiness of the type 
design CMP standard and that the CMP should not be changed unless the 
reliability of the airplane-engine combination is not achieving or 
maintaining the reliability objective, or some other unsafe condition 
arises. As with any type design, the FAA permits manufacturers and 
operators to incorporate minor changes and routine enhancements by 
service bulletins or production design changes. However, the FAA will 
not mandate such enhancements in a revision to the CMP standard. The 
memo concludes by stating that the Transport Airplane and the Engine 
and Propeller Directorates plan to use the AD process to control the 
continuing airworthiness type design requirements of the ETOPS CMP 
standard.
    As a result of the joint memo, the FAA established strict 
guidelines for CMP revisions to ensure that the requirements of the 
basic CMP standard originally approved for an airplane-engine 
combination are not increased without going through the AD process.
    The FAA approves revisions to an airplane's CMP document for the 
following reasons:
    1. When incorporating the CMP standard for a newly approved 
airplane-engine combination into an existing CMP document.
    2. When correcting errors in previous revisions.
    3. When ADs are issued that supersede existing CMP requirements.
    4. When approving optional alternatives to existing requirements.
    5. When mandating changes to the CMP by an AD.
    The FAA aircraft certification offices have used these guidelines 
since issuance of the joint memo to approve CMP revisions. Because 
operators had already complied with several revisions to previously 
approved CMP documents in force at the time the FAA issued the new CMP 
guidelines, the FAA worked with the airlines and the manufacturers to 
establish ``baseline'' CMP requirements for each ETOPS approved 
airplane-engine combination. The affected operators agreed to ensure 
that all of the requirements of these baseline CMPs are incorporated 
into their ETOPS fleets. Thereafter, the new CMP revision guidelines 
would be the standard way of making subsequent revisions.
Summary of the Proposed Changes
    The following chart summarizes which operations would be affected 
by the proposed rule changes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Current requirements                                                             Proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Beyond 60 min up to
                                        Up to 60  minutes      Beyond 60 minutes       Up to 60 minutes         180 minutes         Beyond  180 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 121 two engine................  Section 121.161         Advisory material and  No change............  Would apply (Would     Would apply.
                                      applies.                policy letters.                               codify previous
                                                                                                            practice).
Part 121 more than two engine......  No current regulation.  No current regulation  No change............  No change............  Would apply.
Part 135...........................  No current regulation.  No current regulation  No change............  No change............  Would apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 64736]]

    The chart below summarizes ETOPS regulations before and after the 
proposed changes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14NO03.002

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 64737]]

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposal

    We begin the discussion by clarifying the term ``ETOPS''. Since its 
inception eighteen years ago, the term ``ETOPS'' has described 
extended-range operations of two-engine air carrier airplanes under a 
deviation from 14 CFR 121.161. The term has gained broad acceptance 
among operators and regulators throughout much of the world.
    This proposal would create regulatory requirements for extended 
operations for all air carrier airplanes. As described previously, the 
thresholds for applicability would vary by the number of engines and 
type of operation. In its deliberations, the Working Group stated that 
it struggled with the question of whether to use a new term to describe 
the operations of airplanes beyond 180 minutes from an adequate 
airport. Early on, the Working Group considered and agreed to the term 
``LROPS'' which stands for Long Range Operations to describe flights 
beyond the 180-minute threshold. However, as their efforts progressed 
the Working Group found that the use of two terms (ETOPS and LROPS) for 
two-engine airplanes flying beyond 60 minutes and 180 minutes from an 
airport quickly became awkward and cumbersome. Further, the Working 
Group members representing the maintenance community expressed great 
concern that the introduction of the LROPS term would needlessly create 
confusion among the maintenance community and would also require 
painstaking and potentially expensive revisions to numerous maintenance 
manuals and programs. In order to avoid any potential confusion, the 
Working Group recommended the use of the term ETOPS for all air carrier 
extended range operations irrespective of the number of engines.
    The FAA strongly agrees with this recommendation. The FAA also 
believes that the addition of a new term could needlessly create 
confusion. Further it would potentially dilute the intent of this 
proposal, which is to codify existing ETOPS standards and procedures 
and to extend those concepts to airplanes with more than two engines. 
The FAA believes that the introduction of a new term could be 
misinterpreted as creating a new operational concept as opposed to the 
extension of an existing one.
    The proposed amendments to the Type Design Rules 14 CFR parts 25 
and 33 and supporting advisory material are a consolidation of 
requirements taken from AC 120-42A, the 777 Special Conditions, and JAA 
Information Leaflet (IL) 20. The materials contained in the proposed 
Airplane Type Design Rule (part 25) and AC are a compilation of the 
existing AC120-42A, 777 Special Condition, and JAA IL20.
    The following discussion takes each of the Rule sections and 
attempts to capture all of the comments and discussion from the ARAC 
activities.

Part 1

Section by Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to Part 1

Section 1.1--General Definitions
    The proposed definitions were adopted directly from the ARAC 
recommendation. This proposal would establish three different 
definitions of ETOPS in three significant ways. In each case, the 
acronym would stand for ``extended operations'' for all airplanes 
regardless of the number of engines. The definition would vary in part 
121, however, depending on whether the airplane involved has two 
engines or more than two engines. This proposal also would introduce 
ETOPS into part 135 for the first time, where ETOPS would have a third 
definition. The FAA believes the remainder of the proposed definitions 
for section 1.1 are self-explanatory.

Part 21

    The amendments to part 21 would create reporting requirements for 
the holders of type certificate for two-engine ETOPS airplanes and 
ETOPS eligible engines. This would require type certificate holders to 
closely monitor the performance of their products to ensure their 
continuing reliability. These amendments would also ensure that the FAA 
is kept apprised of any existing or potential problems in a timely 
manner.

Section by Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to Part 21

Proposed New Section 21.4--ETOPS Reporting Requirements
    This proposal would add a new regulation consisting of two parts, 
Early ETOPS Problem Reporting & Tracking for all ETOPS airplanes, and 
ETOPS Operational Service Reliability Reporting for two-engine 
airplanes.
Explanation
    1. Reporting for all ETOPS airplanes. The proposed rule is a 
codification of what the FAA considers to be one of the essential and 
objective elements of the early ETOPS Special Conditions (SC) for the 
B777 aircraft; specifically as they pertain to problem tracking and 
reporting. The FAA accepts the ARAC recommendation and proposes it as a 
new section 21.4. Section 21.4 would require the type certificate 
holder to establish an early ETOPS problem reporting system. The 
proposed system would contain a means for the prompt identification of 
those problems that could impact the safety of ETOPS operations in 
order that they may be resolved in a timely manner. The system would 
also contain the process for the timely notification to the responsible 
FAA office of all relevant problems encountered, and identification of 
corrective actions deemed necessary and provide for appropriate FAA 
review of all planned corrective actions. The system would be in place 
for the first 250,000 engine-hours of fleet operating experience after 
the airplane enters service.
    For two-engine ETOPS airplanes the system would remain in effect 
beyond 250,000 engine-hours of fleet operating experience until the 
fleet has demonstrated a specified and stable IFSD rate consistent with 
the approved diversion time of the aircraft. For the service period, 
this system would define the sources and content of in-service data 
that will be made available to the type certificate holder in support 
of the problem tracking system. The content of the data provided would 
include the data necessary to evaluate the specific cause of all 
service events reportable under section 21.3(c) of part 21, in addition 
to any other failure or malfunction that could affect the safety of 
ETOPS operation. Ten event occurrences, specifically defined with 
respect to reliable, safe ETOPS operation that would require reporting 
are defined in the proposal.
    2. Reporting for two engine ETOPS airplanes. Paragraph (b)(1) of 
the proposed section 21.4 would require engine and airplane 
manufacturers to report periodically on the reliability of their two-
engine airplane fleets. Reporting would include: IFSD events, IFSD 
rates, and ETOPS fleet statistics. This reporting may be combined with 
the reporting required by section 21.3. The proposed rule also would 
require the identification of cause and appropriate corrective action 
to assure reliable, safe ETOPS operations.
    The periodic reporting of the reliability required of the 
manufacturers of engines and airplanes approved for ETOPS service would 
begin at the introduction of the product into service and continue 
throughout its product life. The interval of the reporting would be 
more frequent early in its product cycle and generally longer later in 
its product service life, especially after the product has achieved 
maturity with regard to engine reliability. Reliability would be 
indicated by a stable engine

[[Page 64738]]

shutdown event rate at or below the target values.
    Generally, early product service life reporting on a quarterly 
basis is adequate, especially considering the fact that the 
manufacturers report engine failure events as they occur under the 
requirements of section 21.3. Event rates may fluctuate considerably 
early in the product's service life cycle because, although the fleet 
is growing in numbers of engine-airplane combinations in service, the 
accumulation of engine flight hours is generally slow. Typically, event 
rates are not very stable when the fleet cumulative time is less than 1 
or 2 million engine flight hours. Therefore the focus should be on 
event occurrences, not failure rates, with a small fleet typical of 
early service time.
    After maturity (a stable engine shutdown event rate at or below the 
target values) with a large fleet, reporting intervals continue on a 
quarterly basis. Regardless of fleet size, fleet age, and state of 
maturity, engine failures are reported under the requirements of 
section 21.3.
    3. Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed section 21.4 identifies world 
fleet IFSD rate/reliability requirements. The standards in section 
21.4(b)(2)(i) are the IFSD rates compatible with the current FAA ETOPS 
AC and Policy for operation up to 180 minutes (including North Pacific 
operation). The standard in section 21.4(b)(2)(ii) is an IFSD rate 
compatible with operation beyond 180 minutes to 240 minutes and beyond, 
as contained in the proposed Operational rule and guidance material.
    As discussed in this proposed NPRM, an IFSD rate of 0.01/1,000 
Engine Flight Hours (EFH) is consistent with an extremely improbable 
risk of a dual in-flight power loss from independent causes for a two-
engine airplane, even assuming a decision of practically unlimited 
duration. The rates given are not operator specific, but rather apply 
across the fleet of a given airplane-engine combination.
    The FAA expects implementation of corrective action will maintain 
an acceptable in-flight shutdown rate below the required levels. This 
is borne out by the current ETOPS fleet in-flight shutdown rates, which 
have achieved and consistently maintained rates at or below 0.01 per 
1,000 engine-hours. If the normal airworthiness monitoring process is 
not sufficient by itself to maintain an acceptable propulsion system 
reliability for a particular airplane-engine combination, then the FAA 
may require additional corrective actions, or reduce or withdraw the 
ETOPS diversion authority as described in section 21.4(c), if the risk 
of dual power loss is unacceptably high. Before such action is taken, 
however, the certificate holder and the FAA will assess the fleet-wide 
risk based upon the risk model developed for ETOPS presented in this 
preamble.

Part 25

Section by Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to Part 25

Proposed Change to Paragraph 25.857(c)(2)--Cargo Fire Suppression
    The proposed change to section 25.857(c)(2) would require that the 
applicant furnish the certified time capability of a Class C cargo fire 
suppression system in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) in accordance 
with section 25.1581(a)(2). The time capability of a system is the 
maximum length of time a system can suppress a fire.
Explanation
    The proposed new section 121.633 and part 135, Appendix H, 
paragraph E would specify that the time that an operator needs to fly 
to a planned ETOPS alternate may not exceed the maximum time capability 
specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane's most time 
limited system. This change to section 25.857(c)(2) and a similar 
requirement in the new Appendix L, section I, paragraph (e)(4) will 
ensure that the Airplane Flight Manual provides the information that 
the operators will need regarding the fire suppression system to comply 
with the operating requirements. The justification for these changes is 
further discussed in the explanations for those proposed operating 
rules.
Proposed New Section 25.1535--ETOPS Approval
    A proposed new section 25.1535 would prescribe the requirements for 
obtaining ETOPS type design approval.
Explanation
    This new rule in the body of part 25 is effectively a pointer to a 
new Appendix L, which sets out additional design, analysis and test 
requirements for ETOPS type design approval. This rule also requires 
that in showing compliance with part 25 rules the applicant must 
consider the maximum length ETOPS mission. The applicant must also 
consider the effects of airplane system failure on crew workload and 
passenger physiological needs during a diversion of the maximum time 
considered. The system safety assessment required by section 25.1309 is 
an example of a rule where the ETOPS mission profile would be 
considered in an analysis to determine compliance. The ETOPS mission 
profile (including the maximum diversion time) could also affect the 
compliance analysis for section 25.1011(b) concerning oil endurance, 
and section 25.571 governing structural fatigue and damage tolerance.
    This proposed rule is crucial to ensure that throughout the 
airplane design, the ETOPS mission profile is properly considered, and 
the standard of compliance is high because of it. The ``ETOPS 
Scenario'' diagram and the ETOPS significant systems definition that 
would be provided in the associated advisory circular for this rule are 
good tools that system designers can use to assess all conditions 
although they are not regulatory. There are also additional 
requirements in Appendix L to provide focus on those airplane systems 
that have, historically, been important to ETOPS operations such as 
electrical power, APU, and fuel systems. The emphasis on these specific 
airplane systems does not mean that these are the only airplane systems 
that are important to ETOPS. The section 25.1535 and Appendix L 
requirements along with the advisory circular guidance for ETOPS 
significant systems and the ETOPS mission profile provide the basis for 
assessing other airplane systems for ETOPS approval.
Proposed New Part 25 Appendix L--Extended Operations
    A proposed new appendix L to part 25 defines additional 
airworthiness requirements for ETOPS approval.
Explanation
    Appendix L would codify the airworthiness standards unique to ETOPS 
from Advisory Circular 120-42A, the Boeing 777 ETOPS special 
conditions, and the 207-minute ETOPS Policy Letter EPL 20-01. The 
requirements of Appendix L would go beyond simply considering the ETOPS 
mission in applying the basic part 25 requirements.
    Since we would not require an applicant to comply with these ETOPS 
requirements in order to receive a basic part 25 type certificate, we 
decided that a separate appendix to part 25 would be the best location 
for these additional requirements for ETOPS.
Appendix L Format
    Appendix L is organized into three sections. Section I sets out 
design requirements that all airplanes must comply with for ETOPS 
approval. Section II prescribes specific requirements for two engine 
airplanes. Section III prescribes specific

[[Page 64739]]

requirements for airplanes with more than two engines.
    The proposed numbering system and organization of Appendix L is a 
significant departure from the ARAC recommendation. As an aid to 
readers familiar with the original ARAC proposal, Tables 1 and 2 cross-
reference the original Appendix L paragraph numbers recommended by ARAC 
to the reorganized appendix proposed in this notice.

                 Table 1.--Cross-Reference of ARAC Proposed and New Appendix L Paragraph Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Original ARAC Proposal                New
----------------------------------------------------------
L25.1.............................  .....................  Appendix L..........  Applicability
L25.2.............................  (a)..................  Section I...........  (a)
                                    (a)(i)...............  Section I...........  (a)(1)
                                    (a)(i)(1)............  Section I...........  (a)(1)(i)
                                    (a)(i)(2)............  Section I...........  (a)(1)(ii)
                                    (a)(ii)..............  Section I...........  (a)(2)
                                    (a)(ii)(1)...........  Section I...........  (a)(2)(i)
                                    (a)(ii)(2)...........  Section I...........  (a)(2)(ii)
                                    (a)(ii)(3)...........  Section I...........  (a)(2)(iii)
                                    (a)(iii).............  Section I...........  (a)(3)
                                    (b)..................  Section I...........  (b)
                                    (b)(i)...............  Section I...........  (b)(1)
                                    (b)(i)(1)............  Section I...........  (b)(1)(i)
                                    (b)(ii)..............  Section I...........  (b)(1)
                                    (b)(iii).............  Section I...........  (b)(1)(ii)
                                    (b)(iv)..............  Section I...........  (b)(2)
                                    (b)(iv)(1)...........  Section I...........  (b)(2)(i)
                                    (b)(iv)(2)...........  Section I...........  (b)(2)(ii)
L25.3.............................  (i)..................  Section II..........  (b)(1)
                                    (ii).................  Section II..........  (b)(2)(ii)
                                    (iii)................  Section I...........  (c)
L25.4.............................                         Section II, Section   ...............................
                                                            III
                                    (a)..................  Section II, Section   (a)
                                                            III.
                                    (a)(i)...............  Section II, Section   (a)(1)
                                                            III.
                                    (a)(ii)..............  Section II, Section   (a)(1)
                                                            III.
                                    (a)(iii).............  Section II..........  (a)(2), (a)(3)
                                                           Section III.........  (a)(2)
                                    (a)(iv)..............  Section II..........  (a)(4)
                                    (a)(iv)(a)...........  Section II..........  (a)(4)(i)
                                    (a)(iv)(b)...........  Section II..........  (a)(4)(ii)
                                    (a)(iv)(c)...........  Section II..........  (a)(4)(iii)
                                    (a)(v)...............  Section II..........  (a)(3)
                                                           Section III.........  (a)(2)
                                    (a)(vi)..............  Section II..........  (a)(5)
                                                           Section III.........  (a)(3)
                                    (a)(vii).............  Section I...........  (d)
                                    (b)..................  Omit                  ...............................
                                    (b)(i)...............  Section II..........  (b)(9)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(6)
                                    (b)(i)(1)............  Section II..........  (b)(4)
                                    (b)(i)(1)(a).........  Section II..........  (b)(4)(i)
                                    (b)(i)(1)(b).........  Section II..........  (b)(4)(ii)
                                    (b)(i)(2)............  Section II..........  (b)(6)
                                    (b)(i)(2)............  Section III.........  (b)(3)
                                    (b)(i)(3)............  Section II..........  (b)(7)
                                    (b)(i)(3)............  Section III.........  (b)(4)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a).........  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(i)......  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(1)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(1)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(ii).....  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(2)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(2)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(iii)....  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(3)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(3)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(iv).....  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(4)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(4)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(v)......  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(5)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(5)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(a)(vi).....  Section II..........  (b)(7)(i)(6)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(i)(6)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(b).........  Section II..........  (b)(7)(ii)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(ii)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(c).........  Section II..........  (b)(7)(iii)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(iii)
                                    (b)(i)(3)(d).........  Section II..........  (b)(7)(iv)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(iv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 64740]]


           Table 1.--Cross-Reference of ARAC Proposed and New Appendix L Paragraph Numbers--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Original ARAC Proposal                New
----------------------------------------------------------
                                    (b)(i)(3)(e).........  Section II..........  (b)(7)(v)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(4)(v)
                                    (b)(ii)..............  Section II..........  (b)(8)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(5)
                                    (b)(ii)(a)...........  Section II..........  (b)(8)(i)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(5)(i)
                                    (b)(ii)(b)...........  Section II..........  (b)(8)(ii)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(5)(ii)
                                    (b)(ii)(c)...........  Section II..........  (b)(8)(iii)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(5)(iii)
                                    (b)(ii)(d)...........  Section II..........  (b)(8)(iv)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(5)(iv)
                                    (b)(iii).............  Section II..........  (b)(3)
                                                           Section III.........  (b)(1)
                                    (c)..................  Section II, Section   (c)
                                                            III.
                                    (c)(i)...............  Section II, Section   (c)(1)
                                                            III.
                                    (c)(ii)..............  Section II, Section   (c)(2)
                                                            III.
L25.5.............................                         Section I...........  (e)(4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 2.--Cross-Reference of New and ARAC Proposed Appendix L Paragraph Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           New                 Original ARAC Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------
Appendix L........................  Applicability........  L25.1...............
Section I.........................  .....................  L25.2...............
                                    (a)..................  L25.2...............  (a)
                                    (a)(1)...............  L25.2...............  (a)(i)
                                    (a)(1)(i)............  L25.2...............  (a)(i)(1)
                                    (a)(1)(ii)...........  L25.2...............  (a)(i)(2)
                                    (a)(1)(iii)..........  New.................
                                    (a)(2)...............  L25.2...............  (a)(ii)
                                    (a)(2)(i)............  L25.2...............  (a)(ii)1
                                    (a)(2)(ii)...........  L25.2...............  (a)(ii)(2)
                                    (a)(2)(iii)..........  L25.2...............  (a)(ii)(3)
                                    (a)(3)...............  L25.2...............  (a)(iii)
                                    (b)..................  L25.2...............  (b)
                                    (b)(1)...............  L25.2...............  (b)(i), (b)(ii)
                                    (b)(1)(i)............  L25.2...............  (b)(i)(1)
                                    (b)(1)(ii)...........  L25.2...............  (b)(iii)
                                    (b)(2)...............  L25.2...............  (b)(iv)
                                    (b)(2)(i)............  L25.2...............  (b)(iv)(1)
                                    (b)(2)(ii)...........  L25.2...............  (b)(iv)(2)
                                    (b)(3)...............  New.................
                                    (c)..................  L25.3...............  (iii)
                                    (d)..................  L25.4...............  (a)(vii)
                                    (e)..................  New.................
                                    (e)(1)...............  New.................
                                    (e)(2)...............  New.................
                                    (e)(3)...............  New.................
                                    (e)(4)...............  L25.5...............
                                    (e)(5)...............  New.................
Section II........................  .....................  L25.4...............
                                    (a)..................  L25.4...............  (a)
                                    (a)(1)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(i), (a)(ii)
                                    (a)(2)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(iii)
                                    (a)(3)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(iii), (a)(v)
                                    (a)(4)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(iv)
                                    (a)(4)(i)............  L25.4...............  (a)(iv)(a)
                                    (a)(4)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (a)(iv)(b)
                                    (a)(4)(iii)..........  L25.4...............  (a)(iv)(c)
                                    (a)(5)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(vi)
                                    (b)(1)...............  L25.3...............  (i)
                                    (b)(2)(i)............  New.................
                                    (b)(2)(ii)...........  L25.3...............  (ii)
                                    (b)(3)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(iii)
                                    (b)(4)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(1)
                                    (b)(4)(i)............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(1)(a)
                                    (b)(4)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(1)(b)
                                    (b)(5)...............  New.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 64741]]


           Table 2.--Cross-Reference of New and ARAC Proposed Appendix L Paragraph Numbers--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           New                 Original ARAC Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------
                                    (b)(6)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(2)
                                    (b)(7)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)
                                    (b)(7)(i)............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(1).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(i)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(2).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(ii)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(3).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(iii)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(4).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(iv)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(5).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(v)
                                    (b)(7)(i)(6).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(vi)
                                    (b)(7)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(b)
                                    (b)(7)(iii)..........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(c)
                                    (b)(7)(iv)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(d)
                                    (b)(7)(v)............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(e)
                                    (b)(8)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)
                                    (b)(8)(i)............  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(a)
                                    (b)(8)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(b)
                                    (b)(8)(iii)..........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(c)
                                    (b)(8)(iv)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(d)
                                    (b)(9)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)
                                    (c)..................  L25.4...............  (c)
                                    (c)(1)...............  L25.4...............  (c)(i)
                                    (c)(2)...............  L25.4...............  (c)(ii)
Section III.......................  .....................  L25.4...............
                                    (a)..................  L25.4...............  (a)
                                    (a)(1)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(i), (a)(ii)
                                    (a)(2)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(iii), (a)(v)
                                    (a)(3)...............  L25.4...............  (a)(vi)
                                    (b)(1)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(iii)
                                    (b)(2)...............  New.................
                                    (b)(3)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(2)
                                    (b)(4)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)
                                    (b)(4)(i)............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(1).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(i)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(2).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(ii)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(3).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(iii)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(4).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(iv)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(5).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(v)
                                    (b)(4)(i)(6).........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(a)(vi)
                                    (b)(4)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(b)
                                    (b)(4)(iii)..........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(c)
                                    (b)(4)(iv)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(d)
                                    (b)(4)(v)............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)(3)(e)
                                    (b)(5)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)
                                    (b)(5)(i)............  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(a)
                                    (b)(5)(ii)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(b)
                                    (b)(5)(iii)..........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(c)
                                    (b)(5)(iv)...........  L25.4...............  (b)(ii)(d)
                                    (b)(6)...............  L25.4...............  (b)(i)
                                    (c)..................  L25.4...............  (c)
                                    (c)(1)...............  L25.4...............  (c)(i)
                                    (c)(2)...............  L25.4...............  (c)(ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We discuss each paragraph of the proposed new Appendix L below.

Section I--Design Requirements

I(a) Airplane Systems

I(a)(1) Operation in Icing Conditions
I(a)(1)(i)
    ETOPS airplanes would have to comply with the requirements of 
section 25.1419 for operation in icing conditions.
Explanation
    Section 25.1419 sets out the requirements for certifying a 
transport category airplane for flight into icing conditions. This 
requirement is optional in that an applicant may choose to not apply 
for approval in icing conditions. However, from a practical standpoint 
no one would request certification of an airplane that did not meet 
this requirement. This proposed new regulation makes this approval 
mandatory for ETOPS approval.
I(a)(1)(ii)
    The airframe and propulsion system ice protection would have to be 
capable of continued safe flight and landing at engine-inoperative and 
decompression altitudes in icing conditions. Following the loss of an 
engine at cruising altitude, an airplane will drift down to a lower 
(engine-inoperative) altitude. A decompression altitude is an altitude 
to which an airplane must descend following the loss of cabin pressure. 
Decompression altitudes are 10,000 feet MSL and below.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify AC 120-42A, paragraph 8(b)(11) for 
airframe ice protection. The applicant would have to demonstrate that 
the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing at

[[Page 64742]]

the decompression altitudes. This rule would require the applicant to 
demonstrate to the FAA that the anti-icing systems on the airplane will 
assure the airplane's capability to continue to operate during a worst-
case diversion. The ARAC Working Group recommended a standard that 
would require the capability to safely divert if anti-icing cannot be 
shown available for all scenarios. This recommended standard tacitly 
assumes that airplane ice protection is not necessarily required during 
an ETOPS diversion. We disagree with this recommendation. Paragraph 
8(b)(11) of AC 120-42A says that the airframe and propulsion ice 
protection should be shown to provide adequate capability for the 
intended operation. The AC says that this should account for prolonged 
exposure to lower altitudes associated with the engine-out diversion, 
cruise, holding, approach and landing. We do not interpret this 
paragraph as allowing circumstances where anti-icing would not normally 
be available during an ETOPS diversion. An applicant would have to 
address any failure conditions where the ice-protection systems would 
not be available during an ETOPS diversion as part of the safety 
analysis required by section 25.1309.
    The preamble justification provided in the ARAC proposal stated 
that this rule ``will also require the applicant to demonstrate that 
the non-heated (or ``non-deiced'') areas of the airplane will not pick 
up a load of ice that would make the airplane uncontrollable or create 
too much drag to complete the diversion.'' This statement is consistent 
with how the FAA has applied the criteria of AC 120-42A paragraph 
8.(b)(11) for all airplanes certified using that policy. However, the 
ARAC recommendation did not include this specific provision. We have 
added this requirement into the proposed rule as a new paragraph 
I(a)(1)(iii). It is consistent with ARAC's recommendation and 
consistent with what has been standard ETOPS type certification 
practice to consider the accumulation of ice on the non-heated or non-
deiced areas of the airplane.
    The associated advisory material for this proposed requirement will 
describe the conditions and assumptions that an applicant may use in 
simulating a diversion icing environment for showing compliance with 
the proposed rule. The advisory material will also provide guidance for 
developing analyses or testing that would justify not having to assume 
that the entire diversion would be in icing conditions.
I(a)(2) Electrical Power Supply
I(a)(2)(i) and (ii)
    These paragraphs would establish reliability requirements for the 
electrical power supply system on an ETOPS flight.
Explanation
    Paragraphs I(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are basically a restatement of 
section 25.1309 for the electrical power supply system in consideration 
of the ETOPS mission. We agree with the ARAC's apparent intent that 
these paragraphs, in conjunction with the new sections 25.1535(a) and 
(b), codify paragraphs 8(b)(1), 8(b)(6), 8(b)(7) and 8(c)(4) of AC 120-
42A for the electrically powered ETOPS significant systems. These 
paragraphs establish the overall system safety objectives for these 
systems in extended operations.
    The proposed rule is not as explicit as AC 120-42A in stating the 
types of functions that an applicant would need to consider in applying 
the safety objectives of section 25.1309 for an ETOPS mission. The 
general philosophy of the proposed rule is to let the existing policy 
associated with section 25.1309 compliance determine the design 
analysis for ETOPS. This philosophy is consistent with paragraph (c)(1) 
of the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions, which requires the 
applicant to comply with part 25 with regards to the ETOPS mission. 
Although we discuss this regulatory philosophy here in reference to the 
specific electrical power supply system requirements, it also applies 
to other ETOPS significant systems that are not specifically addressed 
in the proposed rule.
    The FAA's intent for paragraphs I(a)(2)(i) and (ii) is to assure 
that the applicant properly focuses on electrical power redundancy and 
reliability when considering ETOPS mission scenarios in showing 
compliance with section 25.1309. On a two-engine airplane, the 
potential lack of redundancy available for electrical power generation 
makes this requirement especially important. However, the new emphasis 
is in paragraph (ii). It will be up to the applicant to demonstrate 
which functions would reduce the capability of the airplane or the 
ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions. It is 
not realistic, for instance, for an applicant to state that operating 
for an extended period of time on suction feed would not reduce the 
capability of the airplane to cope with adverse operating conditions 
(for example, negative g or turbulence). Additionally, the applicant 
would have to determine what navigation and communication systems must 
be powered by emergency generation sources during a worst case ETOPS 
diversion.
I(a)(2)(iii)
    This paragraph would require at least three independent electrical 
generation sources for airplanes being certified for greater than 180 
minutes.
Explanation
    Paragraph I(a)(2)(iii) would codify the three generator requirement 
of paragraph 8.(b)(8) in AC 120-42A. However, the ARAC recommendation 
only applies this requirement to airplanes being certified for greater 
than 180-minute ETOPS. The AC specifies three generators for any ETOPS 
approval. This specific requirement created much discussion within the 
ARAC ETOPS Working Group. Paragraph I(a)(2)(iii) as proposed in this 
notice represents the compromise position that allowed working group 
consensus. The following paragraphs are the ARAC's recommended 
justification for this requirement. The FAA is publishing them without 
comment.
    This topic is inextricably linked to the discussion about MMELs. 
The MMEL or Master Minimum Equipment List allows an airplane operator 
to fly without equipment not on this fully functioning. There is 
concern that without a specific number of generators required in the 
rule, the MMEL could strip away some of the redundancy required for 
long-range flight. The arguments against a prescriptive number are 
generally as follows:
    (1) Defining a number of generators would not assure proper system 
reliability (for example, is it better to have three generators with a 
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of 20,000 hours each, or four 
generators with an MTBF of 3,000 each?)
    (2) Defining a number of generators would either artificially 
constrain or give a ``pass'' to future airplane designs. For instance, 
if a new airplane had a system architectural need for 8 generating 
systems, requiring three in the ETOPS rule would not assure an 
adequately safe design.
    (3) Trying to address the formation of the MMEL in part 25 is 
impractical and inconsistent with agreed-to policies for MMEL 
development.
    ``Nonetheless, it was agreed that there should be a tie-in between 
the analysis performed for Part 25 ETOPS approval and the analysis the 
Flight Operations Evaluation Review Board (FOEB), who develop the MMEL, 
used in determining dispatch criteria. This is almost always the case 
in today's process, but

[[Page 64743]]

formalizing the process would be a positive step.
    ``Therefore, an additional paragraph has been added to the ETOPS 
regulation to require a minimum number of electrical generators. This 
requirement codifies the existing AC 120-42A electrical generator 
redundancy criteria. The intent of this requirement is to ensure future 
airplanes to be certified for ETOPS have an electrical generation 
system architecture equivalent to the 737, 757, 767, 777 and A310, 320, 
A330 era airplanes. Future airplane electrical system architectures may 
be significantly different from today's airplanes, but the architecture 
must be equivalent from the perspective of robustness to independent 
failure scenarios.''
I(a)(3) Time Limited Systems
    This paragraph would require that the applicant state the 
capability of most time limiting ETOPS significant system in the 
airplane flight manual.
Explanation
    As stated previously for the revised paragraph 25.857(c)(2), this 
requirement would provide the information that the operators would need 
to comply with the applicable operating requirements. Advisory Circular 
120-42A has two main categories of ETOPS approval (120 minutes and 180 
minutes) based on demonstrated propulsion system reliability. The ETOPS 
approval, as stated in the airplane flight manual in currently approved 
ETOPS airplanes, identifies the maximum approved diversion time based 
as one of these two times. In order to qualify for the ETOPS type 
design approval, the applicant must design the airplane time-limited 
systems to support this maximum approved diversion time with an 
additional 15 minutes capability to allow for airplane holding, 
approach and landing.
    In the context of proposed paragraph I(a)(3), we do not consider 
the propulsion system as a time-limited ETOPS significant system. 
Proposed Appendix L, section II(a), codifies the service experience 
method for ETOPS approval from AC 120-42A. Paragraph II(a)(4) of this 
section defines the required world fleet in-flight shutdown rate with 
each level of ETOPS operational approval. In this particular case, the 
level of ETOPS approval refers to the operational approval authority 
defined in the operating rules, not the time-limited system capability 
required in paragraph I(a)(3).

I(b) Propulsion System

I(b)(1) Fuel System Design
    This paragraph would require design features to ensure that fuel 
necessary to complete an ETOPS mission will be available at the flow 
and pressure required for the engine, during a diversion for the 
longest time being approved for the airplane. The proposed rule 
includes a requirement for alerts to the crew when the fuel available 
to the engines falls below the level required to complete the mission 
which can occur because of fuel mismanagement, abnormal transfer 
between tanks, and fuel loss.
Explanation
    Fuel system design and the ability of the crew to properly deal 
with fuel system malfunctions are arguably the most important issues 
facing the designer of ETOPS airplanes. The proposed rule (with 
corresponding AC guidance) addresses the need for:
    (1) Positive fuel pressure at the engine fuel pump (no suction 
feed);
    (2) Fuel availability following system failures (no hidden/trapped 
fuel, functional crossfeed valves, etc.); and
    (3) Flight deck alerts when fuel available to the engines falls 
below the level required to complete the mission.
    The proposed requirements would codify the intent of paragraph 
8.(b)(2)(iii) of AC 120-42A, paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of the Boeing 777 
ETOPS special conditions, and items 7 and 8 of the type design 
provisions of the 207 minute ETOPS Policy Letter EPL 20-1.
    There has been some discussion regarding newer generation airplanes 
(B777) and their system architecture being the standard by which 
operations beyond 180 minutes will be judged. Currently, all transport 
category aircraft are required to perform suction feed testing as part 
of basic part 25 certification, which requires the applicant to 
simulate an all Alternating Current (AC) power loss at the highest 
altitude the airplane is used in service (``service ceiling''). The 
testing is performed to demonstrate that in the event of an all AC 
power loss, there is still ability (at some safe altitude) to re-start 
the engines after flameout on suction feed and generate thrust to a 
safe landing. This demonstration does not, however, provide any 
assurance that the engines can operate on suction feed for the long 
duration diversion times envisioned for ETOPS. The engines are 
certified with a minimum engine fuel pump inlet pressure limit of 
typically one-half pound per square inch (0.5 psi) above the ambient 
air pressure, or the fuel vapor pressure, whichever is higher. Section 
25.955 requires that the airplane fuel system deliver fuel to the 
engine at this minimum pressure for the maximum fuel flow required by 
the engine. Without the fuel boost pressure, airplanes cannot comply 
with Sec.  25.955. The fuel system design requirements proposed in this 
notice are intended to ensure that continued operation on suction feed 
is not a practical possibility on ETOPS airplanes. Paragraph I(b)(1) 
would be applicable to all ETOPS airplanes irrespective of the number 
of engines.
    Loss of normal electrical power to the boost pumps is the primary 
cause of the loss of fuel system boost pressure. A specific fuel feed 
capability requirement has been added for twin-engine ETOPS operations 
beyond 180 minutes that is intended to address the concerns about loss 
of fuel boost pressure raised in the development of the 207 minute 
ETOPS policy. The 207-minute policy included a provision to also 
address fuel cross-feed capability following the failure of normal 
electrical power. Proposed paragraph I(b)(1)(i) would require that the 
applicant design the airplane fuel system with a fuel boost pump in 
each main tank and the capability to operate at least one crossfeed 
valve by a back-up electrical generation source other than the primary 
engine driven or APU driven generators. There is an exception in the 
proposed rule for fuel system designs for situations when electrical 
power does not provide required fuel boost pressure or crossfeed valve 
actuation. Although this is a specific design requirement applicable to 
two engine airplanes for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, the overall design 
objective underlying paragraph I(b)(1) is applicable to all ETOPS 
airplanes. The applicant may use the same design features required by 
paragraph I(b)(1)(i) as part of their compliance with paragraph I(b)(1) 
for airplanes not specifically covered by this subparagraph.
    The other possible source of the loss of fuel boost pressure is 
mechanical failure of fuel system components. These include pump 
failures or performance degradation, valve failures, and plumbing 
failures causing internal or external fuel leaks that result in 
significant fuel pressure loss. Possible design alternatives to address 
mechanical failures as a source of loss of fuel system boost pressure 
are:
    1. Redundancy (additional boost pumps, cross-feed valves, etc.)
    2. Improved component reliability (including any instructions for 
continued airworthiness necessary to maintain that level of 
reliability)

[[Page 64744]]

    3. Enlarged main fuel tank capacity (to minimize the effect of loss 
of boost pressure in other fuel tanks)
    4. A time-limited engine fuel inlet pressure limit at which the 
engine can demonstrate acceptable operation and integrity for the 
longest diversion time for which the airplane manufacturer is 
requesting approval.
    Each of these design alternatives has advantages and disadvantages 
that the manufacturer would need to consider in designing an airplane 
to comply with the proposed rule.
    We intend that the proposed paragraph I(b)(1) would preclude all 
causes of loss of system boost pressure in extended operations. This is 
consistent with the overall safety objectives established by the part 
25 airworthiness standards for potentially catastrophic failure 
conditions.
    Proposed paragraph I(b)(1)(ii) would require flight deck alerts 
when the fuel available to the engines falls below that required to 
complete the mission. The FAA's intent is that the required flight deck 
alerts would give flight crews clear warning of impending fuel 
exhaustion with enough time to safely land the airplane before the 
condition becomes critical. As a minimum, the manufacturer would have 
to design the flight deck alerts to address the types of failures or 
human errors that have resulted in airline fuel exhaustion events in 
service.
    Examples of fuel exhaustion events include an Air Canada Boeing 767 
that landed on an abandoned runway after both engines flamed out from 
fuel exhaustion. In this case, the normal low fuel alerts did not 
function because of a fuel quantity indication system failure. The fuel 
exhaustion was caused by the crew not receiving a low fuel alert, in 
combination with an unapproved airplane dispatch and a fueling error. 
An Air Tran Airbus A330 landed in the Azores following flameout of both 
engines caused by fuel exhaustion due to an unrecognized engine fuel 
leak. The AC provides guidance on critical fuel system alerts derived 
from these types of fuel loss events that have occurred in the current 
generation of aircraft.
I(b)(2) APU design
    If operation of an auxiliary power unit (APU) were needed to comply 
with the ETOPS requirements, the applicant would have to demonstrate 
that the APU has adequate reliability for that operation. Also, if in-
flight start and run capability is necessary, the APU in-flight 
operating envelope would have to extend to the maximum operating 
altitude of the airplane or 45,000 feet, whichever is lower.
Explanation
    The electrical system reliability standard contained in AC 120-42A 
envisions three independent alternating current (AC) electrical 
generators. Besides the two engine driven generators, an auxiliary 
power unit (APU) could drive a third generator to meet this standard. 
Auxiliary power units are separately controlled small engines that are 
installed on an aircraft to power services when the main aircraft 
engines are not running. Airlines normally use an airplane APU at the 
gate to provide electrical power for onboard lighting and an air source 
for the air conditioning system between flights. Besides this normal 
function, the FAA may allow an airline to use an APU powered electrical 
generator during a revenue flight when a main engine generator is not 
working.
    The electrical system reliability requirements proposed in this 
notice do not specifically require three independent generators except 
for airplanes being certified for ETOPS diversion times greater than 
180 minutes. Current two engine aircraft that the FAA has approved for 
ETOPS would only be able to comply with the proposed requirement for 
electrical system reliability by having three independent generators. 
Other required aircraft system functions also may be powered by an APU. 
Proposed paragraph I(b)(2) of the rule would require that if the 
applicant is going to rely on the APU for compliance with the ETOPS 
requirements:
    (1) The APU has to have adequate reliability; and
    (2) If it must be started and run in-flight, the APU must 
demonstrate that it has the capability to start and perform its 
intended function up to the maximum operating altitude of the airplane, 
or 45,000 feet, whichever is lower.
    The major reason for wanting high altitude APU in-flight start 
capability is to avoid having flight level changes that would cause the 
flight to have to cross through established flight track systems just 
to start the APU. Also, once the flight leaves the established track 
system it can be very difficult, or impossible to re-enter the track 
system, reducing the pilot's flexibility to fly the optimum flight 
plan. Having an in-flight start capability up to 45,000 feet mitigates 
these concerns.
    ``Adequate'' reliability consumed much of the Working Group's 
discussion time during development of the rule. This term can only be 
placed in context by understanding the overall electrical and pneumatic 
system architecture of the airplane. For instance, if an applicant has 
installed generators with inadequate reliability, their mean time 
between failure (MTBF) may require an extremely reliable APU generator 
in order to comply with the electrical system reliability objectives of 
Sec.  25.1309. This would drive the applicant into a significant APU 
reliability demonstration program. The reverse could also be true. An 
electrical system may have generators with an excellent MTBF of 100,000 
hours with additional non-APU back-up sources. In this case, the 
``required'' reliability of the APU would be less than for current 
airplane electrical systems with APU driven generators. However, the 
applicant would have to present a convincing system level reliability 
analysis backed by validated component reliability data before the FAA 
would accept an assumption of lower APU reliability from that required 
for today's airplanes.
    An APU has traditionally been used only to ``back-up'' the 
electrical system, and the proposed new regulatory and advisory 
material focuses on this function. No current aircraft utilizes an APU 
to provide ``back-up'' pneumatic system capability to meet ETOPS 
significant system reliability standards. However, the associated 
advisory circular addresses the possible operational need for APU 
pneumatics on the ground to power the cabin air conditioning system 
following an airplane diversion. If the APU is necessary as a bleed 
source to comply with section 25.1309 or the new section 25.1535, the 
applicant would have to define the operating envelope of where it can 
perform this intended function. The FAA requires this for any APU 
required function under the existing airworthiness standards of part 
25. Currently most APUs can only provide both bleed air and electrical 
power at lower cruise altitudes, and cannot provide enough bleed air to 
power an air conditioning pack at the airplane service ceiling. The 
applicant would have to fully account for the use of a ``limited'' 
ETOPS APU operating envelope in substantiating compliance with section 
25.1309 or section 25.1535. In accounting for a limited APU operating 
envelope, the applicant would have to address the operational 
implications, including air traffic control, of having to descend to a 
lower altitude in order to use the required APU function.
    ARAC recommended the following language for paragraph I(b)(2): ``If 
operation of the APU installation is required to comply with this 
appendix, the applicant must * * *''. Except for

[[Page 64745]]

the electrical system, which has specific requirements in proposed 
Appendix L, all other potential airplane system functions that could be 
powered by an APU are addressed by the overall ETOPS requirement 
contained in section 25.1535(a). Examples include the cabin 
pressurization and hydraulic systems, which may be powered by an APU. 
The ARAC recommended proposed rule and preamble states the intent that 
this requirement should not be limited to just electrical system 
reliability. We have corrected this oversight by replacing ``this 
appendix'' with section 25.1535 in proposed paragraph I(b)(2).
I(b)(3) Engine Oil Tank Design
    The engine oil filler cap design would have to comply with a 
proposed change to section 33.71(c)(4), which will require oil tank cap 
designs that prevent hazardous oil loss in the event of an oil tank cap 
installation error.
Explanation
    See the proposed change to section 33.71(c)(4) for an explanation 
of the reasons for this change. We added paragraph I(b)(3) to Appendix 
L to ensure that engines installed on ETOPS airplanes comply with the 
part 33 requirement.
I(c) Engine Condition Monitoring
    The applicant would have to define and validate, as required, an 
engine condition monitoring process in accordance with part 33, 
Appendix A, paragraph A33.4.
Explanation
    This requirement would codify paragraph a(5) of Appendix A of AC 
120-42A and paragraph (b)(2) of the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special 
conditions.
    With the propulsion system reliabilities existing on today's long 
range airplanes, the FAA is very concerned that the biggest threat to 
ETOPS safety is the risk associated with common cause, cascading 
failures and fuel exhaustion. Several of the proposed requirements in 
this notice would address these threats. The engine condition 
monitoring process requirement specifically addresses the potential of 
additional engine failure or failures resulting from the increased 
thrust or service demands on the remaining engine or engines.
    Operators would be required, in the proposed changes to parts 121 
and 135, to have an engine condition monitoring program as part of 
their ETOPS maintenance program. Paragraph I(c) of Appendix L and 
paragraph A33.4 in part 33 would require the airplane and engine 
manufacturer to provide the instructions necessary for an operator to 
develop this program.
    Since the potential for a catastrophic loss of thrust is greater on 
a two engine airplane than on airplanes with more than two engines, 
this proposed rule would require that the applicant validate the engine 
condition monitoring process for use on two engine airplanes before 
ETOPS approval. For airplanes with more than two engines, the applicant 
would need only to define the process.
I(d) Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures
    The applicant would have to identify configuration, maintenance, or 
operational standards necessary to maintain appropriate reliability or 
to obtain required capability for ETOPS in a Configuration, 
Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) document.
Explanation
    Paragraph I(d) of the proposed rule would codify material AC 120-
42A. All existing policy on revising CMP documents would remain in 
force under the new rule. This is discussed more fully previously under 
general issues in the general discussion of the proposal.
I(e) Airplane Flight Manual
    This paragraph would specify certain information that the airplane 
flight manual (AFM) must contain for ETOPS approval.
Explanation
    This proposed requirement would codify paragraph 8(f)(1) of AC 120-
42A. ARAC did not include this paragraph in their proposed rule draft. 
However, there are provisions within the AC paragraph that the FAA has 
required in all ETOPS type design approvals issued since 1985. The 
ETOPS approval statement contained in AC subparagraph 8(f)(1)(vi) is 
particularly important as applicants have based their airplane flight 
manual ETOPS approval statements on this wording. We are proposing to 
add the relevant provisions from AC paragraph 8(f)(1) into this notice 
in order to maintain continuity with the historical AFM ETOPS 
requirements.
    The two provisions from AC 120-42A that we are not proposing to 
incorporate directly into proposed paragraph I(e) are subparagraphs 
8(f)(1)(iii) and (v). Subparagraph 8(f)(1)(iii) addresses inclusion of 
the performance data used to comply with the engine-inoperative 
diversion criteria of the flight dispatch considerations in the 
operational approval section of the advisory circular. Contrary to this 
advisory circular provision, the FAA has not required that the 
performance data be included in the approved parts of the AFM and have 
not included this provision in the proposed rule. Subparagraph 
8(f)(1)(v) asks for a description or reference to a document containing 
the approved airplane configuration CMP standard. The CMP document 
identification has traditionally been included in the ETOPS approval 
statement defined in subparagraph 8(f)(1)(vi) for ETOPS airplanes 
approved under the existing policy. Therefore, we have combined 
subparagraphs 8(f)(1)(v) and 8(f)(1)(vi) from the AC into the new 
proposed paragraph I(e)(5).
    We are also proposing to add the original AFM requirement from the 
ARAC proposal into paragraph I(e)(4). This proposed requirement is not 
in AC 120-42A. This proposed paragraph would require the applicant to 
define the maximum ETOPS diversion time capability required by 
paragraph I(a)(3) into the airplane flight manual in accordance with 
Sec.  25.1581(a)(2), ``Furnishing Information.'' This proposed 
requirement provides a cross-reference to proposed paragraph I(a)(3), 
which would require that the ETOPS capability defined by most limiting 
ETOPS significant system capability be stated in the airplane flight 
manual.

Section II--Two Engine Airplanes

    In addition to the requirements of section I, an applicant for a 
two engine airplane would have to also show compliance with one of 
three proposed requirements of section II.

II(a) Service Experience Method

    The applicant would have to demonstrate that the airplane and 
engine combination for which approval is sought has the required 
airplane and propulsion system capability to safely conduct an ETOPS 
mission with the maximum diversion for which approval is sought, and 
has achieved required airframe and propulsion system reliability based 
upon fleet in-service experience.
Explanation
    Proposed sub-section II(a) would codify part of the existing 
approval process based on service experience, as contained in AC 120-
42A for two engine airplanes. This includes the most significant aspect 
of this process, the propulsion system assessment contained in Appendix 
1 of the advisory circular. The AC process is predicated on having a 
sufficient amount of service

[[Page 64746]]

experience to give the FAA enough data to assess the overall 
suitability of a two-engine airplane for ETOPS approval.
    The AC type design assessment criteria are divided into two parts. 
The first part defines specific system design capability and safety 
objectives in order to provide a minimum design standard for airplanes 
operating in ETOPS. This part of the AC criteria is addressed in 
proposed section 25.1535(a) and (b), and section I of proposed part 25 
appendix L.
    The second part of the AC process is a review of in-service 
problems and identification of appropriate corrective actions to 
prevent problems that could have an adverse effect on ETOPS safety. 
Part of this review is to establish that the airplane and propulsion 
systems have an appropriate level of reliability to meet the safety 
objectives defined in the AC. Appendix 1 of the AC defines an amount of 
service experience that would normally be required in order to give a 
sufficient database to evaluate propulsion system reliability. We are 
proposing to address this second part of the AC type design assessment 
process in sub-section II(b) of this notice.
II(a)(1) Required Service Experience
    This paragraph would require that an applicant who desires to 
obtain ETOPS type design approval using service experience conduct a 
reliability review after accumulating 250,000 worldwide fleet engine 
hours on the airplane and engine combination for which approval is 
being sought. The number of hours could be reduced if adequate 
compensating factors are identified which give a reasonable equivalent 
database. A significant portion of the 250,000 engine hours would have 
to be obtained on the candidate airplane.
Explanation
    Proposed paragraph II(a)(1) would codify the service experience 
eligibility criteria from paragraph a(1) of Appendix 1 of AC 120-42A.
II(a)(2) Propulsion System Assessment
    Paragraph II(a)(2)(i) would require an applicant to conduct a 
propulsion system assessment based on data collected from the entire 
fleet of the specific airplane and engine combination for which 
approval is sought. Paragraph II(a)(2)(ii) would require an applicant 
to identify corrective actions to prevent future occurrences of engine 
in-flight shutdowns or loss of thrust control.
Explanation
    Paragraph II(a)(2)(i) would codify the reliability data base 
criteria from paragraph b. of Appendix 1 of AC 120-42A. ARAC did not 
include the reliability data base criteria in their proposed rule 
draft, but did have it in their associated draft advisory material. In 
paragraph 10(a)(iii) of the draft part 25 advisory circular, ARAC 
stated ``A propulsion system assessment must be based on the following 
data, collected from the entire fleet of the specific airplane/engine 
combination type for which approval is sought* * *''. Since ARAC 
clearly stated its intent that an applicant ``must'' conduct a 
propulsion system assessment on the specific list that follows, and 
based on the clear reference to the existing policy from Appendix 1 of 
AC 120-42A, we have incorporated this section from the ARAC draft 
advisory circular into proposed paragraph II(a)(2)(i) of this notice.
    Paragraph II(a)(2)(ii) would codify the intent of the propulsion 
system assessment criteria from paragraph 3 of Appendix 1 of AC 120-
42A. This is the so-called ``fix-all-problems'' requirement that has 
been the practice for all ETOPS type design approvals that the FAA has 
given using the service experience approval process defined in AC 120-
42A.
    The corrective actions that the applicant identifies in compliance 
with proposed paragraph II(a)(2) would be included in the approved 
configuration, maintenance, and procedures (CMP) document as a 
condition of the ETOPS approval.
II(a)(3) Airplane systems assessment
    The applicant would have to show compliance with section 25.1535(a) 
using available in-service reliability data for ETOPS significant 
systems. The applicant would have to identify corrective actions to 
prevent future occurrences of ETOPS significant system failures 
occurring in service.
Explanation
    The first part of this paragraph would codify the intent of 
paragraph 8(c)(1) of AC 120-42A for those ETOPS significant airplane 
systems addressed in proposed Sec.  25.1535(a). This AC paragraph 
states that the analysis and demonstration of airframe and propulsion 
system failure effects and reliability provided by the applicant should 
be based on in-service experience and the longest diversion time for 
the airplane.
    The second part of proposed paragraph II(a)(3) is an extension of 
the ``fix-all-problems'' approach used in the propulsion system 
assessment that we are proposing in paragraph II(a)(2). For all 
airplanes approved using the policy contained in AC 120-42A, the FAA 
has required an applicant to define effective corrective actions for 
all in-service problems known to result in, or potentially result in, 
airplane diversions. The FAA has required this in order to enter ETOPS 
service with the highest quality airplane. An applicant rarely 
considers known system failure conditions to be acceptable occurrences 
in service that they account for in their system failure analyses 
submitted for compliance with section 25.1309. Therefore, this fix all 
problems approach is appropriate in reassessing compliance with the 
applicable airworthiness requirements of proposed section 25.1535(a).
    The corrective actions that the applicant identifies in compliance 
with proposed paragraph II(a)(3) would be included in the approved 
configuration, maintenance, and procedures (CMP) document as a 
condition of the ETOPS approval.
II(a)(4) In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD) Rates
    This proposed paragraph defines propulsion system reliability 
standards for three levels of ETOPS type design approval.
    (i) For operations up to 120 minutes: a rate of approximately 0.05 
or less per 1,000 fleet engine hours with a CMP intended to bring the 
rate down to 0.02.
    (ii) For operations up to 180 minutes: a rate of approximately 0.02 
or less per 1,000 engine hours with an existing 120 minute CMP 
standard, or new or additional CMP requirements that have been 
demonstrated to achieve this in-flight shutdown rate.
    (iii) For operations greater than 180 minutes: a rate of 
approximately 0.01 or less per 1,000 engine hours with an existing 120 
minute or 180 minute CMP standard, or new or additional CMP 
requirements that have been demonstrated to achieve this in-flight 
shutdown rate.
Explanation
    This proposed paragraph would codify the propulsion system 
reliability standards from Appendix 1 of AC 120-42A. In addition, we 
are proposing to add the reliability standard of 0.01 per 1,000 engine 
hours for ETOPS greater than 180 minutes that ARAC proposed in their 
recommended draft ETOPS rule.
    The original ARAC recommendation refers to ``target threshold'' or 
``target'' rate. These terms do not adequately define what would 
constitute an acceptable or unacceptable in-flight shutdown rate for 
showing compliance with this proposed requirement. The FAA has similar 
concerns about the term ``approximately'' as used in this

[[Page 64747]]

proposal, but this term is in the existing AC 120-42A policy and has 
been applied successfully since issuance of the AC. Therefore, the FAA 
has tentatively chosen to retain the term ``approximately'' as used in 
the existing AC policy in this proposed rule.
    We have added the qualifier ``or less'' to the proposed in-flight 
shutdown rate requirement. Without this term, the rule could be 
interpreted to mean that the in-flight shutdown rate ``must'' be the 
approximate value specified. We clearly do not intend that an applicant 
with an in-flight shutdown rate well below the requirement would not be 
in compliance with the rule. We have added this additional qualifier in 
order to clarify this intent.
    The original ARAC recommendation for operations up to 120 minutes 
was written in the following manner: ``with a required list of 
corrective actions that would result in continuing improvement toward 
an IFSD rate of 0.02 per 1000 fleet engine-hours.'' We have added ``in 
the CMP document'' in order to clarify where the list of corrective 
actions must be contained.
    For the proposed requirements for both operations up to 180 minutes 
and operations greater than 180 minutes we have added a provision that 
considers the effect that existing or new CMP standards have on 
compliance with the required in-flight shutdown rate. In the past, we 
granted ETOPS approvals using a 180-minute CMP standard developed from 
the 120 minute ETOPS CMP documents. This has occurred when the 
applicant has substantiated, through service experience, additional 
requirements that would achieve the desired in-flight shutdown rate for 
those airplanes incorporating the additional requirements. The added 
provision proposed in this notice is a statement of existing practice 
for granting 180-minute ETOPS approval where the 120-minute standard 
had to be modified. This notice proposes to codify this existing 
practice into the rule as noted above.
II(a)(5) Airplane Flight Test Requirements
    This paragraph would require a flight test to validate the adequacy 
of the airplane's flying qualities, performance, and the flight crew's 
ability to deal with engine inoperative and non-normal worst case 
system failure conditions expected to occur in service.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify the intent of paragraph 8(d)(3) of AC 
120-42A. The original ARAC proposed paragraph stated that the proposed 
flight test would validate ``non-normal worst case probable system 
failure conditions.'' This proposed wording would not adequately 
reflect how the FAA has applied the AC paragraph being codified.
    The term ``probable'' as used in the original ARAC proposal would 
have a specific meaning within the type certification community. As 
defined by Advisory Circular 25.1309-1A, probable failures are those 
anticipated to occur one or more times during the entire operational 
life of each airplane. Probable failures would most likely only include 
significant single failures, or more frequent double failures. However, 
we have required applicants for ETOPS type design approval under AC 
paragraph 8(d)(3) to demonstrate multiple failure conditions that are 
much less frequent in service, such as
    (i) the loss of all normal electrical power;
    (ii) flight controls powered by an emergency backup hydraulic 
source; and
    (iii) loss of normal flight instruments.
    These types of failure conditions would be expected to occur during 
the life of a fleet of airplanes, but not necessarily on each airplane. 
We believe that ARAC may have intended to include these failure 
conditions by using the qualifying term ``worst case'' in their 
proposal, however, we are not confident that it would be interpreted 
correctly with the wording as ARAC proposed. We have deleted the word 
``probable'' and replaced it with system failure conditions ``expected 
to occur in service'' in the proposed rule. This clarification more 
accurately reflects how the FAA has applied the paragraph 8(d)(3) of AC 
120-42A.
II(b) Early ETOPS Method
    This part of section II defines requirements that an applicant 
would have to comply with to certify an airplane for ETOPS without 
first accumulating the service experience that would be required in 
section II(a).
Explanation
    This section would codify the early ETOPS process defined in the 
Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions 25-ANM-84 for two engine 
airplanes. These special conditions defined requirements that allowed 
the FAA to approve the Boeing Model 777 airplane for ETOPS without the 
service experience normally expected under the policy in AC 120-42A. 
The intent of this proposed sub-section of Appendix L is to define 
requirements that would allow the FAA to grant ETOPS approval 
concurrent with the original type certification of an airplane.
II(b)(1) Relevant Experience Assessment
    The applicant would have to identify specific corrective actions 
taken on the airplane design to address relevant design, manufacturing, 
operational and maintenance problems experienced on previously 
certified part 25 airplanes manufactured by the applicant. Specific 
corrective actions would not be required if the nature of the problem 
is such that it would not have a significant impact on the safety or 
reliability of the system. The proposed rule would require that this 
assessment include the relevant experience of supplier provided ETOPS 
Group 1 significant systems and similar or identical equipment utilized 
on aircraft built by other manufacturers.
Explanation
    This proposed rule would codify paragraph (c)(2) of the Boeing 
Model 777 ETOPS special conditions 25-ANM-84. The term ``relevant 
experience'' as used in the proposed rule means the design, 
manufacturing, operational or maintenance problems that have, or could 
have, resulted in the types of occurrences that would be included in 
propulsion system and airplane system assessments conducted in 
accordance with a service experience based ETOPS approval process 
proposed in section II(a).
    The intent of this proposed requirement is to take advantage of 
service experience on other airplane types built by the applicant as 
much as is practical. This relevant experience assessment is in lieu of 
service experience on the actual airplane to be approved and is a major 
compensating factor for that direct service experience.
    One of the five key elements of the early ETOPS process on the 
Boeing Model 777 was the ``relevant experience assessment,'' or 
``lessons learned.'' Simply stated, the intent is for the applicant to 
review the failures on previous airplane/engine combinations, and 
assure that the causes of those failures are mitigated. While simple in 
concept, the execution of this assessment is significant in scope. One 
of the most significant aspects of this proposed rule is that an 
applicant with no previous transport category manufacturing experience 
would not be eligible to receive early ETOPS approval. The FAA 
considers the relevant experience assessment as elemental to the early 
ETOPS process. Without the ability to perform this assessment including 
lessons learned on manufacturing and engineering processes, the FAA 
could not

[[Page 64748]]

confidently grant an early ETOPS approval.
    Beyond a certain level of commonality, past experience may not be 
relevant to a new design. This is particularly true where a specific 
design feature that contributed to problems in previous airplanes is 
not a part of the new airplane design. However, the demonstration of 
the applicability of past experience to the new design is inherent in 
the relevant experience assessment.
    This proposed rule would require that the applicant identify 
corrective actions taken to preclude similar problems from occurring on 
the new airplane. Removal from the design of a system, sub-system, or 
component that has had problems in the past may be an acceptable 
corrective action, as long as it precludes similar problems from 
occurring.
    Where new technology is introduced, the lessons learned assessment 
becomes impractical, as there is no previous experience with this 
technology. While this is true, there may still be applicable relevant 
experience. For example, an applicant's previous experience with new 
technology introductions may lead to changes in manufacturing and 
quality control processes. Further, lessons learned of general 
applicability can be introduced into the new technology design, such as 
a general design practice to prevent cross-connector installation.
II(b)(2) Propulsion System Design
II(b)(2)(i) Engine ETOPS Eligibility
    This paragraph would require that the engines to be installed on 
the airplane be approved for ETOPS eligibility in accordance with 
proposed new section 33.200.
Explanation
    Proposed new section 33.200 would require that an engine intended 
for a two engine ETOPS airplane that does not have the service 
experience required by part 25, section II(a), would have to comply 
with certain requirements. The ARAC proposed rule draft did not 
specifically state that the engines installed in an early ETOPS 
airplane must be certified in accordance with section 33.200. We have 
corrected that oversight in this notice.
    We intend that section II(b) of this notice apply to all new 
airplanes and engines. We have considered the possibility that an 
applicant may install an already certified engine with existing service 
experience onto a new airplane. In this case, the combined service 
experience and early ETOPS approval method of proposed section II(c) 
would provide a way of certifying this type of mixed configuration.
II(b)(2)(ii) Design To Preclude In-Flight Shutdowns
    The applicant would have to design the propulsion system to 
preclude failures and malfunctions that could result in an engine in-
flight shutdown. In addition, the applicant would have to substantiate 
compliance with this requirement by analysis, test, in-service 
experience on other airplanes, or other means that the propulsion 
system will minimize failures and malfunctions with the objective of 
achieving the following in-flight shutdown rates:
    (i) 0.02 or less per 1,000 engine fleet hours for 180 minute ETOPS 
or less;
    (ii) 0.01 or less per 1,000 engine fleet hours for ETOPS beyond 180 
minutes.
Explanation
    ARAC provided the following justification for this proposed rule. 
``This rule section requires that the propulsion system be designed to 
preclude failures and malfunctions that could result in an engine in-
flight shutdown. Propulsion systems on previous airplanes were designed 
and certified to be ``fail-safe,'' in compliance with section 25.901 of 
part 25; in other words, any single failure, or probable combination of 
failures, would not jeopardize continued safe flight and landing of the 
airplane. Because safe flight following an engine shutdown is required 
by part 25, preventing engine in-flight shutdowns has not been a major 
design objective on some previous airplane designs. The additional 
design requirement in this section to preclude failures and 
malfunctions that could result in an engine in-flight shutdown has an 
enormous effect on propulsion system reliability in that normal design 
decisions must now consider whether a failure or malfunction might 
result in an engine in-flight shutdown. The method of compliance to 
this section may vary from applicant to applicant, but the intent 
remains--all design features of the propulsion system must preclude 
shutdowns or power losses. This intent is also captured in the proposed 
part 33 rule.''
    We agree with the justification that ARAC provided. The ``design to 
preclude failures and malfunctions that could result in an engine in-
flight shutdown'' is one of the most important features of the early 
ETOPS special conditions that we required for the Boeing Model 777 
airplane. The FAA had a similar justification for this requirement in 
the preamble to those special conditions. However, the proposed rule 
that ARAC recommended did not clearly state this intent. We have 
modified the original ARAC proposal to clarify this stated ARAC intent 
and bring the proposed rule in line with the existing Boeing Model 777 
ETOPS special conditions.
    ARAC did not provide a specific justification for the proposed in-
flight shutdown rate analysis requirement. Boeing has submitted such an 
analysis under compliance with paragraph (c)(5) of the ETOPS special 
conditions for the Model 777 airplane. Paragraph (c)(5) of those 
special conditions requires the applicant to define specific new 
analyses that will be used to assure engine and airplane system design 
integrity. The addition of a predicted in-flight shutdown rate analysis 
into this proposed rule would codify this method of compliance with the 
Boeing ETOPS special conditions.
    Since in-service experience does not exist on a new airplane, we 
have also changed the ARAC proposed rule language for the in-flight 
shutdown rate analysis to clarify that the in-service experience to be 
considered in this analysis would be from other airplanes. Applicable 
service experience would include the same basic engine design or other 
propulsion system components on other airplanes manufactured by the 
applicant, or by other manufacturers if the applicant has access to 
that data and can substantiate its applicability to the new airplane 
design.
II(b)(3) Maintenance and Operational Procedures
    The applicant would have to validate all ETOPS significant systems 
maintenance and operational procedures. Any problems found would have 
to be tracked and resolved through the problem tracking system and 
resolution system proposed in paragraph (II)(b)(8).
Explanation
    This proposed rule would codify the intent of paragraph (d)(2) of 
the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions. The special conditions 
paragraph requires the applicant to have a program to systematically 
detect and correct problems occurring as a result of improper execution 
of maintenance and flight operations. Boeing has complied with this 
requirement by validating maintenance and operational procedures 
important to the safety of ETOPS operations. This proposed rule would 
codify this method of compliance.
    Human error continues to be a major cause of engine in-flight 
shutdowns and forced airplane diversions. The proposed maintenance 
validation requirement, combined with the proposed requirement to 
operate and

[[Page 64749]]

maintain the test airplane during the airplane demonstrate test in 
paragraph II(b)(7) using the recommended operations and maintenance 
manual procedures, are part of the FAA's overall regulatory objective 
to minimize human errors in the ETOPS rule. The FAA intends that the 
proposed ETOPS type design requirements would result in an airplane 
entering service with validated maintenance and operational procedures 
that minimize the possibility of human error in ETOPS operations.
II(b)(4) Propulsion System Validation Test
    This paragraph would require the applicant for an early ETOPS 
airplane to comply with the 3,000-cycle engine test in the proposed new 
Sec.  33.200(c) with the installed engine configuration. The test 
engine would have to be configured with a complete airplane nacelle 
package, including engine-mounted equipment except for any 
configuration differences necessary to accommodate test stand 
interfaces with the engine nacelle package. At the conclusion of the 
test, the test hardware would have to be:
    (i) visually inspected in according to the applicant's on-wing 
inspection recommendations and limits; and
    (ii) completely disassembled and inspected in accordance with the 
service limits submitted in compliance with Sec.  25.1529.
Explanation
    Proposed paragraph II(b)(4) would codify paragraphs (e)(3) and 
(e)(6) of the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions for the 
airplane propulsion system installation. These special conditions 
paragraphs require vibration testing and a 3,000-cycle engine 
demonstration test on the installed engine configuration. The proposed 
Sec.  33.200(c) would combine these two special conditions test 
requirements into one test based on how Boeing complied with these 
paragraphs for the Model 777 airplane.
    The original ARAC recommended rule draft proposed the following 
wording for the first sentence of this paragraph: ``The propulsion 
system for which approval is being sought * * *'' The FAA defines the 
airplane propulsion system based on the definition of the powerplant 
installation contained in Sec.  25.901(a), which states:
    ``For the purpose of this part, the airplane powerplant 
installation includes each component that--
    (1) Is necessary for propulsion;
    (2) Affects the control of the major propulsive units; or
    (3) Affects the safety of the major propulsive units between normal 
inspections or overhauls.''
    The components and systems covered by the overall definition of 
``propulsion system'' include the fuel system and the engine and fuel 
system flight deck controls. We do not intend that the proposed 
propulsion system validation test in paragraph II(b)(4) would include 
any propulsion system components outside of the airplane nacelle 
package. We have made two changes to the original ARAC wording in order 
to clarify the intended test configuration. We have replaced 
``propulsion system'' with ``installed engine configuration'' in the 
first sentence. We have changed the second sentence to clarify that the 
test engine must be configured with a complete airplane nacelle 
package, including engine-mounted equipment except for any 
configuration differences necessary to accommodate test stand 
interfaces with the engine nacelle package. These proposed changes are 
consistent with a recent revision of the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special 
conditions.
    The Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions did not originally 
require a post-test teardown inspection. However, all three-engine 
companies, in cooperation with Boeing, conducted post-test teardown 
inspections on the original baseline engines installed on the Model 777 
series airplanes based on their own experience of what would constitute 
an adequate evaluation.
    The FAA reviewed the data from the 3,000-cycle tests for the three 
original engine types installed on the Model 777 and found that most of 
the early in-service 777 engine failure modes could have been 
discovered with additional inspection and analysis of the 3,000-cycle 
test engine and propulsion system hardware. Part conditions noted in 
the teardown inspection reports for the three baseline 777 engine types 
did later occur in service, and they resulted in engine in-flight 
shutdowns or airplane diversions.
    In order to provide a consistent standard for a post-test 
evaluation of the 3,000-cycle test hardware, the FAA is proposing an 
enhanced 3,000-cycle test requirement in proposed paragraph II(b)(4) of 
Appendix L and Sec.  33.200(c). The standard would require a complete 
teardown inspection of the engine and airplane nacelle test hardware 
after completion of the test. The FAA intends that the enhanced 
teardown inspection requirement for the 3,000-cycle test hardware would 
catch potential sources of engine in-flight shutdowns or diversions.
    An enhanced post-test teardown inspection requirement is part of a 
revision to the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions that the FAA 
developed for the Model 777-300ER program. The ARAC ETOPS Working Group 
had knowledge of our intent to revise the Model 777 ETOPS special 
conditions in this manner as they developed their recommendations.
    Even though paragraphs II(b)(4) and Sec.  33.200(c) address the 
same proposed post-test teardown inspection requirement, the wording 
for the requirement in paragraph II(b)(4) is different from that in 
Sec.  33.200(c). The FAA considers that the intent of the proposed 
post-test teardown and inspection requirement in parts 25 and 33 to be 
identical. However, the specific language used in each part is tailored 
to the unique aspects of the engine and airplane type certification 
processes used to show compliance with this requirement.
    See the discussion for the proposed new Sec.  33.200(c) for a 
complete explanation of the proposed 3,000-cycle engine test 
requirement.
    Proposed paragraph II(b)(4) is largely a ``pointer'' to the 
proposed requirements to perform an engine cyclic endurance test in 
part 33. The purpose of this paragraph in the rule is to assure that 
the entire installed engine configuration (engine accessories, nacelle, 
thrust reverser, etc.) is installed on the test vehicle during the part 
33 testing. Since the proposed part 33 requirement only covers the 
engine type design, this proposed rule is necessary.
II(b)(5) New Technology Demonstration Testing
    The applicant would have to conduct testing to demonstrate the 
suitability of any technology new to the applicant.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify paragraph (e)(4) of the Boeing Model 
777 ETOPS special conditions. The ARAC left this requirement from the 
special conditions out of its recommended rule proposal, even though 
the associated part 25 draft advisory circular provided with their 
recommendation refers to this as a requirement. We propose to add the 
new technology demonstration testing requirement to the notice for 
completeness.
II(b)(6) APU Validation Test
    This paragraph would require an applicant to complete a test 
consisting of 3,000 equivalent airplane operational cycles on an 
auxiliary power unit that the applicant uses to comply with the

[[Page 64750]]

electrical power supply system requirements of paragraph I(a)(2) of 
this proposed appendix.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify paragraph (e)(5) of the Boeing Model 
777 ETOPS special conditions.
    As we stated in the section on APU design for proposed paragraph 
I(b)(2), current twin engine airplanes approved for ETOPS only comply 
with the proposed requirement for electrical system reliability 
contained in this notice by having three independent electrical 
generators. On these airplanes, the third independent electrical 
generator is normally powered by an auxiliary power unit. To assure 
that an APU would have the proper reliability at entry into service, 
the proposed rule would require the applicant to conduct an APU 
endurance test in a similar manner to that proposed in paragraph 
II(b)(4) for the main engines. The phrase ``equivalent airplane 
operational cycles'' requires the applicant to test the APU in an 
environment that the APU would be operating in an airline ETOPS 
operation. In most cases this would include starting and operating the 
APU in extremely cold temperatures representative of high altitude 
operation or ground operations in extremely cold climates. This would 
also include operation in high temperature environments, and with 
simulated pneumatic and electrical loads. Further amplification of the 
interpretation of ``equivalent airplane operational cycles'' is found 
in the draft part 25 advisory circular.
II(b)(7) Airplane Demonstration Test
    This paragraph would require the applicant to conduct an airplane 
flight test to demonstrate that the airplane, its components and 
equipment are capable of and function properly during ETOPS and ETOPS 
diversions. This flight test may be coordinated with, but would not be 
in place of the function and reliability flight testing required for 
compliance with Sec.  21.35(b)(2).
    The proposed requirement includes several conditions that the 
applicant would have to comply with in conducting this test. Among 
these are:

(1) The flight test program would have to include:
    (i) Flights simulating actual ETOPS operation;
    (ii) demonstration of maximum normal flight duration with maximum 
diversions;
    (iii) maximum time engine inoperative diversions;
    (iv) non-normal conditions to demonstrate the airplanes capability 
to safely; conduct an ETOPS diversion,
    (v) diversions into representative operational diversionary 
airports; and
    (vi) repeated exposure to humid and inclement weather on the ground 
followed by long-range operations at normal cruise altitude.
(2) The flight testing would have to validate the adequacy of the 
airplane's flying qualities, performance and the flight crew's ability 
to deal with adverse operating conditions.
(3) The engine-inoperative diversions would have to be evenly 
distributed among the number of engines in the applicant's flight test 
program.
(4) The test airplane would have to be operated and maintained using 
the recommended operations and maintenance manual procedures during the 
test.
(5) At the completion of the test, the ETOPS Group 1 significant 
systems would have to undergo an airplane visual inspection and the 
engines would have to also undergo an internal gas path inspection.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify the airplane demonstration test 
requirement of paragraph (e)(7) of the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special 
conditions. The original version of the special conditions effective 
July 1, 1994 required the applicant to fly one complete airplane for at 
least 1,000 flight-cycles simulating an actual airline operation.
    The FAA developed the 1,000-cycle airplane demonstration test 
requirement with the intent of exposing the candidate airplane to the 
conditions where the greatest numbers of in-flight shutdowns occur. 
Most in-flight shutdowns occur during takeoff and climb. Failures that 
tend to occur only during certain portions of a flight are known as 
``cyclic'' failures. An example of a cyclic failure would be a tire 
failure where exposure to the high tire speeds that could lead to a 
tire failure would only occur during takeoff or landing. These are in 
contrast to failures that are more likely to occur as components age, 
which are known as ``hourly'' failures. An example of an hourly failure 
is an electric cooling fan failure where the fan runs continuously to 
cool electronic components.
    The failure modes associated with takeoff- and climb-related in-
flight shutdowns tend to be cyclic in nature for a couple of reasons. 
In cases where the loads and stresses on engine or airplane hardware 
increase as engine power or thrust increases, the takeoff portion of 
the flight is most critical. Failure modes that occur due to improper 
maintenance or engine servicing, for instance loss of engine oil due to 
improper assembly of an oil tube connection, also tend to occur early 
in the flight. A larger number of airplane flights increases the 
exposure to these types of failures. Therefore, the FAA considered a 
cyclic type of test to be the most appropriate airplane validation test 
for the original 777 ETOPS special conditions.
    Although the fewest in-flight shutdowns occur during cruise, this 
is the phase of flight that is most important to an ETOPS operation. 
Traditionally, the FAA and industry have avoided trying to 
differentiate between those in-flight shutdowns that may occur during 
cruise from those that would only occur in a non-ETOPS environment. The 
main reason for this approach in existing ETOPS policy is that by 
correcting all causes of in-flight shutdowns, we gain confidence in the 
overall integrity of the propulsion system design. Since an enhanced 
3,000-cycle engine demonstration test proposed for paragraph II(b)(4) 
of Appendix L and Sec.  33.200(c) would provide adequate cyclic 
exposure, the FAA has concluded that the airplane validation program 
should emphasize exposure to the cruise phase of flight.
    During the three 1,000-cycle tests conducted for the original 777 
engine installation certification programs, only 91 of the total 1,000 
cycles were of durations of two hours or more. Since we intend for the 
airplane demonstration test to simulate an actual airline operation, 
this would better be accomplished through longer duration flight 
cycles. Long duration flight exposure provides additional confidence 
that the design accounts for cruise-related failure modes that cannot 
be evaluated in a cyclic test environment. Such failure modes could 
include freezing of entrapped water condensation or binding of 
propulsion system components, neither of which would likely occur in a 
sea level test facility.
    Based on these considerations, the FAA has determined that the 
airplane demonstration test requirement should be refocused on those 
conditions that are most prevalent in an ETOPS operating environment. 
Those conditions include long flights to a variety of airports with 
broad variations of airport elevation, temperature, and humidity. It is 
also important that these flights expose the airplane to several 
enroute climbs, such as may occur with a fully loaded 777-300ER on a 
long-

[[Page 64751]]

range flight, and a number of engine-inoperative diversions. As such, 
the FAA proposes that the specific test conditions described in the 
sub-paragraphs to proposed paragraph II(b)(7) more clearly state the 
objectives of the test program. Those objectives include demonstrations 
that the aircraft, its components, and equipment are capable of and 
function properly during long-range operations and airplane diversions, 
including engine-inoperative diversions.
    This change in focus constitutes a significant departure from the 
original purpose of the 1,000-cycle airplane demonstration test 
requirement discussed in the preamble to the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS 
special conditions. However, the proposed changes to the 3,000 cycle 
test requirement and the airplane demonstration test that we propose 
for this rule would provide an overall better evaluation of a new 
airplane design for ETOPS approval.
    The original ARAC proposal recommended the following wording for 
paragraph II(b)(7)(i)(4): ``Non-normal conditions to demonstrate the 
airplane's capability to safely conduct an ETOPS diversion under worst 
case probable system failure conditions.'' This is similar language for 
a flight test demonstration of non-normal operating conditions to 
Section III--Airplanes with more than two engines that proposed for 
paragraph II(a)(5). For similar reasons to those in the explanation for 
paragraph II(a)(5), we have deleted the word ``probable'' in proposed 
paragraph II(b)(7)(i)(4) and replaced it with system failure conditions 
``expected to occur in service'' in the proposed rule.
    Human error continues to be a major cause of engine in-flight 
shutdowns and forced airplane diversions. The proposed requirement in 
paragraph II(b)(7)(iv) to operate and maintain the test airplane using 
the recommended operations and maintenance manual procedures, combined 
with the proposed maintenance validation requirement in paragraph 
II(b)(3), are part of the FAA's overall regulatory objective to 
minimize human errors in the ETOPS rule. The FAA intends that the 
proposed ETOPS type design requirements would result in an airplane 
entering service with validated maintenance and operational procedures 
that minimize the possibility of human error in ETOPS operations.
    During the certification of the B777 for early ETOPS, the special 
conditions required that the airplane demonstration test be conducted 
using the airline maintenance and operations manuals. The purpose of 
this requirement was three-fold: (1) To assure that the airplane test 
was as close to an airline simulation as possible, (2) to assure that 
the maintenance and operations products were mature at entry into 
service, and (3) to assure that no maintenance or operations procedures 
would erroneously contribute to system failures.
    In developing their draft rule, the ARAC ETOPS Working Group fully 
concurred with the proposed requirement to assure maintenance and 
operational product maturity at entry into service. However, the 
working group also recognized that validation of these products could 
be accomplished in different fashions. Nonetheless, ARAC noted that the 
proposed associated advisory circular (AC) recommends that the 
maintenance manual should be used for all testing necessary for ETOPS 
validation (component, engine and airplane). Tasks such as LRU 
replacement, testing following removal/replacement of parts, etc., must 
be validated per the requirements of the rule. The proposed AC does 
provide amplification, however, on what maintenance manual sections 
should be validated, namely only those sections pertinent to Groups 1 
and 2 ETOPS significant systems. For instance, while validation of a 
landing gear maintenance task may be prudent for product readiness, the 
landing gear is not considered ETOPS critical, and therefore validation 
of related maintenance procedures would not be required.
    As we said in the discussion for the proposed 3,000 cycle test 
requirement in paragraph II(b)(4), the FAA has concluded from a review 
of in-service experience of the Model 777 series airplanes that the 
3,000-cycle engine and propulsion system test in proposed paragraph 
II(b)(4) of Appendix L and Sec.  33.200(c) provides an adequate 
opportunity to discover cyclic-related failure modes associated with 
the design, provided that the engine and airplane manufacturers conduct 
an adequate post-test evaluation. For similar reasons, proposed 
subparagraph II(b)(7)(v) would require a post-test external and 
internal visual inspection of the airplane demonstration test engines 
and propulsion system hardware. The applicant would have to identify, 
track and resolve any abnormal conditions found during these 
inspections in accordance with the provisions of the proposed problem 
tracking and resolution system requirement of paragraph II(b)(8).
    The proposed paragraph II(b)(7)(v) would require the manufacturer 
to visually inspect the airplane ETOPS significant systems per the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of section 25.1529 following 
the airplane demonstration test. The stated objective for this 
inspection in the proposed rule is to identify any abnormal conditions 
that could result in an in-flight shutdown or diversion. We have 
proposed this paragraph as ARAC recommended. However, many of the 
airplane ETOPS significant systems have components that are not 
amenable to visual inspection. An example is an electronic controller 
for airplane electrical load management. We request comments on this 
specific aspect of the proposed rule. If a visual inspection alone is 
not a sufficient post-test inspection requirement, what additional 
post-test inspections or tests should be incorporated into the final 
rule? If certain ETOPS significant systems should not be covered by 
this post-test inspection requirement, then what should be the criteria 
in the final rule for their exclusion? We invite commenters to respond 
to other commenters' suggestions because the FAA may select one or more 
commenter recommended approaches for the final rule.
    The FAA proposed a change to the airplane demonstration flight test 
requirement in a revision to the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special 
conditions for the Model 777-300ER type certification program. The ARAC 
ETOPS Working Group had knowledge of our intent to revise the Model 777 
ETOPS special conditions in this manner as they developed their 
recommendations. We have provided a more detailed justification of the 
airplane demonstration test requirement changes proposed in this notice 
in the preamble for that special conditions revision.
II(b)(8) Problem Tracking and Resolution System
    This paragraph would require the applicant to establish a problem 
tracking and resolution system to address problems, as identified in 
proposed 21.4(a)(5), encountered on ETOPS significant systems during 
airplane and engine testing that could affect the safety of ETOPS 
operations.
    Explanation. This paragraph would codify the problem tracking 
system requirements of paragraph (f) from the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS 
special conditions.
    The special conditions problem tracking system requirement is 
divided into two parts: the problem tracking/reporting required during 
type certification testing, and that required during the ``early 
ETOPS'' period of the first 250,000 hours of operation after the

[[Page 64752]]

airplane enters service. The proposed paragraph II(b)(8) addresses the 
first part of the special conditions requirement. The second part is 
captured in the proposed new Sec.  21.4(a).
    The original ARAC recommendation would have required the problem 
tracking and resolution system to address ``relevant'' problems 
encountered. The term ``relevant'' is subjective and may result in 
inconsistent application of the proposed rule. Furthermore, we have 
identified the types of problems that must be reported in the post type 
certification period in proposed new Sec.  21.4(a)(5). In order to 
assure consistency with the companion post type certification problem 
reporting requirement contained in proposed Sec.  21.4(a), we have 
replaced the term ``relevant'' with the phrase ``as identified in Sec.  
21.4(a)(5)''.
    In evaluating the importance of this proposed rule, the FAA has 
reviewed the experience on the first early ETOPS airplane. The FAA 
approved the Model 777-200 powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4077 engines 
for ETOPS on May 30, 1995 and the airplane entered airline service in 
June 1995. By all accounts, it was a very successful new model 
introduction. This was followed by the FAA ETOPS approval of the Model 
777-200 powered by General Electric GE90-77B and Rolls-Royce RB211-
Trent 877-17 engines in October 1996. Based on data supplied by Boeing, 
the in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate for all three-engine types was zero 
for at least the first year in service. The Pratt & Whitney PW4000 
reached a peak 12-month rolling average IFSD rate of 0.018/1,000 hours 
in October 1996. The General Electric GE90 reached a peak of 0.021 for 
one month in July 1998 and the Rolls-Royce Trent reached a peak of 
0.016 in December 1997.
    Although the in-flight shutdown rates stayed within the allowable 
0.02/1,000 hour standard for 180 minute ETOPS, Boeing and the engine 
manufacturers reported to the FAA new design problems that they 
discovered on each engine type after ETOPS approval. The FAA was 
concerned that the design problems being discovered may have been an 
indication of a failure of the early ETOPS process to identify these 
failure modes before they occurred in service. Some failure modes had 
the potential of resulting in in-flight shutdowns had they occurred 
under different circumstances or they had not been detected during 
maintenance for unassociated reasons. Had every one of these events 
resulted in an engine in-flight shutdown, the resulting IFSD rates for 
each engine type would have been significantly higher. However, Boeing, 
the engine manufacturers, the FAA, the airlines, and other regulatory 
authorities worked together to prevent in-flight occurrences of these 
failure types.
    The FAA did not expect that the early ETOPS process would eliminate 
ALL failures. That is why the FAA required a problem tracking system in 
the Model 777 ETOPS special conditions. The actual in-flight shutdown 
rates prove that Boeing and the engine manufacturers successfully 
managed these early in-service problems to maintain the safety of B777 
ETOPS operations worldwide. A robust problem tracking, reporting, and 
resolution process was key to the continued safe operation of the 
Boeing Model 777 and will be an essential component of future early 
ETOPS programs. The proposed problem reporting and resolution 
requirements in paragraph II(b)(8) and new Sec.  21.4(a) are important 
to the continued success of airplanes approved for ETOPS using the 
early ETOPS process proposed in this notice.
II(b)(9) Reliability Demonstration Acceptance Criteria
    The applicant would have to show that the type and frequency of 
failures that occur during the airplane flight test program and the 
airplane demonstration test proposed by paragraph II(b)(7), are 
consistent with the type and frequency of failures or malfunctions that 
would be expected to occur on currently certified ETOPS airplanes.
Explanation
    This paragraph would codify paragraph (h)(1) of the Boeing Model 
777 ETOPS special conditions. This proposed paragraph is the so-called 
``type and frequency'' requirement that is the final indicator of ETOPS 
suitability in the Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions.
    The FAA's intent for the type and frequency requirement is that it 
would provide an objective standard that we could use to assess an 
airplane's suitability for ETOPS. Significant propulsion system 
failures occurring during type certification testing, including the 
additional ETOPS testing that would be required in section II of 
proposed Appendix L, are an indicator that an airplane may not yet be 
ready to enter ETOPS service. Our intent is that the proposed type and 
frequency requirement would identify when an airplane is not suitable 
based on available test data.
    We did not intend that the proposed type and frequency requirement 
would provide a meaningful measurement of reliability. It is not 
possible to measure system reliability with any degree of statistical 
confidence with the limited amount of test experience obtained during a 
reasonable type certification program.
    A lack of significant failures during type certification testing 
does not assure an ETOPS-suitable design at entry into service. It is 
for this reason that the proposed problem tracking system requirement 
exists. As we said in the explanation for proposed paragraph II(b)(8), 
the FAA concludes from the Boeing Model 777 experience that a 
manufacturer can successfully manage early in-service problems to 
maintain the safety of worldwide ETOPS operations during the initial 
introductory service period with the data provided by the enhanced 
problem tracking system that would be required by proposed in paragraph 
II(b)(8).
    The combination of these two proposed requirements form the key 
supports of the early ETOPS safety standard for two-engine airplanes 
proposed in this notice. The proposed type and frequency requirement 
gives the basis for denying ETOPS approval for airplanes with known 
significant design problems. The proposed problem tracking and 
resolution system gives the FAA confidence that we have the means to 
safely manage a fleet of airplanes and engines that do not experience 
significant problems until after ETOPS approval.
    The original ARAC proposed wording for paragraph II(b)(9) referred 
to failures that occur during the ``airplane and engine validation 
programs.'' This wording is inconsistent with the Boeing Model 777 
ETOPS special conditions, which refers to failures that occur during 
``the airplane flight test program and the airplane demonstration 
test.'' Nowhere does the proposed rule use the term ``validation 
program.'' We think that the special conditions wording more accurately 
describes what testing is covered by this proposed requirement and have 
changed the proposal accordingly.
    The ARAC draft had an additional qualifying phrase on the airplane 
models that the candidate airplane's failures and malfunctions would be 
compared to. In addition to ``presently certified ETOPS airplanes,'' 
the ARAC draft added the phrase ``or any non-ETOPS derivative models of 
those aircraft or engines.'' This added phrase is not in the existing 
Boeing Model 777 ETOPS special conditions. We are proposing that the 
proposed type and frequency requirement for two engine airplanes 
include a comparison with an existing fleet of ETOPS approved

[[Page 64753]]

airplanes that are currently operating at a stable level of reliability 
in ETOPS service. It would not be appropriate to make this comparison 
with a non-ETOPS approved fleet. The FAA does not require the operators 
of non-ETOPS fleets to maintain a level of reliability consistent with 
the ETOPS standard for two-engine airplanes.
    We speculate that the ARAC may have intended that the added phrase 
``or any non-ETOPS derivative models of those aircraft or engines'' 
would address a manufacturer that initially would have no previously 
approved ETOPS airplanes in service from which to base a type and 
frequency comparison. The proposed rule would not specifically require 
that the comparison be with currently certified ETOPS airplanes by that 
manufacturer. If an applicant does not currently have an existing ETOPS 
approved airplane in service from which to base a type and frequency 
comparison, the proposed rule would allow the manufacturer to use 
available data for ETOPS approved airplanes of other manufacturers. It 
is not necessary that the applicant use a single existing airplane 
model in the comparison that would be required by proposed paragraph 
II(b)(9). We have not included this phrase in proposed paragraph 
II(b)(9).
    In finding compliance with the proposed type and frequency 
requirement, we would be looking at the significance of the problems 
that occur during the type certification testing and whether or not 
they would require a design change prior to type certification of the 
airplane. Manufacturers continually make improvements to enhance their 
designs based on in-service experience. These design improvements may 
eliminate nuisance problems that are not, in themselves, safety 
related. In addition, certain failures that occur in service are 
expected during the life of the product at a known low rate of 
occurrence and are not indicative of a significant design shortcoming. 
We could find compliance with the proposed reliability demonstration 
acceptance criteria even though we might expect that these types of 
failures or problems occurring during airplane flight testing could 
also occur on a mature ETOPS fleet.
    In contrast, the types of failures or problems that would give the 
FAA concern about compliance with the proposed reliability 
demonstration acceptance criteria would fall into two categories:
    (1) A major failure that would require a significant redesign 
before the airplane could receive a basic part 25 type certificate. In 
other words, a problem that makes the airplane unsafe without a 
significant redesign and testing.
    (2) Random ETOPS significant failures occurring during the test 
program at a frequency greater than would be expected on a mature ETOPS 
fleet. ETOPS significant failures would be those that result in the 
events listed in proposed Sec.  21.4(a)(5).

II(c) Combined Service Experience and Early ETOPS Method

    This proposed paragraph would allow an applicant to combine certain 
elements of the early ETOPS process proposed in section II(b) with a 
reduced amount of service experience from what would be required by 
paragraph II(a)(1) to obtain ETOPS approval.
Explanation
    The early ETOPS process proposed in section II(b) of Appendix L 
would define requirements for obtaining ETOPS type design approval 
without the service experience that would be required by section II(a). 
Proposed sub-section II(c) would define requirements for obtaining 
ETOPS approval with a combination of service experience and elements of 
the early ETOPS process.
    The FAA has accepted, in principle, the concept of trading a 
limited amount of service experience for the airplane demonstration 
test requirements contained in the 777 early ETOPS special conditions. 
The FAA did this based on a concept already contained in Advisory 
Circular 120-42A, which allows a reduction in the normal amount of 
service experience if ``adequate compensating factors exist which give 
a reasonable equivalent database.'' The FAA considers that elements of 
the early ETOPS process may be used to provide ``adequate compensating 
factors.'' Since the 777 early ETOPS process provides a method for 
obtaining ETOPS approval without any service experience, a minimum 
amount of actual service experience would provide an adequate 
evaluation if the applicant complies with the other elements of the 
early ETOPS process.
    Proposed section II(c) would codify this concept into the ETOPS 
rule. The proposed rule would allow two methods of reduced service 
experience in place of the complete early ETOPS process contained in 
section II(b). Paragraph II(c)(1) would specifically require only 
15,000 engine hours of service experience if the applicant complies 
with the following elements of sections II(a) and (b):

    (a)(5) Airplane flight test requirements,
    (b)(1) Relevant experience assessment,
    (b)(2) Propulsion system design,
    (b)(3) Maintenance and operational procedures,
    (b)(4) Propulsion system validation test,
    (b)(5) New technology demonstration testing,
    (b)(6) APU validation test,
    (b)(8) Problem tracking and resolution system, and
    (b)(9) Reliability demonstration acceptance criteria.

    In addition to the airplane flight test requirement from the 
service experience method, paragraph II(a)(5), these are all of the 
elements of the early ETOPS process except for the airplane 
demonstration test in proposed paragraph II(b)(7). We have added three 
paragraphs to the original ARAC proposal. The first is the airplane 
flight test requirement from the service experience method, paragraph 
II(a)(5). Without some required airplane flight-testing, the ARAC 
proposal would not result in an equivalent demonstration of a 
capability to safely operate in an ETOPS environment. Paragraph 
II(a)(5) would require an applicant for ETOPS approval based on service 
experience to conduct a flight test to validate the adequacy of the 
airplane's flying qualities, performance and the flight crew's ability 
to deal with engine inoperative and non-normal worst case system 
failure conditions expected to occur in service. The FAA considers that 
an applicant who does not complete the airplane demonstration flight 
test requirement in accordance with proposed paragraph II(b)(7) as part 
of a combined ETOPS approval method must as a minimum complete the 
flight testing that would be required if the applicant were using 
service experience only.
    The second is proposed paragraph (b)(5), new technology testing. We 
have added the new technology testing requirement here and in section 
III because we could find no valid reason to exclude it when every 
other requirement of proposed early ETOPS section is included except 
for the airplane demonstration test requirement. Since ARAC overlooked 
the new technology testing requirement in their original proposal as 
discussed above for proposed paragraph II(b)(5), we assume that it 
would have been included in proposed paragraph II(c)(a) had they not 
overlooked it.
    The third paragraph we have added is the reliability demonstration 
acceptance criteria in proposed paragraph II(b)(9). In section II(a) 
for a service experience based approval, in-flight shutdown rate 
provides the FAA with a reliability objective to assess a design's 
suitability.

[[Page 64754]]

In the early ETOPS method proposed in section II(b), the reliability 
demonstration acceptance criteria provides a way to compare the 
airplane flight test history to existing ETOPS approved airplanes as a 
way to assess design suitability. Without some defined criteria for 
assessing the suitability of a design for ETOPS approval, we would have 
no way of determining if a candidate airplane were acceptable when an 
applicant chooses to use the combined approach. Therefore, we have 
added the reliability demonstration acceptance criteria requirement to 
proposed paragraph II(c)(1). Since we consider this to be a significant 
departure from ARAC's original recommendation and ARAC did not clearly 
state their intent for this section, we request specific comments on 
this particular proposal.
    The second method for reduced service experience proposed in 
paragraph II(c)(2) would allow some level of service experience other 
than 15,000 engine hours, provided the applicant defines compensating 
factors that provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided 
using any of the other methods. This method would allow an applicant 
some latitude to create an ETOPS approval program tailored to the 
unique aspects of the airplane model.

Section III--Airplanes With More Than Two Engines

    In addition to the requirements of section I, an applicant for an 
airplane with more than two engines would have to show compliance with 
the proposed requirements of section III.
Explanation
    This section of Appendix L would define those specific requirements 
that would be applicable to airplanes with more than two engines. In 
order to achieve an equivalent risk of a critical loss of thrust during 
an ETOPS flight due to independent failure causes, the in-flight 
shutdown rate for twins needs to be ten times lower than four engine 
airplanes and 20 times lower than three engine airplanes to achieve an 
equivalent level of safety for ETOPS. For maximum diversion times 
greater than 180 minutes, the proposed standard for two engine 
airplanes is 0.01 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours. The associated in-
flight shutdown rate to achieve the same level of safety would be 0.2 
for three engine airplanes and 0.1 for four engine airplanes. These 
levels of reliability are inherent in current generation turbine 
engines without the need for specific propulsion system requirements 
beyond those now in parts 33 and 25. The FAA is concerned that we may 
inadvertently encourage a lower standard than is already normally 
achieved by specifying these high in-flight shutdown rates in the 
proposed rule for three and four engine airplanes. Therefore, we have 
not included any of the proposed propulsion system requirements that 
would be applicable to two engine airplanes into proposed Appendix L, 
section III.
    What remains for section III are the proposed airplane level system 
requirements from section II including a flight test demonstration of 
airplane and propulsion system capability during a maximum ETOPS 
diversion. Since we are equally concerned about human error caused 
critical multiple failures for airplanes with more than two engines as 
we are for twins, we are also proposing a maintenance and operational 
procedure validation requirement in section III. Except as noted, the 
explanation for each of the proposed paragraphs in section III is the 
same as for section II.

III(a) Service Experience Method

    The applicant would have to demonstrate that the airplane and 
engine combination for which approval is sought has the required 
airplane and propulsion system capability to safely conduct an ETOPS 
mission and maximum diversion and has achieved required airplane system 
reliability based upon fleet in-service experience.
Explanation
    This proposed requirement is the same as in section II with the 
exception that ``propulsion system'' has been removed from the last 
phrase of the proposed requirement. Otherwise, the explanation is the 
same as for paragraph II(a).
III(a)(1) Required Service Experience
    This paragraph would require that an applicant who desires to 
obtain ETOPS type design approval using service experience conduct a 
reliability review after accumulating 250,000 worldwide fleet engine 
hours on the airplane and engine combination for which approval is 
being sought. The number of hours would be allowed to be reduced if 
adequate compensating factors are identified which give a reasonable 
equivalent database. A significant portion of the 250,000 engine hours 
would have to be obtained on the candidate airplane.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(a)(1).
III(a)(2) Airplane Systems Assessment
    The applicant would have to show compliance with section 25.1535(a) 
using available in-service reliability data for ETOPS significant 
systems. The applicant would have to identify corrective actions for 
all causes or potential causes of ETOPS significant system failures 
occurring in service that are shown to be effective in preventing 
future occurrences.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(a)(3).
III(a)(3) Airplane Flight Test Requirements
    This paragraph would require a flight test to validate the adequacy 
of the airplane's flying qualities, performance and the flight crew's 
ability to deal with engine inoperative and non-normal worst case 
system failure conditions expected to occur in service.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(a)(5).
III(b) Early ETOPS Method
    This part of section II defines requirements that an applicant 
would have to comply with to certify an airplane for ETOPS without 
first accumulating the service experience that would be required in 
section III(a).
Explanation
    Proposed section III(b) is the same as proposed section II(b) 
except that the relevant experience assessment and propulsion system 
design requirements have been removed from the proposed section III 
requirements. Otherwise, the explanation is the same as for paragraph 
II(b).
III(b)(1) Maintenance and Operational Procedures
    Under this proposed requirement, the applicant would have to 
validate maintenance and operational procedures for ETOPS Significant 
Systems. The applicant would have to track and resolve any problems 
discovered during the validation process using the proposed Problem 
Tracking and Resolution System as described by paragraph (b)(5).
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(3).

[[Page 64755]]

III(b)(2) New Technology Demonstration Testing
    The applicant would have to validate all ETOPS significant systems 
maintenance and operational procedures. Any problems found would have 
to be tracked and resolved through the problem tracking system and 
resolution system proposed in paragraph III(b)(5).
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(5).
III(b)(3) APU Validation Test
    This paragraph would require an applicant to complete a test 
consisting of 3,000 equivalent airplane operational cycles on an 
auxiliary power unit that the applicant uses to comply with the 
electrical power supply system requirements of paragraph I(a)(2) of 
this proposed appendix.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(6).
III(b)(4) Airplane Demonstration Test
    This paragraph would require the applicant to conduct an airplane 
flight test to demonstrate that the airplane, its components and 
equipment are capable of and function properly during ETOPS and ETOPS 
diversions. This flight test may be coordinated with, but would not be 
in place of the function and reliability flight testing required for 
compliance with Sec.  21.35(b)(2).
    The proposed requirement includes several conditions that the 
applicant would have to comply with in conducting this test. Among 
these are:

(1) The flight test program would have to include:
    (i) flights simulating actual ETOPS operation;
    (ii) demonstration of maximum normal flight duration with maximum 
diversions;
    (iii) maximum time engine inoperative diversions;
    (iv) non-normal conditions to demonstrate the airplanes capability 
to safely conduct and ETOPS diversion;
    (v) diversions into representative operational diversionary 
airports; and
    (vi) repeated exposure to humid and inclement weather on the ground 
followed by long-range operations at normal cruise altitude.
(2) The flight testing would have to validate the adequacy of the 
airplane's flying qualities, performance and the flight crew's ability 
to deal with adverse operating conditions.
(3) The engine-inoperative diversions would have to be evenly 
distributed among the number of engines in the applicant's flight test 
program.
(4) The test airplane would have to be operated and maintained using 
the recommended operations and maintenance manual procedures during the 
test.
(5) At the completion of the test, the ETOPS Group 1 significant 
systems would have to undergo an airplane visual inspection and the 
engines would have to also undergo an internal gas path inspection.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(7).
III(b)(5) Problem Tracking and Resolution System
    This paragraph would require the applicant to establish a problem 
tracking and resolution system to address problems, as identified in 
proposed section 21.4(a)(5), encountered on ETOPS significant systems 
during airplane and engine testing that could affect the safety of 
ETOPS operations.
Explanation
    The explanation for this proposed paragraph is the same as for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(8).
III(b)(6) Reliability Demonstration Acceptance Criteria
    The applicant would have to show that the type and frequency of 
failures that occur during the airplane flight test program and the 
airplane demonstration test proposed by paragraph III(b)(4), are 
consistent with the type and frequency of failures or malfunctions that 
would be expected to occur on presently certified ETOPS airplanes, or 
any non-ETOPS derivative models of those aircraft or engines.
Explanation
    As discussed above for proposed paragraph II(b)(9), the original 
ARAC draft did not differentiate between two engine airplanes from 
airplanes with more than two engines in the applicability of the type 
and frequency requirement. The ARAC proposal for this paragraph 
included the added phrase ``or any non-ETOPS derivative models of those 
airplanes or engines'' for those airplanes and engines that could be 
included in this comparison of reliability. As we discussed above for 
proposed paragraph II(b)(9), we have deleted this phrase from the 
proposed rule for two engine airplanes because an applicant would not 
necessarily have to do the comparison to previously approved airplanes 
manufactured by that applicant. We are now proposing to separately 
state the requirements for airplanes with more than two engines in 
proposed section III of Appendix L. We have retained this provision in 
the proposed requirement for airplanes with more than two engines in 
paragraph III(b)(6) since previous ETOPS experience may not exist on 
airplanes with more than two engines at the time this proposed rule 
becomes effective.

III(c) Combined Service Experience and Early ETOPS Method

Explanation
    With the exception of any specific propulsion system requirements 
that are being applied to airplanes with more than two engines as 
discussed above, the explanation for proposed section III(c) is the 
same as for proposed section II(c).

Part 33

Global Issues for Part 33

    The overall philosophy behind ETOPS type design approval is to 
build upon the improved reliability observed in today's engines, 
resulting in an even higher level of reliability for future engine 
products. However, the FAA recognizes that even with the advances in 
design and manufacturing technology, loss of thrust control (LOTC), in-
flight shutdown (IFSD), or other power loss events will continue to 
occur. Therefore the overall intent of these ETOPS type design 
requirements are to minimize the likelihood of an engine power loss 
during ETOPS operations.
    Specifically, the part 33 ETOPS related amendments require the 
engine manufacturers to use their best design and manufacturing 
practices, skills and lessons learned in designing and manufacturing 
the new product. The intent is to eliminate from the design all known 
ETOPS relevant failures, malfunctions, or design related maintenance 
errors experienced in their other relevant FAA certified engine models. 
These failures include but are not limited to loss of thrust control, 
in-flight shutdown, or other power loss events.
    It is important to note that complying with the part 33 ETOPS 
requirements for certification makes the product ``eligible'' for ETOPS 
operation only, and in no way implies an approval

[[Page 64756]]

separate from the aircraft or operator. Therefore, compliance with 
these requirements does not constitute an operational or aircraft level 
approval for ETOPS operations.

Discussion of General Issues in Part 33

ETOPS Engine Testing
    A 3,000-cycle test would be required for ETOPS engine eligibility. 
This test simulates 3,000 flights from engine startup to engine 
shutdown. A 3,000-cycle test was first required for the early ETOPS 
approval of two-engine aircraft under an FAA Early ETOPS Special 
Condition. However, prior to and subsequent to that Special Condition, 
other aircraft types with new engines, and others with derivative 
engine types, have successfully demonstrated the requisite level of 
reliability in service for ETOPS using normal certification procedures. 
However, the FAA considers that new two-engine airplane-engine 
combinations intended for immediate ETOPS operations should be required 
to undergo a cyclic endurance ground test to give confidence that the 
requisite level of reliability for such operations will be achieved at 
entry into service.
    The technical basis for applying this test to two-engine airplanes 
rather than all airplanes, is that the allowable IFSD rate needed to 
maintain safe flight throughout the diversion and landing is an order 
of magnitude greater for a three or four engine aircraft as compared to 
a two-engine aircraft (assuming equivalent risk and flight duration). 
This also assumes that the aircraft can maintain safe flight throughout 
the diversion and land with one engine inoperative.
    The FAA has concluded from a review of in-service experience that 
the 3,000-cycle engine and propulsion system test provides an adequate 
opportunity to discover cyclic-related failure modes associated with 
the design. However this is predicated upon an adequate post-test 
evaluation to identify conditions that could result in an in-flight 
shutdown, power loss, or inability to control engine thrust. An FAA 
review of the data from the 3,000-cycle tests for three new engine 
types has shown that most of the early in-service engine failure modes 
could have been discovered using a more thorough teardown inspection 
and analysis of a 3,000-cycle test engine and propulsion system 
hardware. This would include evaluating hardware condition against the 
required lessons learned analysis, and also to evaluate abnormal or 
other wear or distress conditions not currently addressed in the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).
    In light of the FAA experience certifying and monitoring the Boeing 
777, and in order to provide a consistent standard for post-test 
evaluation, the FAA proposes to require a complete teardown inspection 
of the engine hardware after completion of the test. The inspection 
would include an analysis of any abnormal conditions found. The 
analysis would consider the possible consequences of similar 
occurrences in service to determine if they might become sources of 
engine in-flight shutdowns, power loss, or inability to control engine 
thrust. The intent of this requirement is to identify potential sources 
of engine in-flight shutdowns or diversions and prevent these from 
occurring in the future.
    The basic premise behind the engine demonstration tests required by 
this proposal is that the tests will provide a useful validation of the 
inherent level of reliability that was the product of an enhanced 
design and test process. The FAA's expectation for these tests is that 
significant failures will not occur. The probability of significant 
failures occurring on a single engine test program is so low that if 
any do occur, it would be indicative of a design that is not suitable 
for ETOPS approval. This expectation is addressed in the ``type and 
frequency'' requirement of the rule.
FAA General Changes to the ARAC Proposal for Part 33
    The ARAC ETOPS recommendations for part 33 engine rulemaking 
addresses the Tasking Statement objectives for part 33 and incorporates 
the fundamental elements to achieve the Tasking Statement's stated 
objective. The FAA has concluded that the fundamental elements of the 
ARAC Recommendations, along with the identified changes, supports 
achieving the target level of safety and reliability necessary for safe 
ETOPS operations for engines installed in two-engine aircraft at entry-
into-service.
    However the FAA has identified a number of areas where the level of 
detail in the ARAC rule recommendation is not adequate to fully address 
a fundamental element, or has details that the FAA believes are 
inappropriate or lacking in adequate detail. Also, for the purpose of 
clarity, completeness, and terminology usage, and to follow required 
rule format, the ARAC rule recommendation has been reorganized within 
part 33.
FAA Changes From the ARAC Part 33 Rule Recommendations
1. Format and Organization
    The Rule has been reformatted and reorganized to include all early 
ETOPS design, lessons learned, and test requirements under one specific 
rule. The rule number is 33.200, which resides in new part 33 subpart 
G, Special Requirements. The ARAC recommendations divided the ETOPS 
requirements between existing Sec.  33.90 Initial Maintenance 
Inspection (IMI) and a specific ETOPS rule. Section 33.90 retains the 
provision to utilize the ETOPS testing for compliance purposes. The 
reorganization is generally as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ARAC recommendation paragraph  number        New paragraph  number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.90(a)..................................   Same
33.90(b)..................................   Same
33.90(b)(1)...............................   33.200(c)(1)
33.90(b)(2)...............................   33.200(c)(2)
33.90(b)(3)...............................   33.200(f)
33.100(a)(1)..............................   33.200(a)
33.100(a)(2)..............................   33.200(b)
33.100(b).................................   33.200(c)/(d)/(e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Revision of the 10-Year Limit on Service Data To Be Reviewed for the 
Lessons Learned Analysis From Section 33.200(b)
    The ARAC proposal for section 33.200(b) limited the assessment of 
past design problems that have resulted in loss of thrust control, in-
flight shutdown, or other power loss to ``the applicant's other 
relevant type design approvals provided within the past ten years.''
    ``Ten years'' as used in the rule, is considered to be the time 
frame relevant to design/manufacture evolving technology for which the 
applicant must show that problems especially relevant to ETOPS have 
been addressed in the design for which early ETOPS eligibility is 
sought. For example, an early 1980's certified engine with a relatively 
lower level of reliability, would not be appropriate to use the 
applicant's experience base of lessons learned for compliance with 
section 33.200(b) for an engine certified in year 2000; a much better 
experience base would be engines certified from 1990, which as an 
industry group have very good reliability. The intent is to 
continuously build upon the improved reliability seen in today's 
engines into even higher levels of reliability.''
    The corresponding part 25 requirement proposed by ARAC does not 
contain such a time limit on the relevant experience assessment, nor

[[Page 64757]]

does the Boeing 777 ETOPS Special Condition, which is the basis for 
this proposed requirement. The relevant experience assessment that 
Boeing submitted for compliance with the Special Condition's 
requirement consisted of data from a ten year time period immediately 
prior to the B777 design development. The FAA approved this ten-year 
period at the time because it included three previous major airplane 
certification programs (Models 757, 767, and 737-300). For the current 
Model 777-300ER type certification program, the assessment was updated 
to include the additional relevant experience that has occurred since 
the original database was developed. Coincidentally, this covers a ten-
year time period. However, the FAA cannot draw a conclusion from this 
experience that a ten-year period will always provide adequate data for 
all manufacturers that may apply for an early ETOPS approval. 
Therefore, the FAA has included a provision that the 10-year limit 
applies if adequate data exists to do the assessment. If the FAA 
determines that the applicant's other relevant type design approvals 
provided within the past ten years do not constitute an adequate 
database, the FAA will determine the extent of additional data required 
to be included in the relevant experience assessment based on the 
following factors:
    a. The manufacturer's level of experience in certifying engines 
installed on Transport Category airplanes,
    b. Recent experience certifying new engines,
    c. Completeness of the manufacturer's design practices/manuals used 
in the development of new engines, and
    d. Any other factors that the manufacturer may want to present to 
the FAA for consideration.
3. Insertion of the Word ``Independently'' in the Test Section of 
Section 33.200(c)(2)
    The ARAC Recommendation 3,000 cycle test requires all rotors to be 
unbalanced to 90% of a limit value, however the actual rule text is not 
specific as to whether each rotor is to be unbalanced independently. 
The FAA has verified that it was the ARAC's intent that each rotor must 
be unbalanced independently relative to its individual rotor limit. So 
the word ``independently'' is inserted to clarify that each individual 
rotor must be unbalanced to the specified 90% limit value.
4. Addition of Inspection Criteria for Post 3,000 Test [See 
33.200(e)(3)(i)(C)]
    The ARAC Recommendations specify hardware layout inspections in 
accordance with the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) and 
the Lessons Learned analysis. The FAA proposes to add a third 
inspection criteria as follows: ``Inspect in a manner to identify wear 
or distress conditions which could result in IFSD, LOTC or other power 
loss, and which are not specifically identified by 33.200(b) or 
addressed within the current ICA.'' It should be noted that the ARAC 
Recommendation's AC material discusses such an inspection method and 
that the recent FAA B777 Special Condition for ETOPS also included a 
similar inspection requirement.
5. Clarification of an Incomplete Statement Relating to Post-Test 
Hardware Condition [See Sec.  33.200(e)(3)(ii)]
    The ARAC Recommendation contains a requirement that post-test 
hardware condition be such that no distress is observed that could 
result in a power loss. However many engine parts if distressed and 
operated long enough will fail and potentially cause a power loss. As 
written, distress in many parts could be predicted to result in power 
loss over an inappropriately long period of operation. Therefore the 
FAA proposes to define the period of operation to make this judgment as 
follows; `` * * * within a period of operation before the component, 
assembly or system would likely have been inspected or functionally 
tested for integrity while in service''.
6. Revision of Interim Inspection To Be Used for Sec.  33.90 Compliance
    The ARAC Recommendations propose to use the 3,000-cycle test for 
Sec.  33.90 compliance by means of an interim on-wing inspection 
method. The FAA concurs with the basic on-wing inspection approach. 
However, the ARAC Recommendations only specify a visual inspection for 
Sec.  33.90 compliance purposes. This Recommendation does not meet the 
most basic existing Method of Compliance (MoC) for a Sec.  33.90 
inspection. The FAA proposes to revise the ``visual only'' inspection 
to be an inspection acceptable to the Administrator, and specify an 
acceptable MoC within the AC. Currently for an on-wing type inspection 
for Sec.  33.90 compliance, the FAA would accept an inspection that 
does all of the following:
    (1) Full borescope inspection of accessible gas path stages or 
areas of the fan, compressor, combustor, and turbine modules, to the 
serviceable limits of the ICA.
    (2) For Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) equipped 
engines, observe and interrogate the FADEC system for fault messages 
and status messages, both current or previously recorded, to the 
serviceable limits of the ICA.
    (3) Inspect all oil system chip detectors and filters for 
contamination.
    (4) Inspect all fuel system filters for contamination.
    (5) Test a sample of main engine oil for contaminants that might 
indicate impending internal failure.
    (6) Conduct a complete visual inspection of the inlet, exhaust, and 
externals, to the serviceable limits of the ICA.
    (7) Conduct a power calibration to show that the engine can produce 
power or thrust within established limits, and is free of surge or 
stall when operated in accordance with the Operating Instructions.
    General pass/fail criteria for the above items is serviceable in 
accordance with the ICA, unless otherwise approved by the 
Administrator.
    The above method of compliance has been established for 
conventionally designed engines, and is discussed further in the 
companion AC. Other inspections or checks, or deletion of non-
applicable items may be necessary for new or unconventional designs.
7. Addition of Oil Tank Design Requirement
    The FAA is proposing to revise the current requirements of Sec.  
33.71(c)(4), which addresses oil tank caps. The proposed revision would 
incorporate a new ETOPS eligibility design requirement for oil tanks 
intended to prevent hazardous oil loss in the event of an oil tank cap 
installation error. The FAA is aware of a number of single and dual 
engine oil loss events due to oil tank cap installation errors, and is 
concerned that these types of problems will continue to occur, 
potentially resulting in an unsafe condition during extended 
operations. The FAA believes it prudent to address this situation by 
requiring oil tanks to be designed to accommodate cap installation 
errors without hazardous oil loss. The proposed rule would not allow 
compliance by maintenance procedures; the necessary physical features 
or characteristics must be part of the oil tank design. The rule is 
intended to protect against hazardous oil loss when oil tank cap 
installation errors occur.

[[Page 64758]]

8. Engine Endurance Test With Vibration
    The ARAC Recommendations include a 3,000-cycle endurance test with 
main rotor unbalance. The Recommendations specify the minimum unbalance 
as being an ``average value'' of the peak vibration level observed 
during required vibration surveys. In section 33.200(c)(2)(iv), the 
term ``average value'' is being replaced by the term ``equivalent 
value'' to better address the concept of cumulative damage. For 
example, utilizing an average value could result in less cumulative 
damage due to vibration then if the 90% requirement was precisely 
maintained over the test duration. By computing and working to an 
equivalent value of rotor unbalance, cumulative damage will always be 
equal to or greater then a test conducted with a steady value of 90% 
unbalance. The equivalent value is a Miner's rule summation 
calculation, and is further described in the companion AC.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposal

Proposed New Appendix A, Paragraph A33.3(c), Extended Operations 
(ETOPS) Requirements
    A proposed new Appendix A Paragraph A33.3(c) would define new 
engine condition monitoring requirements necessary for obtaining ETOPS 
type design eligibility approval.
Explanation
    This section requires inclusion of a power assurance check 
methodology into the ICA for all engine models requiring ETOPS 
eligibility. A special requirement exists for engines to be installed 
in twin-engine aircraft applications, that being the power assurance 
method must be validated by test or experience.
Proposed Revision to Section 33.71(c)(4)--Oil Tanks
    A proposed revision to section 33.71(c)(4) would define new oil 
tank design requirements necessary for obtaining ETOPS type design 
eligibility approval.
Explanation
    See the explanation in paragraph 7 of this section, above.
Proposed Revision to Section 33.90--Initial Maintenance Inspection 
(IMI)
    A proposed revision of section 33.90 would define requirements for 
utilizing ETOPS type design eligibility test data obtained during 
section 33.200 testing for section 33.90 compliance purposes.
Explanation
    The fundamental requirements of section 33.90 are unchanged; except 
for the inclusion of a provision to allow utilization of data obtained 
under section 33.200 testing to show compliance to section 33.90 IMI.
Proposed New Section 33.200--Early Extended Operations (ETOPS) 
Eligibility and Test Requirements
    A proposed new section 33.200 would define overall requirements for 
obtaining ETOPS type design eligibility approval.
Explanation
    Compliance with this section results in an engine model that is 
eligible for two-engine ETOPS operation before the service experience 
required under 14 CFR part 25, Appendix L, Section II, paragraph (a) is 
achieved. The individual subparagraphs are discussed below:

Sections 33.200(a) and 33.200(b)

    These sections require an applicant to establish a design quality 
process acceptable to the Administrator that will ensure that the type 
design minimizes the possibility of power loss failure events.
    These rule sections require the applicant to use its best design 
practices, including all its corporate knowledge, skills and lessons 
learned in the design and manufacture of the engine. The intent is to 
eliminate from the design all known failures, malfunctions or design 
related maintenance errors experienced in other relevant FAA certified 
engines, and that are especially relevant to ETOPS. Such events include 
loss of thrust control, in-flight shutdown, or other power loss events.
    Compliance may be shown by evidence acceptable to the Administrator 
that the applicant's design quality assurance process has demonstrated 
the capability to eliminate causes of engine failures, malfunctions, 
and design related maintenance problems known to have occurred within 
the applicant's commercial engine experience base. The applicant should 
also show that the design quality process would preclude the recurrence 
of that cause in the new design. Also, the design quality process and 
design features must address all applicable failures, malfunctions, and 
maintenance problems that could affect ETOPS even if they occurred on 
taxi, if such an event could have occurred in-flight.
    The FAA will determine the extent of data required to be included 
in the relevant experience assessment based on the following factors:
    (1) The manufacturer's level of experience in certifying engines 
installed on Transport Category airplanes;
    (2) Recent experience certifying new engines;
    (3) Completeness of the manufacturer's design practices and manuals 
used in the development of new engines; and
    (4) Any other factors that the manufacturer may want to present to 
the FAA for consideration.
    If adequate data exists the time period of consideration will be 
the prior 10 years of applicant experience.

Section 33.200(c)

    The intent of this testing is to simulate in-service operation; and 
to simulate the extent of time that the engine will operate at maximum 
continuous power for the longest diversion time in an ETOPS scenario, 
and at a level of engine vibration that exceeds expected service 
operation. The test is not intended to duplicate or repeat or replace 
the endurance test required by section 33.87.
Explanation
    This 3,000-cycle test requirement simulates the typical field 
service operation expected to be encountered in the first 250,000 fleet 
hours (typically two years of service) and the extent of time that an 
engine will operate in the event of a diversion at maximum continuous 
power for the longest diversion time expected. In addition, the test is 
required to be conducted at a level of vibration for the complete test 
that exceeds expected service exposure. The new test is an important 
part of the early ETOPS eligibility determination for both the engine 
and propulsion system of the airplane. No other type of engine 
vibration testing can simulate the vibration induced by imbalance of 
its rotors running through the speed and power ranges experienced in 
service. The test is required to simulate 3,000 cycles of service 
operation (typically two years) in a short time span. This test is 
similar to that conducted for the original certification of the three 
engine types used on the B777 under the Special Conditions. Those tests 
were also a combination of engine cyclic endurance with high cycle 
fatigue (HCF) vibration induced by way of imbalancing the main rotors 
of the engine.

Section 33.200(d)

    The purpose of this test is to establish thrust characteristics, 
and ensure that

[[Page 64759]]

the engine can deliver rated takeoff power or thrust within approved 
limits prior to the start of the test.

Section 33.200(e)

    This section establishes what the required inspections are and what 
the pass/fail criteria is for section 33.200 compliance. Further detail 
on a MoC for this section can be found in the companion advisory 
circular.

Section 33.200(f)

    This section establishes the requirements for utilizing paragraph 
33.200(c) 3,000-cycle test data to show compliance to section 33.90 
Initial Maintenance Inspection. The companion AC provides details of an 
acceptable MoC.

Part 121

Global Issues for Part 121

FAA General Changes to the ARAC Proposal for Part 121
(1) Section 121.368 Has Become 121.374
    The ARAC proposed rule number had to be changed due to other FAA 
rule writing projects. The content and concepts from the proposal were 
retained wherever possible within the new rule. Specific format changes 
and the differences between this proposed rule and the ARAC proposal 
are discussed in each section below.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to Part 121

Proposed New Section 121.7 Definitions and Designations
    The FAA proposes to add a new section in part 121 for definitions 
applicable to ETOPS.
Explanation
    Many of the terms used in the proposed regulatory and guidance 
material for ETOPS under this part are unique to these operations. 
Requirements and concepts for ETOPS require precise definition to 
assure common understanding and compliance. Definitions are added for:

Adequate Airport
ETOPS Alternate
ETOPS Area of Operation
ETOPS Dual Maintenance
ETOPS Entry Point
ETOPS Maintenance Significant System
ETOPS Qualified Personnel
Maximum Diversion Time
One Engine Inoperative Cruise Speed (Approved)

    The following areas are designated as ETOPS areas by the 
Administrator in which the planning, operational, and equipage 
requirements for ETOPS apply. The areas are defined as:

NOPAC
North Pacific
Polar Areas
    North Pole
    South Pole
Proposed New Section 121.97 (b)(1)(ii) Airports: Required Data
    The FAA proposes to clarify the ``public protection'' requirement 
of section 121.97 to include consideration of facilities available for 
public safety, protection, and welfare during regular and irregular 
operations (including diversions to the airport).
Explanation
    Airlines must consider passenger facilities when selecting an ETOPS 
Alternate and in diversion planning. The facilities at an airport or in 
the immediate area must be sufficient to protect the passengers and 
crew from the elements and to see to their welfare during the time 
required to transport them onward.
    By definition, ETOPS operations are those with long segments over 
water or remote areas. Some of these remote areas are affected by 
severe weather conditions such as, but not limited to, extreme cold or 
high winds and cold temperatures. Some of the airports that are well 
positioned for use as enroute alternates are in remote areas. These 
airports may have only limited or seasonal facilities that could be 
used to shelter passengers and crew after an unscheduled landing. As 
ETOPS operations have expanded in scope and extended in length, 
operations over more remote areas with more extreme weather 
possibilities have become routine. Northern Canada and the Russian Far 
East are typical examples. Facilities at some of the airports in those 
areas have not been maintained because of political, economic and 
military changes. It cannot be assumed that the passengers and crew of 
an aircraft will be safe simply because a safe landing can be made at 
an airport. Therefore, certificate holders are obligated to be aware of 
the available facilities and satisfy them that there will be adequate 
facilities to protect the passengers and crew should it be necessary to 
make an unscheduled landing for any reason.
    These are new requirements. The FAA is proposing to add these 
additional requirements to this regulation because it has learned that 
not all certificate holders have planned for these contingencies in the 
past, apparently because the current wording of the regulation did not 
require them to do so. The FAA believes regulations are needed to 
prudently insure carriers recognize ``the duty of an air carrier to 
provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the 
public interest * * *'' 49 U.S.C. sec. 44701 (d)(1)(A). The ARAC 
recommendation included arguments that since ETOPS flights are 
generally international flights, treaties limit damages for negligence 
that passengers on international flights may recover from airlines. The 
ARAC further stated that absent the compelling motivation of unlimited 
liability for proven damages available to domestic passengers, carrier 
motivation to avoid findings of negligence may also be lessened 
somewhat.
    Others have pointed out that in the Polar Policy letter the FAA has 
already included instructions and requirements detailing the treatment 
of passengers in case of diversions or accidents and the facilities to 
be made available for them. Further, the addition of passenger related 
contingencies are based on rules, regulations and International 
Treaties, which have been and are in the process of being enacted for 
the protection of passengers well being such as: ``Aviation Disaster 
Family Assistance Act of 1996'', the DOT/NTSB Task Force Report on 
Assistance to Families of Aviation Disasters of 1997, Public Law 105-
148 of 1997 (105th Congress), ICAO Circular 285-AN166 (33rd Assembly, 
2001), European Union Regulation (EG) 2027/97, the ``Convention for the 
Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air'' of 
1999 and others. Providing for the safety, security, comfort and well 
being of all of the occupants of an airplane has become especially 
important on long range flights because of increasing medical 
consequences. It was also pointed out that ignoring those requirements 
expose the carriers to increasing liability claims and to loss of 
business because of passengers' discomfort.
Proposed New Sections 121.99(c) and (d) Communications Facilities
    The FAA proposes to add sections 121.99(c) and 121.99(d). Section 
121.99(c) would create a baseline ETOPS equipage requirement for flag 
operations. Section 121.99(d) would create an additional equipage 
requirement for operations beyond 180-minutes.
Explanation
    Under this proposal a certificate holder would have to provide for 
voice communication between the crew and air traffic services and the 
crew and the certificate holder wherever and whenever it is available. 
In areas where voice communication is not possible,

[[Page 64760]]

the certificate holder would have to provide a non-voice communication 
system, such as High Frequency (HF) data link, to ensure communication 
capability.
    Paragraph 121.99(d) would apply on to ETOPS flights planned on 
greater than 180-minutes and would require the installation of an 
additional communication system. This communication system would have 
to be capable of providing immediate satellite based voice 
communication of land-line telephone-fidelity between the flight crew 
and air traffic services and between the flight crew and the company. 
The term ``immediate'' in the context of this section would mean the 
time period required to connect an ordinary land-line telephone call. 
The modifiers ``land-line telephone-fidelity'' are included as 
performance standards to describe the faithful reproduction of sound. 
The FAA is essentially describing Satellite Communication (SATCOM). At 
this time, only SATCOM provides this capability and compliance with 
this proposed rule. The FAA acknowledges that technological innovation 
may create alternatives to SATCOM or render the system obsolete. 
Certificate holders would be required to equip airplanes used in ETOPS 
beyond 180 minutes with SATCOM or other system that offers equivalent 
or enhanced capability. The FAA notes that the ARAC consolidated these 
requirements in a single paragraph (c) in their recommendation. The FAA 
elected to reformat for clarity.
    Both paragraphs (c) and (d) would require the certificate holder to 
consider ``potential routes and altitudes necessary for diversion to 
ETOPS alternates'' when assessing the availability of voice 
communication facilities. The ARAC recommended that the FAA amend 
paragraph 121.99(a) to include the above-quoted language. The FAA has 
elected not to amend paragraph 121.99(a). Paragraph 121.99(a) is the 
baseline requirement for all domestic and flag certificate holders 
operating under part 121. The FAA believes the equipage and 
communication performance requirements for ETOPS should be separate and 
distinct from the baseline communication requirement for part 121. 
Further, the FAA has proposed amending paragraph 121.99(a) in the Area 
Navigation (RNAV) proposed rulemaking. See 67 FR 77326 (December 17, 
2002).
    The origin of paragraph 121.99(d) is the 207-minute policy letter, 
which conditioned extension of section 121.161 deviation authority upon 
the installation SATCOM for operation on those routes. See 65 FR 3520 
(January 21, 2000). The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that 
flight crews have the best communication capability in the event of an 
extended diversion. During a diversion, crew workload increases 
considerably. The use of an unwieldy communication system during a 
diversion would needlessly distract the crew from more important 
cockpit duties. SATCOM is not available in all regions of the world. In 
those regions, flight crews must have another means to communicate with 
the certificate holder and air traffic services.
Proposed New Section 121.106 Required Rescue Fire Fighting Capability 
at ETOPS Alternate Airports
    The FAA proposes to add new section 121.106, requiring a rescue 
fire fighting capability at an airport designated as an ETOPS 
alternate.
Explanation
    Currently, part 139 does not require any aircraft rescue fire 
fighting (RFF) capability at airports designated as Takeoff and 
Destination alternates. Alternate airports are referred to in part 139 
but not defined. The common perception of an alternate airport is that 
it is an airport that is used infrequently, when diversions occur. The 
original use of the definition was limited to the destination or 
takeoff airports. There was no specific mention of the en route 
alternate until Advisory Circular 120-42, Extended Range Operation With 
Two Engine Airplanes (ETOPS), was issued in 1985. The airport 
regulations specified in part 139 were first published in 1972 prior to 
the inception of ETOPS. For these reasons, and as outlined further, we 
propose new section 121.106 to include the requirement for RFF at an en 
route alternate airport.
    Normally a flight diverts to its destination alternate airport 
because of poor weather at the destination airport or the aircraft 
having a low fuel state. In contrast, a diversion to an ETOPS en route 
alternate is likely attributable to an engine or system failure or 
medical emergency. Throughout the ETOPS flight the designation of the 
en route alternate may be revised, with consideration of the designated 
en route alternate airport maintaining an adequate level of weather and 
runway conditions to safely land the airplane. At the most critical 
point of an ETOPS en route diversion there is no other choice as to the 
diversion airport. It remains necessary to ensure that all the 
facilities and services are adequate to ensure that a safe landing can 
be made at the diversion airport in the event that it is necessary to 
divert. Thus, some have argued that there is an increased importance of 
a rescue fire fighting service at airports designated as an ETOPS en 
route alternate. Further, they have argued that establishing such a 
requirement in the Federal Aviation Regulations is consistent with ICAO 
Annex 6, Part I, Attachment E, wherein an ``adequate alternate 
aerodrome'' is defined. The definition includes a list of various 
facilities and services, including ``rescue and fire fighting'', as 
being necessary. (An attachment to ICAO Annex is intended as a guide or 
supplementary material to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
as such, is not a requirement.)
    The fact that en route diversions have occurred in the past and 
will continue to occur necessitates evaluation of the facts surrounding 
those events and the needs they identify. ETOPS operators in the United 
States (as well as Europe) operating across the North Atlantic have 
encountered difficulties in being able to designate certain Canadian 
airports as ETOPS en route alternates due to the reduction of RFF 
service capability (Canadian airport privatization) and numerous 
military base closures.
    History has shown that in-flight diversions occur for a variety of 
reasons, other than In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD) of two engine aircraft. 
Any aircraft conducting extended range operations could experience a 
critical emergency requiring diversion to an en route alternate 
airport. Thus, it is proposed by some that a regulation be established 
to require an en route alternate for all extended range flight 
operations (aircraft with 2, 3, and 4 engines) because, in such an 
event requiring a diversion, a simple emergency evacuation in a hostile 
environment (for example, due to cold temperatures) could be deadly, or 
in a similar way, a mechanical event requiring a need to land could 
result in an unanticipated accident, such as a runway overrun and thus 
become catastrophic. It is further argued by some that these 
considerations have led to the conclusion that some level of accident 
mitigation systems should be required for airports designated as en 
route alternate airports. This accident mitigation protection is 
provided for at airports designated as origin and destination airports 
in the regulations of part 121, and the appropriate levels of 
protection are specified in the airport certification regulations 
designated as part 139.
    Part 139 specifies the level of aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 
(RFF) as a function of aircraft size. This level of protection is 
deemed the ``Index'' and

[[Page 64761]]

specifies the amount of agent for fire extinguishment and the number of 
vehicles to deliver the agent proportionate to the size of the largest 
airplane using the airport. In the international Standards of ICAO, the 
length and width of the aircraft fuselage determines the ``RFF 
Category''. An allowance for reducing the index/category is provided in 
the event that the aircraft only uses the airport infrequently i.e., 
less than 700 movements in the busiest consecutive three months with 
the airplane in the highest category. This is termed a remission 
factor. Even though frequency of operations may allow a reduction of 
service levels by 1 Category, this reduction will no longer be allowed 
after January 2005 under the ICAO Standards. ICAO RFF category range 
from 1 to 10. As an example, the ICAO category of RFF 4, which is 
nearly equivalent to Index A in part 139, provides at least 1 
firefighter and 1 vehicle with the ability for immediate fire 
suppression or ground assistance to occupants.
    Contradicting the arguments of those who support RFF at enroute 
alternates, some have stated that based on the last sixteen years of 
ETOPS operations with well over 2.5 million ETOPS flights around the 
world, there is no record of a single incident where a twin on an ETOPS 
phase of flight with a mechanical event diverted to an ETOPS alternate 
and the landing resulted in an unanticipated accident, such as a runway 
overrun and thus became catastrophic, and required the RFF services. It 
was further argued that the probability of an ETOPS flight diverting on 
the ETOPS portion of the flight, landing at an ETOPS alternate, 
resulting in an accident or a catastrophic situation is very remote, 
and need not be considered. However, some have pointed out that the 
fact that an event has not happened does not mean it will never happen, 
and industry needs to be proactive and provide a level of safety as a 
margin, should the situation arise.
    Some have pointed out that requiring high levels of RFF protection 
for the enroute alternate airports would either severely limit the 
selection of diversion airports necessitating longer divert times, or 
demand the communities supporting these enroute alternate airports 
increase their level of emergency service beyond that currently 
available. However, it can be argued that for airplanes on long 
diversions a pad may need to be built in so that a minimum level of RFF 
capability is assured at the time of landing.
    Even though currently not required by part 139, the FAA considers 
it very desirable to have some minimum level of RFF protection at the 
ETOPS alternates. Taking into account the various opinions expressed in 
the ARAC recommendations, the FAA proposes to establish a minimum RFF 
of 4 for ETOPS operations below 180 minutes, and a minimum RFF of 7 for 
diversion times greater than 180 minutes. This reflects the RFF 
requirements stated in FAA Order 8400.10, Flight Standards Handbook 
Bulletins for Air Transportation, HBAT 99-15 titled Level of Rescue and 
Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) for ETOPS En Route Alternates, and the 
207-Minute ETOPS Policy.
    Similar to the allowance contained in HBAT 99-15, the proposed 
regulation allows for an off airport response time of thirty minutes, 
however, the required equipment must be available on-scene for the 
arrival of the diverting airplane and should remain for as long as 
their services are needed. In contrast to a destination or departure 
airport, the diversion airport has time to muster community emergency 
service assets to provide the necessary emergency response following 
notification of the aircraft diversion. This provision for the use of 
off-airport emergency services necessitates that a robust 
communications link must be established in order to provide sufficient 
time to muster the necessary RFF personnel and equipment. Further, 
local community emergency services support of required RFF response in 
providing equipment and personnel is considered prudent.
    In all cases the certificate holder must ensure that the flight 
crews are provided current information (in plain language) concerning 
the RFF capability for those airports designated as alternate airports
Proposed New Section 121.122 Communication Facilities
    The FAA proposes to add a communication facilities requirement for 
supplemental operators. This section would mirror section 121.99, which 
applies to flag and domestic operators.
Explanation
    The FAA believes it is necessary to create comparable communication 
requirement for supplemental operators to ensure consistency among part 
121 operations. To this end, the FAA proposes communication 
requirements similar to those in section 121.99. For example, paragraph 
121.122(a) is based on the existing paragraph 121.99(a), which is the 
basic communication requirement for domestic and flag operators. 
Similarly paragraphs 121.122(b) and (c) are based on the proposed 
sections 121.99(c) and (d) respectively which would establish 
communication requirements for ETOPS. See discussion above for 
121.99(c) and (d) for the rationale of ETOPS communication 
requirements.
Proposed New Paragraph 121.135(b)(10) Contents
    Add a new 14 CFR 121.135(b)(10) to require performance data to 
support ETOPS.
Explanation
    The FAA proposes to insert a new requirement for performance data 
in the manual required by this section to support ETOPS as paragraph 
(b)(10), and to renumber existing paragraphs 121.135(b)(10) through 
(24) to new paragraphs 121.135(b)(11) through (25). Since ETOPS are 
conducted under a special authorization, there is an additional 
performance data requirement to support these operations. The flight 
crew and dispatchers should have available the engine inoperative and 
cabin depressurization cruise data used by the certificate holder to 
plan flights and operate under ETOPS.
Proposed New Paragraph 121.135(b)(26) Contents (New)
    Add paragraph 121.135(b)(26) to require a passenger recovery plan 
for flag and supplemental operations in the certificate holder's 
manual.
Explanation
    The FAA proposes to add paragraph 121.135(b)(24) to require a 
passenger recovery plan for flag and supplemental operations in the 
certificate holder's manual. The FAA introduced the requirement for an 
airline to develop and maintain a passenger recovery plan for flights 
authorized in the North Pole area of operation by policy letter in 
March 2001.
    It is incumbent that a carrier account for contingencies when 
diversions occur to airports not normally served by the carrier. When a 
diversion occurs in an area where the carrier has a substantial 
operational infrastructure, (that is, a carrier serves many 
destinations in Europe but is forced by operational circumstances to 
divert to an airport not served by the carrier but within the region) 
that diversion plan becomes a simple matter of describing how the 
carrier's assets within the region can supply immediate logistical 
support to the diversion aircraft. This can be called a regional 
passenger recovery plan applicable to a stated geographical area.
    However, a carrier with an extensive route system extending over 
remote areas has a responsibility to devise a

[[Page 64762]]

plan of substance to recover the passengers, crew, and aircraft in the 
event of a diversion within a remote area. The plan should be of 
sufficient detail to demonstrate that the recovery operation can be 
readily affected, and the basic needs of the diverted customers and 
crew can be provided for in the interim.
    The certificate holder must demonstrate that a regional plan is 
robust enough to handle diversion scenarios within that region by 
showing the effectiveness and adequacy of communications; coordination; 
facilities; accuracy of NOTAM and weather information; and operability 
of support ground equipment. The recovery plan should also address the 
care and safety of passengers and crew at the diversion airport, and 
include the plan of operation to extract the passengers and crew from 
that airport. The certificate holder must maintain the accuracy and 
completeness of its recovery plan as part of its annual audit.
Proposed Change to Section 121.161 Airplane Limitations: Type of Route
    The FAA proposes to revise section 121.161(a) to create ETOPS route 
authority within the regulations and to move away from ETOPS conducted 
under the Administrator's deviation authority.
Explanation
    As discussed earlier in this proposal, deviation from section 
121.161(a) has been the regulatory basis of ETOPS since its inception. 
The FAA issued AC 120-42 and AC 120-42A to provide guidance for 
carriers seeking to conduct ETOPS. However as ETOPS evolved from an 
exceptional kind of operation to a prevalent kind of operation, the 
need for amending paragraph 121.161(a) has become became apparent. The 
proposed paragraph 121.161(a) would describe when and where the 
requirements of ETOPS would apply and furthermore would contain a 
pointer to the new Appendix O. Appendix O would contain the approval 
requirements for the different ETOPS time thresholds and ETOPS areas of 
applicability. ETOPS would no longer be conducted under the 
Administrator's deviation authority under this proposal but would have 
a distinct regulatory basis.
    The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph 121.161(d) that would limit 
operations of reciprocating engine powered airplanes to routes no more 
than 60 minutes away from an adequate airport at single-engine 
inoperative speed in still air and standard conditions. This new 
section would have language allowing the Administrator to grant 
deviations. The FAA believes that, although not possible at present, 
reciprocating engines may someday achieve the reliability necessary for 
operations beyond 60 minutes.
Proposed New Section 121.374 ETOPS Maintenance Requirements
(1) Format changes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ARAC proposal                          NPRM draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
121.368 ETOPS Maintenance..............  121.374 ETOPS Maintenance
                                          Elements.
(a) CMP................................  (a) CMP.
(b) Initial maintenance and training     (b) CAMP.
 procedures.
                                         (g) Maintenance training.
(c)(1) CMP requirements................  Deleted.
(c)(2) Pre-departure service check.....  (b)(1) Pre-departure service
                                          check.
(c)(3) Verification procedures.........  (b)(3) Verification program.
(c)(4) Preclude dual maintenance.......  (b)(2)(i) Preclude dual
                                          maintenance.
(c)(5) Procedures if dual maintenance    (b)(2)(ii) Procedures if dual
 cannot be avoided.                       maintenance cannot be avoided.
(c)(6) APU in-flight start program.....  (f) APU in-flight start
                                          program.
(d) Centralized maintenance control....  (b)(5) Centralized maintenance
                                          control.
(e) Changes to maintenance and training  (h) Procedural changes.
 procedures.
(f) ETOPS task identification..........  (b)(4) ETOPS task
                                          identification.
(g) ETOPS document.....................  (b)(6) ETOPS document.
(h) ETOPS parts control................  (b)(7) ETOPS parts control.
(i) ETOPS reliability program..........  (b)(8) ETOPS reliability
                                          program.
None...................................  (b)(8)(i) Reporting
                                          requirements.
(j) Investigate each IFSD..............  (b)(8)(ii) Investigation
                                          requirements.
(j) Also contained IFSD rates..........  (c) Propulsion system
                                          monitoring.
(k) Engine condition monitoring........  (d) Engine condition
                                          monitoring.
(l) Oil consumption program............  (e) Oil consumption monitoring.
(m) APU in-flight start program........  (f) APU in-flight start
                                          program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation
    A crucial element of ETOPS is a robust maintenance program that 
complements the standard airplane-engine maintenance program. ETOPS 
maintenance practices are designed to preclude and protect diversions 
through closely controlled procedures such as engine condition 
monitoring, oil consumption monitoring, the aggressive resolution of 
reliability issues, and procedures to reduce the risks of human error 
during maintenance of airplane systems and engines. For the past 18 
years, AC 120-42 and AC 120-42A have provided guidance describing the 
specialized maintenance requirements necessary for ETOPS. The FAA 
proposes to codify the guidance from the AC. These requirements would 
apply to all airplanes used in ETOPS regardless of the number of the 
engines installed.
    This proposal would require operators to develop an ETOPS 
maintenance program that addresses or incorporates the following 
elements:
(a) Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) Compliance
    Each certificate holder would have to establish a system to ensure 
compliance with the CMP. The importance of the CMP is discussed more 
fully above in the General Discussion of the Proposal.
(b) Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP)
    A CAMP is a comprehensive oversight program to ensure the 
continuing airworthiness of an airplane. A CAMP includes but is not 
limited to maintenance tasks, inspection tasks, auditing requirements, 
and data analysis. CAMP is required by part 121 Subpart L. The proposed 
regulation would expand the scope of the CAMP for ETOPS operators to 
encompass issues unique to ETOPS. The following are considered basic 
additional

[[Page 64763]]

elements of a CAMP for an ETOPS operator:
(1) ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check
    The pre-departure service check is designed to ensure that ETOPS 
significant systems will perform their intended function throughout the 
flight. An ETOPS pre-departure service check would have to verify the 
status of ETOPS significant systems. Some certificate holders 
conducting ETOPS flights have elected to add other items to their check 
as a result of operational experience and knowledge gained from their 
reliability programs. Regardless of any additional items an operator 
may add to a check, the focal point of this check must be inspection, 
servicing, and maintenance of ETOPS significant systems.
(2) Dual Maintenance
    Dual maintenance is a concept relating to repetition of maintenance 
errors on redundant systems. There have been instances of a single 
mechanic repeating a maintenance error on multiple systems. An example 
of dual maintenance error is failing to install o-rings on engine oil 
or fuel components on multiple engines. Establishing procedures to 
avoid dual maintenance can minimize the probability of such errors. The 
use of two or more mechanics reduces the risk of this type of error. 
Routine tasks on multiple similar elements, such as oil and fuel filter 
changes, should never be scheduled and assigned on the same maintenance 
visit.
    However, the FAA is aware that under some limited circumstances, 
dual maintenance may be unavoidable. For instance, a pilot's report of 
a discrepancy on an ETOPS significant system may require maintenance on 
one engine at the same time as a scheduled maintenance event for the 
other engine. In such cases, the certificate holder must establish and 
follow procedures to mitigate the risk of a common cause human error.
(3) Verification Program
    The verification program ensures the effectiveness of ETOPS 
maintenance actions. Verification programs are designed to identify any 
potential problems and may consist of ground tests, flight tests, use 
of built in test equipment (BITE), and other tests as appropriate. 
Verification action must be accomplished following corrective action to 
an ETOPS significant system, primary system failure, IFSD or in 
response to significant adverse trends. The certificate holder must 
establish procedures to clearly indicate who is going to initiate the 
action and what verification action is necessary. A verification flight 
may be performed in combination with an ETOPS revenue flight, provided 
the verification phase is documented as satisfactorily completed upon 
reaching the ETOPS entry point.
(4) Task Identification
    ETOPS maintenance programs include numerous tasks that are critical 
to ETOPS. Under this proposal, the certificate holder would have to 
identify specific tasks that must be accomplished by ETOPS qualified 
personnel. These ETOPS-specific tasks are performed during all phases 
of maintenance. On the other hand, some tasks in an ETOPS maintenance 
program are identical to tasks on a non-ETOPS airplane. The FAA 
realizes that tasks, such as checking seat belts prior to a flight, do 
not involve ETOPS significant systems and may be performed by non-ETOPS 
qualified personnel. ETOPS specific tasks would either be identified on 
the certificate holder's routine work forms and related instructions or 
parceled together and identified as an ``ETOPS package.''
(5) Centralized Maintenance Control Procedures
    The certificate holder would have to develop and clearly define in 
their program ETOPS related procedures, duties, and responsibilities, 
such as the involvement of centralized maintenance control. The 
function of centralized maintenance control is to be a focal point for 
operational aspects of ETOPS maintenance and to ensure that ETOPS 
aircraft are airworthy. Procedures and centralized control processes 
would be established which would preclude an airplane being dispatched 
for ETOPS flights after a propulsion system shut-down, significant 
primary airframe system failure, or significant adverse trends in 
system performance without appropriate corrective action having been 
taken. Confirmation of corrective maintenance would require appropriate 
verification action prior to an ETOPS flight. Depending on the size and 
scope of the ETOPS operation, the maintenance control entity could be 
an entire department or one ETOPS-qualified individual for a small 
operation. ``Centralized maintenance control'' is also referred to as 
``technical services center'', ``maintenance operations control 
(MOC)'', and ``maintenance coordination center'' among other terms 
within industry.
(6) ETOPS Program Document
    The certificate holder would have to develop a document that 
identifies all ETOPS requirements, including supportive programs, 
procedures, duties, and responsibilities. The ETOPS program document 
would be for use by personnel involved in ETOPS and would be readily 
accessible to those personnel. This document need not be inclusive but 
should at least reference the maintenance program and other 
requirements, and clearly indicate where they are located in the 
certificate holder's document system. The ETOPS program document would 
have to be submitted to the CHDO for approval at least 60 days before 
beginning ETOPS flights and be subject to revision control.
(7) ETOPS Parts Control
    Under this proposal, the certificate holder would have to develop a 
parts control program that ensures the proper parts and configurations 
are maintained for ETOPS airplanes. The program would have to include 
procedures to verify that the parts installed on ETOPS airplanes during 
parts borrowing or pooling arrangements, as well as those parts used 
after repair or overhaul, maintains the necessary ETOPS configuration. 
In many cases, certificate holders utilize the Illustrated Parts 
Catalog (IPC) as the ETOPS parts controlling document. However, other 
methods may be used provided that the configuration standard of the 
airplane and engine is maintained.
(8) Reliability Program
    The certificate holder would have to develop an ETOPS Reliability 
Program or the certificate holder's existing Reliability Program would 
have to be supplemented. This program should be designed to identify 
and prevent ETOPS related problems. The program would be event-oriented 
and incorporate reporting procedures for critical events detrimental to 
ETOPS flights. For those certificate holders that do not have a FAA 
approved reliability program, their Continuing Analysis and 
Surveillance (CAS) would have to be enhanced to achieve ETOPS 
reliability goals. Reliability data would have to be readily available 
for use by the certificate holder and the FAA to ensure that an 
acceptable level of reliability is achieved and maintained.
    The reporting requirements differ from the ARAC recommendation. The 
ARAC proposal indicated that the reporting requirements for ETOPS would 
be satisfied through reporting required by sections 121.363, 121.703, 
121.704 and 121.705. Due to other FAA rulemaking activity to amend 
sections 121.703 and 121.704, the reporting requirements of 121.703 and 
121.704

[[Page 64764]]

would not apply in the manner as understood by the Working Group. In 
order to adjust for these changes, the FAA proposes to codify the 
existing list of reportable events from Advisory Circular 120-42A.
    (1) The following are in addition to the reporting requirements in 
section 121.703 and would include:
    (a) In-flight shutdowns.
    (b) Diversions or turnback.
    (c) Uncommanded power changes or surges.
    (d) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power.
    (e) Problems with systems critical to ETOPS.
    (f) Any other event detrimental to ETOPS.
    (2) Certificate holders would also be required to furnish the 
following information:
    (a) Airplane identification (type and N-number).
    (b) Engine identification (make and serial number).
    (c) Total time, cycles and time since last shop visit.
    (d) For systems, time since overhaul or last inspection of the 
discrepant unit.
    (e) Phase of flight.
    (f) Corrective action.
    This proposed regulation would require certificate holders to 
conduct an investigation into the cause of the occurrence of any event 
listed above in addition to any event described in section 121.703. The 
certificate holder would have to submit findings and description of 
corrective action taken to the CHDO. The FAA expects certificate 
holders to investigate events above in conjunction with manufacturers. 
The report must be submitted in the manner prescribed by section 
121.703(e).
(c) Propulsion System Monitoring
    Propulsion system monitoring is vital to ensure safe ETOPS flights. 
A propulsion system-monitoring program is intended to detect adverse 
trends, to identify potential problems, and to establish criteria for 
when corrective action may be necessary. Propulsion system problems and 
IFSD may be caused by type design deficiencies, ineffective 
maintenance, or operational procedures. It is very important to 
identify the root cause of events so that corrective action may be 
determined. The diverse causes of propulsion system problems require 
different solutions. For example, type design problems may affect an 
entire fleet of aircraft. If an individual certificate holder 
experiences a problem caused by a type design issue, it may not be 
appropriate for the FAA to withdraw ETOPS authority. Fundamental design 
problems that require an effective hardware (or software) final fix 
will normally be corrected by an FAA Airworthiness Directive. 
Inspections may be satisfactory as an interim solution but long-term 
design solutions are required for terminating action. However, 
maintenance or operational problems may be wholly, or partially, the 
responsibility of the certificate holder. In these cases, the cause 
would be specific to that certificate holder and may require changes to 
their operational, dispatch or maintenance procedures. Propulsion 
system monitoring should be used to ensure that airplane and engine 
reliability stay within approximate IFSD rates as described in the 
proposed regulation.
(d) Engine Condition Monitoring
    The certificate holder would have to monitor the condition of 
engines on ETOPS airplanes. The monitoring program would describe the 
engine performance parameters to be tracked, method of data collection, 
analysis, and corrective action processes. It would detect 
deterioration in engine performance by tracking parameters such as 
rotor speeds, exhaust gas temperatures, and fuel flow and to allow for 
corrective action before safe operation is affected. The program should 
reflect the manufacturer's instructions and industry practices. Engine 
limit margins must be maintained so that prolonged engine inoperative 
diversions may be conducted without exceeding approved engine limits at 
all approved power levels and expected environmental conditions. Engine 
margins are maintained through this program to account for the effects 
of additional engine loading demands such as electrical and pneumatic 
systems that may be required during a diversion. If oil analysis such 
as Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program (SOAP) would be relevant, it 
should be included.
(e) Oil Consumption Monitoring
    The certificate holder would have to establish an engine oil 
consumption monitoring program to ensure that there is enough oil to 
complete any ETOPS flight. The certificate holder's consumption limit 
would not be allowed to exceed the manufacturer's recommendations, and 
would have to be sensitive to oil consumption trends. The program would 
have to track the amount of oil added at the departing ETOPS station 
with reference to the running average consumption. The monitoring must 
be continuous up to and including the oil added at the ETOPS departure 
station. For example, after servicing, the oil consumption may be 
calculated by maintenance personnel as part of the pre-departure check 
or may be automatically calculated by the certificate holder's computer 
software program. The amount of oil added could also be reported to 
centralized maintenance control for calculation prior to the ETOPS 
flight. If an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is required for ETOPS, then 
its oil consumption for the APU must be included in the program.
(f) APU In-Flight Start Program
    If APU in-flight start capability is required for ETOPS, the 
certificate holder would be required to establish an in flight start 
and run monitoring program. The primary function of an APU is to 
provide backup electrical power in the event of a main system failure 
such as engine in-flight shut down or generator loss. This program 
would have to ensure that the APU in-flight start capability would 
continue at a level of performance and reliability established by the 
manufacturer or the FAA. The program would have to be acceptable to the 
Administrator and include periodic sampling of each ETOPS airplane's 
APU in-flight starting capabilities. Certificate holders with existing 
approved programs may continue under that authority under this 
proposal. Sampling intervals may be adjusted according to system 
performance and fleet maturity. The Advisory Circular accompanying this 
proposal contains guidance for APU reliability and performance 
assessment.
(g) Maintenance Training
    The certificate holder would have to develop additional ETOPS 
specific training that focuses on the special nature of ETOPS and is 
required for all personnel involved in ETOPS. This training would be in 
addition to the certificate holder's accepted maintenance training 
program to qualify individuals for specific airplane and engines. This 
program may be incorporated into the accepted maintenance training 
curricula. The certificate holder would have to review the entire 
maintenance-training program with the CHDO to ensure that it adequately 
supports ETOPS training requirements. The goal of this program is to 
ensure that all personnel involved in ETOPS are provided the necessary 
training so that the ETOPS maintenance requirements are properly 
accomplished.
    The program must establish a system to qualify ETOPS maintenance 
personnel. ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel are those who

[[Page 64765]]

have successfully completed the certificate holder's ETOPS training 
program and who have satisfactorily performed extended range tasks 
under the direct supervision of an FAA certificated maintenance person 
who has had previous experience with maintaining the particular make 
and model aircraft being utilized under the certificate holder's 
maintenance program. For new aircraft introduction, the previous 
experience for training can be obtained from the manufacturers training 
program.
(h) Procedural Changes
    Following approval of the maintenance and training procedures 
established to qualify for ETOPS; substantial changes to those 
procedures must be submitted to the Certificate Holding District Office 
(CHDO) and approved before they may be adopted. The determination of 
what constitutes substantial changes should be negotiated between the 
certificate holder and the CHDO. This is to allow some flexibility 
depending on the certificate holder's ETOPS experience and performance 
history. The CHDO may require submission of all changes for a new ETOPS 
operator or for an operator experiencing difficulties. However, as 
experience is gained the CHDO may reevaluate what changes it needs to 
approve.

Continuing Surveillance

    As with all other operations, the CHDO may also monitor all aspects 
of the ETOPS operations it has authorized, to ensure that the levels of 
reliability achieved in ETOPS operations remain at acceptable levels, 
and that the operation continues to be conducted safely. In the event 
that an acceptable level of reliability is not maintained, if 
significant adverse trends exists, or if critical deficiencies are 
detected in the type design or in the conduct of ETOPS operations, the 
CHDO may initiate a special evaluation, impose operational 
restrictions, and ensure the operator adopts corrective actions in 
order to resolve the problems in a timely manner. The CHDO should alert 
the appropriate FAA Aircraft Certification Office and Aircraft 
Evaluation Group when problems associated with airplane design or 
operations are identified.
Proposed New Paragraph 121.415(a)(4) Crewmember and Dispatcher Training 
Requirements
    The FAA proposes to add a new requirement to train crewmembers and 
dispatchers in their roles and responsibilities in the certificate 
holder's passenger recovery plan to the certificate holder's approved 
training program.
Explanation
    Crewmember and dispatcher involvement in seeing to the welfare of 
passengers following a diversion often is an important factor in the 
success of post diversion passenger handling. With ETOPS and the 
possibility of diversion to a remote foreign airport with reduced 
services and facilities available for passenger welfare, it is 
increasingly important that the certificate holder have a passenger 
recovery plan and that crew members and dispatchers understand their 
role in that plan. Current regulations do not require training for 
crewmembers or dispatchers in their role in a certificate holder's 
passenger recovery plan. The role of the crewmembers and dispatchers 
must be defined and the training program tailored around those defined 
roles.
Proposed Change to Paragraph 121.565(a) Engine Inoperative: Landing; 
Reporting Below
Explanation
    The FAA proposes a minor revision to paragraph 121.565(a) to delete 
the reference to stopping the rotation of an engine, which applies only 
to propeller driven airplanes. This is to be replaced with terminology 
* * * ``whenever an engine is shut down * * *'' that applies to all 
reciprocating engines and turbine powered engines.
Proposed New Section 121.624 Dispatch Requirements for an ETOPS 
Alternate Airport
    The FAA proposes to add a regulation, which specifies the dispatch 
requirements for an ETOPS alternate, and the requirements for a valid 
ETOPS alternate after takeoff.
Explanation
    Most airplanes operate in an environment where there is usually a 
choice of diversion airports available within a close proximity to the 
route of flight. The available airports usually have significant 
infrastructure and facilities for routine handling of aircraft, crews, 
and passengers. An airplane conducting ETOPS may have only one 
alternate within a range dictated by the endurance of a particular 
airframe system (for example, cargo fire suppressant) and therefore the 
approved maximum diversion time for that route. Additionally, the 
alternates may be isolated and less completely equipped to deal with 
passenger aircraft. Therefore, it is important that any airport 
designated as an ETOPS alternate has the capabilities, services and 
facilities to safely support the airplane and its passengers and crew 
during the diversion.
    A regulatory requirement for an ETOPS alternate meets a prudent 
planning requirement for an en route diversion alternative for all 
long-range aircraft in the event of an engine failure, an airplane 
system failure or a serious passenger problem. A new regulation is 
required to specify the dispatch and en route requirements for ETOPS 
alternates. In addition, past experience in ETOPS operations of twin-
engine aircraft with en route diversions for reasons other than engine 
failure justify the imposition of a requirement to designate en route 
alternate for all long-range operations with airplanes with two or more 
engines. The additional operational challenges of these routes are 
equally demanding of all airplanes, regardless of the number of 
engines, and include such issues as extremes in terrain and 
meteorology, as well as limited navigation and communications 
infrastructure.
    At dispatch, an enroute alternate must meet the alternate weather 
requirements specified in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications. Due to the natural variability of weather conditions 
with time, as well as the need to determine the suitability of a 
particular enroute alternate prior to departure, such requirements are 
higher than the weather minimums required to initiate an instrument 
approach. This is necessary to assure that the instrument approach can 
be conducted safely if the flight must divert to an alternate airport. 
The visual reference necessary to safely complete an approach and 
landing is determined, among other things, by the accuracy with which 
the airplane can be controlled along the approach path by reference to 
instruments and the accuracy of the ground-based instrument aids, as 
well as the tasks the pilot is required to accomplish to maneuver the 
airplane so as to complete the landing. For these reasons the weather 
minima for non-precision approaches are generally higher than for 
precision approaches.
    The weather conditions at the time of arrival should provide a high 
assurance that adequate visual references are available upon arrival at 
decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA), and the surface 
wind conditions and corresponding runway surface conditions must be 
within acceptable limits to permit the approach and landing to be 
safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative.
    The proposed section (d) would require operators to designate only 
those airports as ETOPS alternates that

[[Page 64766]]

adequately protect the passengers and crew from the elements and see to 
their welfare.
Proposed Change to Section 121.625 Alternate Airport Weather Minimums 
Explanation
    The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 121.625 is to 
clarify the intent of this regulation as being applicable to 
destination and takeoff alternates only and not to ETOPS alternates 
requirements. ETOPS alternate requirements are the subject of proposed 
new regulation, section 121.624 ETOPS Alternates.
Proposed Change to Section 121.631 Original Dispatch or Flight Release, 
Redispatch or Amendment of Dispatch or Flight Release
    The FAA proposes to modify section 121.631 to specify weather 
requirements for ETOPS alternates while a flight is en route and the 
availability of the option to amend the dispatch or flight release to 
add another ETOPS alternate if a required ETOPS alternate becomes 
unavailable.
Explanation
    The FAA proposes to modify section 121.631 to address weather 
conditions required at designated ETOPS alternates while a flight is en 
route. This regulation is consistent with the standards and practices 
of AC 120-42A, the advisory circular that provided guidance for ETOPS 
since 1985.
    The proposed regulation also specifies the action required of the 
pilot in command and, in the case of flag operations, the dispatcher, 
in the event a required, designated alternate becomes unavailable and 
no other qualifying airport is available. In that event, the flight may 
not continue as an ETOPS flight unless another track that qualifies is 
available. The FAA recognizes that this may sometimes cause disruptions 
in scheduled operations and anticipates that carriers will adjust the 
enroute alternate weather minimums upward on routes on which this 
becomes more than a very infrequent problem.
Proposed New Section 121.633 Planned ETOPS Diversion Time Limitations
    The FAA proposes to add new regulation section 121.633 to require 
that planned ETOPS diversion times not exceed the time limit specified 
in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) for the airplanes most time-limited 
system minus 15 minutes. For airplanes with more than two engines and 
type certificated before the effective date of this regulation, the 
effective date for compliance with paragraph 121.633(b) is proposed to 
be not later than six years following the date on which this rule 
becomes effective.
Explanation
    Section 121.633 has been developed to codify the two-engine 
airplane operating practices with regard to diversion time and time 
critical systems and to expand those regulations to include airplanes 
with more than two engines in long-range operations.
    The premise of ETOPS has been to preclude a diversion and, if it 
were to occur, to have programs in place that protect the diversion. 
Under this concept, propulsion systems are designed and tested to 
assure an acceptable level of in-flight shutdown; other airplane 
systems are designed and tested to ensure their reliability. However, 
despite the best design/testing, and maintenance practices, situations 
have occurred which required an airplane to divert. In-service data has 
also shown that all airplanes, regardless of the number of engines, 
divert from time to time for various causes. Airplanes with more than 
two engines currently are operated in areas where there are a limited 
number of enroute airports, where the support infrastructure is 
marginal or with challenging weather conditions. All such operations 
should adopt the same `preclude and protect' concept.
    Under the `preclude and protect' concept, various failure scenarios 
need to be considered. For example, during the design of the airplane, 
time limited systems such as cargo compartment fire suppression/
containment capability are considered. The fuel planning process 
accounts for the possibility of decompression and/or the failure of an 
engine with considerations for icing.
    If airplanes with more than two engines plan to operate in areas 
where en route airports are farther than 180 minutes or in north polar 
areas where weather conditions can be challenging at certain times of 
the year, these operations should be required to meet the standards to 
ensure that all efforts are made to preclude a diversion and, if a 
diversion were to occur, procedures are in place to protect that 
diversion. This would include systems capability to protect the 
aircraft and its occupants during the entire length of the diversion. 
As such, for ETOPS operations less than 180 minutes the one engine 
inoperative cruise speed maximum diversion time to any ETOPS alternate 
may not exceed the time specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) 
for the airplane's most time-limited system, minus 15 minutes. The 15 
minutes allows time for approach and landing. The cruise speed is 
calculated as if in still air under standard temperature conditions.
    In ETOPS operations wind becomes an increasingly significant factor 
with increasing diversion times and should be considered in ETOPS 
operations beyond 180 minutes to assure that AFM system time limits are 
not exceeded. For example, while diverting with an engine inoperative, 
it is essential to ensure that there is sufficient amount of oil in the 
tank for continuous operation of the remaining engines at Maximum 
Continuous Thrust for the actual duration of divert. As a result, for 
ETOPS operations with approved diversion times greater than 180 minutes 
the one engine inoperative cruise speed (approved) maximum diversion 
time is calculated by taking into account forecast wind and 
temperature. The maximum diversion time may not exceed the time 
specified in the airplane flight manual for the airplane's most time-
limited system, minus 15 minutes for approach and landing.
    However, there are some other time limited systems, like cargo fire 
suppression, which may not have as much relevance to the one engine 
inoperative diversion time. The FAA believes that the likelihood of an 
engine failure at the critical point followed by cargo fire to be 
extremely remote. Thus ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, cargo fire suppression 
requirement would be based on covering the diversion distance 
authorized (maximum diversion time authorized at the approved one 
engine inoperative speed) at the all engine operating speed. It has 
already been stated that for ETOPS operations beyond 180 minutes wind 
becomes an increasingly significant factor with increasing diversion 
times and should be considered. Therefore this proposed rule requires 
that for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, cargo fire suppression time required 
be based on the airplane operating at all engine operating speed with 
actual wind. For ETOPS at or below 180 min, there is precedent in AC 
120-42, for cargo fire suppression for the maximum diversion time based 
on one engine inoperative speed. This proposal would codify that 
practice. The cargo fire suppression time in all cases shall also 
include 15 minutes allowance for holding, approach and landing.
    During development of their recommendation the ARAC ETOPS Working 
Group had much discussion regarding aircraft utilized in long haul 
operations. Some three and four-engine airplanes routinely operate on 
routes with diversion times that exceed aircraft

[[Page 64767]]

system capabilities such as cargo fire suppression. The FAA believes 
equivalent cargo fire suppression capabilities should exist among the 
entire fleet of airplanes conducting ETOPS. The proposed regulation 
would require the modification of those airplanes. The FAA recognizes 
that a transition period to gain full compliance with the proposed rule 
is necessary for the industry. The FAA finds that these modifications 
can be accomplished within the scheduled maintenance D check cycle (6 
years) based on ARAC recommendations. This proposal would grant the 
operator sufficient time to adequately plan for and incorporate 
necessary modifications in the 6-year time frame proposed.
    The FAA recognizes this proposal would allow three and four engine 
airplanes to continue to operate on routes with diversion times up to 
and including 180 minutes without having to update time-limited system 
capabilities. The FAA seeks comment on how it should address this 
discrepancy in the future.
Proposed New Section 121.646 Fuel Supply Required Following 
Depressurization
    We propose to add a new rule, section 121.646, to specify the fuel 
supply required following depressurization. Current regulations contain 
no requirement for a fuel supply sufficient to reach an en route 
diversion airport.
Explanation
    ICAO Annex 6, Part I, section 4.3.6.4(d) requires consideration of 
additional fuel in the event of loss of pressurization. Fuel 
consumption increases considerably at the lower altitudes flown 
following a loss of pressurization. Although section 121.329 requires 
descent following cabin depressurization ``to an altitude that will 
allow successful termination of the flight,'' there is no explicit 
requirement in part 121 for a fuel supply in the event of cabin 
depressurization to assure a safe landing. It should be noted that an 
interpretation can be made that fuel to provide for cabin 
pressurization is required because of the requirement of section 
121.329.
    Both AC 120-42 and 120-42A considered the fuel supply required at 
the most critical point in the ETOPS area of operation in the event of 
the cabin depressurization, and also considered the possibility of a 
simultaneous failure of an engine. As the probability of 
depressurization is comparable between two, three, and four-engine 
airplanes, the proposed section 121.646 would retain the AC conditions 
for fuel supply to an ETOPS alternate in the event of cabin 
depressurization for all ETOPS operations.
    For airplanes with more than two engines the section 121.329 
implied fuel supply requirement becomes a proposed regulatory 
requirement. Paragraph 121.646(a) applies to operations more than 90 
minutes (with all engines operating at cruising power) and less than 
180 minutes (at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed) from 
an adequate airport, while the requirements in paragraph 121.646(b) 
apply for operations greater than 180 minutes (at the approved one 
engine inoperative cruise speed) from an adequate airport.
    Further, the AC required consideration of fuel for icing at the 
cabin depressurization cruise altitude and consideration of errors in 
wind forecasting. Studies done by the Atmospheric Environment Service 
of Canada with the assistance of airplane manufacturers under the 
second Canadian Atlantic Storms Program (CASP II) confirm that the 
probability of a continuous or repetitive significant icing encounter 
is very small on a long flight segment. The airspeeds associated with 
cruise at cabin depressurization altitude are not conducive to ice 
build-up. Moreover, pilots can avoid icing with minor changes in 
altitude or by changing the cruise speed, either of which can have a 
large effect on ice accretion. Based on the CASP II study, considering 
the probability of encountering depressurization at the critical point 
and icing on the same flight, an argument was made that fuel for icing 
in addition to fuel for depressurization is not deemed necessary. 
However, as a conservative measure, paragraph 121.646(b)(C)(iv) 
requires fuel to compensate for the greater of the effect of airframe 
icing (including the fuel used by engine and wing anti-ice during this 
period) during 10 percent of the time for which icing is forecast, or a 
combination of fuel for engine anti-ice, and for some models of 
airplanes based on their characteristics and the manufacturer's 
recommended procedures fuel for wing anti-ice for the time during which 
icing is forecast.
    Based on the weather forecasting techniques of the early 1980s, the 
AC required a five percent fuel pad to account for wind forecast 
errors. However, winds aloft forecasting has improved dramatically in 
the last twenty years as a result of the following:
    [sbull] The sophistication of wind forecast models have experienced 
a quantum improvement. These models provide forecasts based on a wider 
range of inputs and more accurate extrapolation throughout the altitude 
profile.
    [sbull] Wind forecasting responsibilities have been assigned to 
computers with vastly increased capacity, capability, and speed.
    [sbull] The flow of input data has significantly increased; largely 
as a result of systems that automatically downlink weather information 
at much more frequent intervals. Additionally, weather is measured on a 
worldwide grid of collection points. This grid has nearly four times 
the collection points compared to the grid used previously.
    [sbull] Information gleaned from satellite downlinks and satellite 
depictions of air mass movement are added to the data stream, not only 
to fine tune forecasting at frequently flown altitudes, but also to 
provide more accurate forecasts at lower altitudes (10,000 to 15,000 
feet) where the decompression profiles are flown.
    This information is collected, analyzed, and distributed worldwide 
by the World Area Forecast System (WAFS). This centralized distribution 
of weather information provides for a consistent level of accuracy that 
can eliminate the assignment of arbitrary penalties, provided that 
individual airlines subscribe to the service and make use of this level 
of information.
    Therefore, given the documented improvements in forecasting 
accuracy when using WAFS, a more accurate means of determining the fuel 
used during a decompression profile involves adding a pad to the actual 
forecast winds in making the fuel calculation rather than adding an 
arbitrary fuel penalty. The addition of a five-percent wind error pad 
provides an accurate case-by-case adjustment as compared with a five-
percent fuel penalty, while preserving the necessary level of safety. 
However, if a certificate holder elects not to use such accurate winds 
in the computation of decompression fuel, then the proposed rule will 
require the operator to continue applying the five percent fuel pad to 
account for wind forecast errors.
    Section 121.646 requires accounting for any airplane performance 
degradation on the fuel requirement. In addition, if APU is a required 
power source, then its fuel consumption also must be accounted for.
Proposed New Paragraph 121.687(a)(6) Dispatch Release: Flag and 
Domestic Operations
    We propose to add new paragraph 121.687(a)(6), which would add the 
ETOPS approval basis to the content of the dispatch release under which 
the flight is being dispatched.

[[Page 64768]]

Explanation
    The proposal assures that the pilot in command of an ETOPS flight 
is notified as to the time basis, (for example, 120-minute or 180-
minute ETOPS) including the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) limitations, 
under which the flight is dispatched.
Proposed New Paragraph 121.689(a)(8) Flight Release Form: Supplemental 
Operations
    The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph 121.689(a)(8) to add the 
ETOPS time basis to the content of the flight release of each ETOPS 
flight.
Explanation
    The proposal assures that the pilot in command of an ETOPS flight 
is aware of the limitations (for example, 120-minute or 180-minute 
ETOPS) including the minimum Equipment List (MEL) limitations, under 
which the flight is released.
Proposed New 14 CFR 121 Appendix O Requirements for ETOPS Approvals
    Appendix O to Part 121 would establish the operational requirements 
and limitations for the various ETOPS diversion time thresholds and 
areas of ETOPS applicability. In very general terms, Appendix O would 
codify existing approvals and operational practices that have been 
developed since 1985 and it would also establish requirements for ETOPS 
flights that certificate holders may elect to operate in the future. 
These latter ETOPS flights would have diversion time bases exceeding 
180 minutes and are not authorized at this time. The FAA points out 
again that 207-minute ETOPS flights are an extension of the 180-minute 
authority and not an independent diversion time authority.
A. ETOPS Authorizations: Airplanes With 2 engines
(a) 75 Minutes ETOPS
    The proposed 75-minute ETOPS diversion authority is a codification 
of the criteria that was specified in AC 120-42A. This deviation 
authority has traditionally been used for operations in the Caribbean, 
Western Atlantic, and less frequently, in the North Atlantic areas of 
operation.
(b) 90-Minute ETOPS (Micronesia)
    This ARAC recommendation for a new diversion authorization is to 
establish a 90-minute ETOPS authority for exclusive use on Micronesia 
routes. This geographical area has been served with ETOPS approved 
airplanes with operational authority to dispatch at 120 minutes. The 
only difference between the proposed 90-minute level in comparison to 
120-minute ETOPS is to require the ETOPS pre-departure check on the 
outbound segment only. The nature of flights to serve this area 
involves destinations to islands at frequencies such that it becomes 
unreasonable for the operator to have an ETOPS certified mechanic 
stationed at the arrival location. An alternative means is for the 
operator to carry on board each flight a certified ETOPS mechanic that 
would conduct the ETOPS pre-departure check prior to the return to the 
return flight. This option is an inefficient use of a certified 
mechanic. The Micronesia route structure is such that it lies beyond a 
75-minute authority (which would allow for the operation to be 
conducted without requiring the ETOPS pre-departure check for the 
return flight), but short of requiring the full 120-minute diversion. 
The Micronesia area in terms of weather and airport availability is 
similar to the area associated with ETOPS conducted in the Caribbean 
area.
    The FAA proposes to allow for a 90-minute ETOPS diversion authority 
for use in Micronesia routes provided that the airplane is type design 
approved, and configured to the CMP standards for 120-minutes. The 
operations are to be conducted to 120-minute ETOPS standards and 
requirements and MEL requirements, with the exception that the ETOPS 
pre-departure check will not be required for the return leg of the 
round trip flight.
(c) 120 Minutes
    The FAA proposed 120-minute ETOPS diversion authority is a 
codification of the criteria that was specified in AC 120-42A. The 
airplane and engine combination would have to be ETOPS type design 
approved for a minimum of 120-minutes and configured to the standards 
specified in the CMP document. All flight operations dispatched or 
released to 120-minute ETOPS standards would have to comply with MEL 
requirements specified for the operation.
(d) 138 Minutes
    The FAA proposed 138-minute ETOPS diversion authority is a 
codification of the criteria that is specified in the 138-minute ETOPS 
policy letter. No changes to the present existing requirements are 
proposed. Operators may request 138-minute ETOPS operational approval 
on an airplane engine combination that has an ETOPS type design 
approval of 120-minutes provided that the airplane engine combination 
has been assessed by the FAA for the extended diversion length. In such 
cases the dispatch authority may only be exercised on a flight-by-
flight exception basis. The operator will be required to amend and use 
a MEL that has been amended to include those items that are specified 
for operations beyond 120-minutes. Operators approved to conduct 138-
minute ETOPS with an airplane and engine combination that has 180-
minute ETOPS type design approval may do so without any restriction to 
frequency of use. The operator must dispatch or release such flights in 
accordance with the MEL provisions for ETOPS beyond 120 minutes.
(e) 180 Minutes
    The FAA proposed 180-minute ETOPS diversion authority is a 
codification of the criteria that was specified in AC 120-42A. The 
airplane and engine combination would have to be ETOPS type design 
approved for a minimum of 180-minutes and configured to the standards 
specified in the CMP document for 180-minutes. All flight operations 
dispatched or released to 180-minute ETOPS standards would have to 
comply with MEL requirements specified for the operation.
(f) Greater Than 180 Minutes
    The FAA accepts the ARAC recommendations to include the increased 
ETOPS diversion authorizations beyond 180-minutes. ETOPS beyond 180 
minutes has been in use on a limited, flight by flight exception basis, 
since March 2000 with the issuance of the 207-minute ETOPS policy. The 
industry has demonstrated its capability to maintain the necessary 
engine and systems reliability for such operations using the B-777 
airplane. Certain geographical areas of the world have few adequate 
airports along flight routing, and are separated by a distance that is 
farther than what could be flown within 180-minutes. Other geographical 
areas have severe weather patterns and weather systems that at times 
would not allow for the designation and use of area airports as ETOPS 
alternates. In these cases the air carrier would benefit with better 
dispatch reliability and added safety of the flight with the ability to 
flight plan with diversion times that exceed 180-minutes to avoid 
exposure to such conditions.
    The authority for this increased diversion distance flight planning 
is dependent on the demonstrated capability of the operator's ETOPS 
program, and the use of an airplane and engine combination that is 
approved for such operations. The FAA therefore

[[Page 64769]]

proposes that eligibility of an air carrier to conduct ETOPS beyond 180 
minutes will be dependant on the air carrier already having ETOPS 
approval to conduct 180-minute ETOPS with the requested airplane and 
engine combination. It will therefore not be possible for the air 
carrier to bypass the 180-minute ETOPS approval process before making 
application for ETOPS approvals beyond 180-minutes.
    Air carriers that are authorized to conduct ETOPS beyond 180-
minutes will be required to consider all available airports that are 
within 180-minutes of the routing being planned for use as ETOPS 
alternates. This is to minimize the dispatch diversion time to 180-
minutes when possible, and thereby minimizes the risk of the extended 
exposure when possible. The proposed rule in Appendix O requires that:
    ``In conducting all such operations, operators shall make every 
attempt to minimize diversion time along the preferred track and plan 
ETOPS at maximum diversion distances of 180 minutes or less. If 
conditions prevent the use of adequate airports within 180 minutes as 
ETOPS alternates, the route may be flown beyond 180 minutes subject to 
the requirements provided for the specific area of operations.''
    In March 2000 the FAA implemented the 207-minute ETOPS policy that 
required certain airplane system capabilities and that specific 
equipment be operable at time of dispatch or flight release for a 207-
minute planned route. This included enhanced communication capability 
with the use of SATCOM, or with the use of SATCOM data link. It also 
required that the flight crew before entering the extended range entry 
point receive company communication to update the flight plan 
information based on a review of the airplane status and systems 
capability, as well as an update on all available alternates along the 
flight route. For airplane capabilities, single engine autoland is 
required to be operative at dispatch for a 207-minute ETOPS flight. The 
policy letter also specified additional system and equipment 
operability that cannot be deferred for such operations through the use 
of a minimum equipment list (MEL). This includes the fuel quantity 
indicating system (FQIS), the auxiliary power unit (APU) to its full 
electrical and pneumatic designed capability, and the autothrottle 
system.
    The ETOPS ARAC recommended that the additional requirements that 
were introduced by the FAA for 207-minute ETOPS continue as 
requirements for all ETOPS diversion authorizations greater than 180-
minutes. The FAA accepts the recommendation.
(1) North Pacific
    ETOPS authority for the North Pacific area of operation is a 
codification of the FAA 207-minute ETOPS policy letter. This authority 
allows on a flight by flight exception basis flight planning to an 
ETOPS alternate up to 207-minutes, when an ETOPS alternate within 180-
minutes is not available. As with the previous 207-minute ETOPS policy, 
this exception is limited to circumstances such as political or 
military concern, volcanic activity, airport weather below dispatch 
requirements, temporary airport conditions and other weather related 
events. The airplane and engine combination must as a minimum be ETOPS 
type design approved for 180-minutes and configured to the standards 
specified in the CMP document for 180-minutes. All flight operations 
dispatched or released to 207-minute ETOPS standards have to comply 
with an approved MEL required for 180-minutes that includes the 
additional items specified in this part for operations beyond 180-
minutes. In all cases, the time required to fly the distance to the 
planned ETOPS alternate or alternates, at the approved one engine 
inoperative cruise speed, in still air and standard day temperature, 
may not exceed the time specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the 
airplane's most time limited system time minus 15 minutes. This means 
that the most time limiting system on the airplane used for a 207-
minute ETOPS flight cannot be less than 222-minutes.
(2) Polar Area (North Pole) and North of NOPAC
    This authorization for use in the North Pole allows for a diversion 
authority of 240-minutes on a flight-by-flight exception basis. This 
dispatch authority may be used when the area experiences temporary 
extreme weather conditions that cause airport closures, extreme cold 
temperatures, or weather below dispatch minimums. Consideration for 
other weather related conditions and events such as volcanic activity 
that are particular to this area of the world may be given.
    The operator will be required to establish criteria to be used when 
flight planning in order to determine if the use of a 240-minute 
authority is appropriate in order to designate an ETOPS alternate. 
These criteria and procedures developed must be accepted by the FAA and 
published in the certificate holder's manual for the use of dispatchers 
and pilots.
    For such operations, the airframe and engine combination must be 
type design approved for a minimum of 240 minute ETOPS and configured 
to the standards as specified in the Configuration Maintenance and 
Procedures (CMP) Standard for such operations. For such operations, the 
requirements in paragraph C, Polar Area (North & South Pole) and ETOPS 
beyond 180 minutes North of the NOPAC area, of this appendix apply.
(3) 240 Minutes Area of Operations
    There are several geographical areas that have few airports 
available for use as an ETOPS alternate, and those airports are 
situated at a distance beyond what could be flown in 180-minutes. These 
areas include the Pacific oceanic areas between the U.S. west coast and 
Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia; the south Atlantic oceanic areas; 
the Indian Oceanic areas; and the oceanic areas between Australia and 
South America. The FAA proposes that a diversion authority of up to 
240-minutes be established for use in these geographical areas. 
Operators that apply for this authority must have as a prerequisite 
180-minute ETOPS authority and experience with the requested airframe 
and engine combination.
    When planning flight routes in these areas, the operator will be 
required to designate the nearest available ETOPS alternate along the 
planned flight route, and always within a maximum of 240-minutes. 
Whenever possible along the planned route, designated ETOPS alternates 
should be within 180-minutes. In all cases for ETOPS beyond 180 
minutes, the time required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS 
alternate(s), at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed, 
correcting for wind and temperature, may not exceed the time specified 
in the Airplane Flight Manual for the airplanes most time limited 
system time (except for cargo fire suppression), minus 15 minutes. The 
flight routing must also be within the time required to fly the 
distance to the planned ETOPS alternate or alternates, at the all 
engines operating cruise speed, correcting for wind and temperature, 
that is specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane's 
cargo fire suppression system time minus, 15 minutes.
    For such operations, the airframe/engine combination must be type 
design approved for a minimum of 240 minute ETOPS and configured to the 
standards as specified in the Configuration Maintenance and Procedures 
(CMP) Standard for such operations.

[[Page 64770]]

(4) Beyond 240 Minutes Area of Operations
    The FAA proposes a new ETOPS diversion limit that is beyond 240-
minutes. This authority would be available only to those operators that 
have considerable experience with ETOPS, including operations with 
routes requiring 240-minutes ETOPS. At a minimum, the operator would 
have to have 24 consecutive months of ETOPS experience with operations 
180 minutes and greater, of which at least 12 consecutive months were 
at 240-minute ETOPS on the airframe and engine combination for which 
the authority is requested.
    There are only a few routes that would require a diversion time 
greater than 240-minutes from an ETOPS alternate. The geographical 
areas with routes that would be best flown with such an authority are 
the Pacific oceanic areas between the U.S. west coast and Australia, 
New Zealand and Polynesia; the south Atlantic oceanic areas; the Indian 
Oceanic areas; the oceanic areas between Australia and South America, 
and South Pole area. The FAA proposes that for such routes, the 
authority to dispatch or release a flight that would be more than 240-
minutes from an ETOPS alternate would be granted only for specific city 
pairs served. In planning the route, the operator would be required to 
always designate the nearest available ETOPS alternate(s). In all cases 
for ETOPS flight segments that are beyond 180 minutes, the time 
required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS alternate(s), at the 
approved one engine inoperative cruise speed, correcting for wind and 
temperature, may not exceed the time specified in the Airplane Flight 
Manual for the airplanes most time limited system time (except for 
cargo fire suppression), minus 15 minutes. The flight routing must also 
be within the time required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS 
alternate or alternates, at the all engines operating cruise speed, 
correcting for wind and temperature, that is specified in the Airplane 
Flight Manual for the airplane's cargo fire suppression system time 
minus, 15 minutes.
    For such operations, the airframe and engine combination would have 
to be type design approved for the maximum authorized ETOPS diversion 
time. All requirements specified in the Configuration Maintenance and 
Procedures (CMP) Standard for beyond 240 minute ETOPS would be 
applicable to such operations.
B. ETOPS Authorizations: Airplanes With More Than 2 Engines
    The flight planning for long-range flights traversing remote areas 
with few airports available for a non-scheduled landing should not be 
different because of the number of engines installed. Flights in all 
engine configurations have experienced conditions requiring landings 
short of the planned destination. The conditions included onboard 
technical failures, adverse atmospheric flight conditions, and 
increasingly, passengers that develop life threatening medical 
conditions that require prompt medical care. The preclude and protect 
philosophy that has been a foundation for two-engine airplane ETOPS has 
similar application and benefit to flight operations that are conducted 
with 3 and 4-engine airplanes.
    The FAA proposes that ETOPS practices apply to flights conducted 
with 3 and 4-engine airplanes on routes where the flight will be more 
than 180-minutes from an adequate airport. Operations in any area up to 
a maximum diversion time up to 240-minutes (based on the one-engine 
inoperative speed flown in still air) may be conducted on a routine 
basis. For all such operations, the nearest available ETOPS alternate 
within 240 minutes diversion time must be specified. If an ETOPS 
alternate is not available within 240 minutes, the operator may conduct 
the flight by designating the nearest ETOPS alternate on the planned 
route that is within the airplanes most time limited system capability 
as specified by Sec.  121.633 of this chapter.
    On all such operations, MEL limitations for ETOPS apply and in 
addition, the Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) and the 
communication requirements specified in Sec.  121.99 and Sec.  121.122 
as appropriate must be operational. The airframe/engine combination 
must be type design approved for the maximum authorized ETOPS diversion 
time.
C. Polar Area (North & South Pole) and ETOPS Beyond 180 Minutes North 
of the NOPAC Area
    The ARAC ETOPS recommendation includes the adoption of the FAA 
Polar Policy that was issued March 2001. Because of extreme cold 
weather during the winter months and the limited availability of 
supporting services and facilities, it is proposed that the Polar, the 
area north of N 78[deg]00'', be designated as an area of ETOPS 
applicability. Except for intrastate operations within the State of 
Alaska, ETOPS requirements would apply regardless of the number of 
engines or an airplane's proximity to an airport. Support of a 
necessary diversion and subsequent recovery in such areas would require 
the following items to be addressed by the operator:

(1) Designation and requirements for airports that may be used for 
enroute diversions
(2) Recovery plan for passengers at diversion alternates
(3) Fuel freeze strategy and monitoring requirements for Polar 
operations
(4) Communication capability for Polar operations
(5) MEL considerations for Polar operations
(6) Training issues for Polar operations
(7) Crew considerations during solar flare activity
(8) Special equipment for Polar operations such as cold weather anti-
exposure suits.

    In order to receive authorization to conduct polar operations, the 
operator would be required to conduct an FAA observed validation of its 
polar program. As part of the validation, the operator would be 
required to exercise its reaction and recovery plan that would be 
implemented in the event of a diversion to a designated polar area 
alternate airport.

Part 135

Global Issues for Part 135

Discussion of General Issues in Part 135
(1) Defining a safe operation for ETOPS
    The intent of the proposed amendments to part 135 is to establish 
ETOPS safety standards for commuter and on-demand operators that are 
adapted for the unique nature of those operations. Regardless of 
whether a commercial flight is operated under part 121 or part 135, the 
same safety considerations of ETOPS apply. The FAA believes that these 
proposals would preclude and protect any diversions.
    The applicability of ETOPS requirements would differ from part 121 
to part 135. Part 135 casts a wider net than part 121. Part 135 
operators range from one or two person companies operating a single 
Cessna 172 to larger companies that operate fleets of turbojets. As a 
practical matter, these amendments would not affect the vast majority 
of part 135 operators. Unlike a typical part 121 operator, a part 135 
on-demand operators may fly on a given route only once or twice in a 
year. This proposal takes into account these differences.
    Under this proposal, ETOPS requirement under part 135 would

[[Page 64771]]

apply to: (1) Flights that operate on routes containing a point greater 
than 180 minutes from an adequate airport based on a single-engine 
inoperative speed in still air and standard conditions; (2) and flights 
that operate in designated geographical areas. In contrast to part 121, 
there would be no distinction between airplanes with two engines and 
those with more than two engines.
Recent Changes to Part 135
    In 1998, the FAA added part 119 to 14 CFR. This amendment modified 
the types of operations permitted in accordance with part 135. Among 
the changes was an allowance for infrequent scheduled operations with 
airplanes with 9 or fewer seats and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 
pounds. These airplanes often do not have the range capability to 
operate on routes to which ETOPS requirements would apply to this 
proposal. This proposal would not allow the use of many of these 
aircraft in ETOPS even if they are modified with additional fuel tanks 
that would give them additional range. The reason is that range 
capability is necessary but not sufficient for ETOPS. There are other 
airplane system capabilities and redundancies that are required for 
safe ETOPS flights. These issues are discussed in further detail in the 
following section.
ICAO Standards
    This proposal would make part 135 regulations more consistent with 
paragraph 4.7.1 of Annex 6 of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
(SARPs). That paragraph states: ``Unless the operation has been 
specifically approved by the State of the Operators, an aeroplane with 
two turbine power-units shall not, except as provided in 4.7.4, be 
operated on a route where the flight time at single engine cruise speed 
to an adequate en-route alternate aerodrome exceeds a threshold time 
established for such operations by that State.'' This SARP does not 
specify a time threshold for two-engine ETOPS but clearly assumes the 
existence of one. The SARP was written to give signatory States the 
flexibility to determine appropriate time thresholds.
Safety Study
    In 2000, Robert Breiling of the National Business Aviation 
Association (NBAA) conducted a study of airplane accidents between 1964 
and 1999. This study may be purchased directly from NBAA, 1200 18th 
Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20036-2506. This study revealed that there 
was not a single accident with a two-engine airplane in long-range 
operations. Historically the vast majority of airplanes operated in 
accordance with part 135 have not had the range capability for routes 
that would require ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, thus the FAA never found 
sufficient safety justification for proposing rules.
    In 1996, manufacturers began delivering airplanes to part 135 
operators that had vastly improved range capability. These new-
generation two-engine airplanes have ranges up to 6,500 nautical miles 
and are capable of operating on routes that would require diversion 
times in excess of 180 minutes. Thus the FAA believes that regulations 
are necessary to assure the safe operation of such flights if an 
operator elects to conduct them.
Existing FAA Policy
    In 1996, the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) proposed a 
regulation that would have limited commercial operations of small 
airplanes to less than 120 minutes from an aerodrome, unless 
specifically approved by the State authority. In our response, we 
expressed our view that 180-minutes would be the U.S. threshold for 
these type of operations. The FAA disagreed with the JAA 120-minute 
threshold because it would have shut down a number of part 135 
operators that have been conducting these operations safely for many 
years. By policy the FAA has not authorized operations beyond 180 
minutes for part 135 operators.
(2) Specific Differences Between Part 121 ETOPS
    As noted earlier the ETOPS requirements for part 135 would differ 
from those of part 121 due to the differing nature of those operations. 
For instance, the presence of adequate crash, fire and rescue equipment 
is an important consideration for part 121 operations, which may 
operate many times per year to a single location with a relatively 
large number of passengers. Although adequate RFF service is desirable 
for any long-range operations, it is not feasible to require the 
presence of crash, fire and rescue equipment at an airport before 
authorizing an on-demand operation that may operate only once a year 
with very few passengers. Therefore, no such requirement exists in part 
135.
    Another difference is that part 135 would not identify specific 
IFSD rates for authorization. IFSD rates have less predictive value in 
small fleets of airplanes with lower annual cycles that are prevalent 
among part 135 operators.
(3) Nomenclature
    The issue of nomenclature was controversial among ARAC participants 
from the part 135 community. The consensus decision was the use of the 
term ETOPS in lieu of alternatives including Commercial On-Demand 
Operations (CODEOPS). The FAA accepts the ARAC recommendation and 
proposes to use the acronym ETOPS defined as Extended Operations for 
part 135 operations.
(4) Airplane and Engine ETOPS Type Design and Transition Period
Type-Design
    No specific type design approval has ever been required by part 25 
or part 33 before an airplane can be flown over long-ranges in 
accordance with part 135. The proposed ETOPS rule was drafted to allow 
currently-certified airplanes to operate in accordance with ETOPS 
procedures without requiring a new type design approval. However, when 
an operator first applies to the FAA for approval to use a certain 
airplane in ETOPS (beyond 180 minutes from an airport), the operator 
must demonstrate that the airplane meets certain system and equipment 
requirements specified the proposed Appendix H and the guidance 
contained in the ETOPS Advisory Circular.
    The proposed changes to airplane and engine certification rules in 
this NPRM will apply to any new airplane certified under part 25, 
regardless of whether the airplane is to be operated in accordance with 
part 135 or part 121. As newly designed airplanes are granted type-
design approvals incorporating the requirements for ETOPS contained in 
part 25 or part 33, the flight manual will specify each time-limited 
system, and the maximum time that system can safely operate.
Transition
    The proposed rule allows a transition period of eight years from 
the date the revised part 25 and part 33 are published during which 
certificate holders may continue to add airplanes of current designs to 
their part 135 fleets. After that date, the proposed rule requires that 
airplanes added to a certificate holder's fleet be type-certificated in 
accordance with the new ETOPS design requirements. This method of 
transition recognizes the excellent safety record of current airplane 
designs, and avoids penalizing certificate holders who may have made 
significant capital investments in airplanes. The length of this 
transition period was set at eight years because it is typical of the 
time required for a new,

[[Page 64772]]

long-range turbine-powered airplane to go from initial design to the 
time it is commonly available to the majority of certificate holders. 
However, this transition period applies only to type design. The 
transition period will allow manufacturers to produce newly compliant 
aircraft and for those aircraft to become readily available in the 
aircraft marketplace. The operational practices required in part 135 
Subpart H would become effective immediately. These standards for 
operation, maintenance and dispatching of ETOPS would contribute to the 
continued safe operation of part 135 long-range aircraft operations.
(5) Approved One-Engine Inoperative Speed
    When scheduled air carriers apply for route authority over a route 
requiring ETOPS, FAA approves a one-engine inoperative speed for a 
specific route flown by that operator in a specific airplane model. 
This speed is then used to determine fuel reserves and maximum 
diversion distances for all subsequent flights. Unlike scheduled air 
carriers, an on-demand operator may only operate once over any given 
route-of-flight, and they must be able to do so with relatively short 
notice. Flexibility is required for ETOPS conducted in accordance with 
part 135. It is therefore not feasible to require pre-approval of a 
single one-engine inoperative speed for certificate holders operating 
ETOPS on each route in accordance with part 135. Instead, when a 
certificate holder applies for ETOPS approval, the operator will 
suggest a range of speeds within the certified limits for a specific 
model of airplane. The FAA will approve this range of speeds for that 
operator. When planning for a specific flight, the certificate holder 
will select a single speed within this range and ensure that this 
selected speed is used to determine both fuel reserves and maximum 
diversion distances.
(6) Polar Operations
    The increasing use of Polar flights, while creating economic 
benefits, has brought new challenges to the extended operations. Due to 
these pressures and to the increasing commonality of all long-range 
operations, the data began to show that ETOPS requirements and 
processes are generally applicable to all long-range operations 
including those by three and four engine airplanes and would improve 
the safety and viability of all long range operations. The FAA polar 
policy issued March 2001 provides the requirements for approval to 
conduct these operations. Given the nature of part 135 on-demand 
operations, it is conceivable that flights in the designated polar area 
may occur. Polar operations require the designation of airports that 
may be used in the event a diversion is necessary, and it requires that 
the operator have a passenger recovery plan. The recovery plan should 
address the care and safety of passengers and crew at the diversion 
airport, and include the plan of operation to extract the passengers 
and crew from that airport. The certificate holder would have to 
maintain the accuracy and completeness of its recovery plan. As the 
rule would apply to those part 135 on-demand operations that can be 
conducted less than 180 minutes from an airport as well as those 
operations conducted as ETOPS, the FAA proposes section 135.98 to be a 
separate requirement from ETOPS requirements. The proposed section 
135.98 for polar operations excludes intrastate operations within the 
State of Alaska.
FAA General Changes to the ARAC Proposal for Part 135
    The following table cross-references the ARAC proposed rules with 
what the FAA has proposed in this NPRM. The ARAC proposal included 
several requirements that were in their Advisory Circular, but were not 
included in their proposed rules. The FAA has therefore included these 
ARAC Advisory Circular requirements into this NPRM in order to codify 
the ARAC proposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ARAC proposal                             NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
135 Appendix H ETOPS...................  135 Appendix H ETOPS.
Paragraph H Maintenance Program          Paragraph Maintenance. Program
 Requirements.                            Requirements.
None...................................  H(a) Configuration, Maintenance
                                          & Procedures (CMP).
H(a) CAMP..............................  H(b) CAMP.
None...................................  H(b)(1) ETOPS Pre-departure
                                          service check.
H(2)(a) procedures to preclude dual      H(b)(2) procedures to preclude
 maintenance.                             dual maintenance.
H(2)(b) verification procedures........  H(b)(3) verification program.
None...................................  H(b)(4) task identification.
None...................................  H(b)(5) centralized maintenance
                                          control procedures.
None...................................  H(b)(6) ETOPS program document.
None...................................  H(b)(7) ETOPS parts control.
None...................................  H(b)(8) Enhanced CAS.
H(3) reporting requirements............  H(b)(8)(a) reporting
                                          requirements.
H(4) periodic report of engine hours &   None.
 cycles.
H(5) corrective action.................  H(b)(8)(b) corrective action.
None...................................  H(c) propulsion system
                                          monitoring.
None...................................  H(d) engine condition
                                          monitoring.
None...................................  H(e) oil consumption
                                          monitoring.
H(2)(c) APU in-flight start program....  H(f) APU in-flight start
                                          program.
None...................................  H(g) maintenance training.
None...................................  H(h) procedural changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to Part 135

Proposed New Section 135.98 Polar Operations
    The FAA proposes a new rule for the conduct of flights in the North 
Pole area as defined as the region north of N 78[deg]00[min].
Explanation
    Operations in this defined area, with the exception of intrastate 
operations within the State of Alaska, would require specific approval. 
Operators applying for polar authority would be required to address 
specific areas identified in proposed paragraphs 135.98 (1) through 
(8). All certificate holders conducting polar operations would have to 
develop a plan for recovering passengers at designated diversion 
airports. The recovery plan

[[Page 64773]]

should address the care and safety of passengers and crew at the 
diversion airport.
Proposed Change to Section 135.345 Pilots: Initial, Transition, and 
Upgrade Ground Training
    The FAA proposes to amend section 135.345 by adding subject 
material to be included in the pilot training requirement.
Explanation
    The additional training includes ETOPS for those operators that 
will have ETOPS authority. It would also add the requirement for 
training on the operator's passenger recovery plan that would apply for 
those operators conducting ETOPS, and those operators conducting non-
ETOPS polar flights. The recovery plan should address the care and 
safety of passengers and crew at the diversion airport, and include the 
plan of operation to extract the passengers and crew from that airport. 
It is therefore important that crew members are adequately trained so 
that they understand their role in the certificate holder's passenger 
recovery plan.
Proposed New Section 135.364 Multi-Engine Airplane Limitations:
Maximum Distance From an Airport
    The FAA proposes to add a new rule, section 135.364, which 
establishes the maximum distance that a multi-engine airplane may be 
operated from an airport that meets the requirements of part 135.
Explanation
    The rule would allow flight operations beyond 180-minutes when 
approved by the FAA, and conducted to the ETOPS requirements specified 
in part 135, Appendix H.
Proposed Change to Section 135.411 Applicability
    The proposal would add paragraph (d) to require ETOPS operators to 
maintain the aircraft under a maintenance program in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(2) and the additional requirements of Appendix H of this 
part.
Explanation
    The ARAC proposed that part 135 operators could maintain their 
airplanes under paragraph 135.411(a)(1) for 9 or less passenger seats 
with an approved aircraft inspection program under section 135.419 or 
under paragraph 135.411(a)(2) for ten or more passenger seats. This 
proposal differs from ARAC's proposal in that it would require all part 
135 operators to maintain their aircraft in accordance with paragraph 
135.411(a)(2). The FAA does not feel that an inspection program 
approved under section 135.419 will support the ETOPS requirement. A 
CAMP approved under paragraph 135.411(a)(2) sets the same foundation to 
support ETOPS operations as part 121.
    The ARAC recommended periodic reporting of airplane and engine 
operating hours and cycles. The FAA did not include this recommendation 
because the information is currently available and reported to the FAA 
by the engine manufacturers.
Proposed New Part 135 Appendix H
    Appendix H to part 135 would establish the certification, airplane, 
operation and maintenance requirements for ETOPS operations.
A. Definitions
    The FAA proposes to use the following definitions applicable to 
ETOPS. Many of the terms used in the proposed regulatory and guidance 
material for ETOPS under this part are unique to these operations. 
Requirements and concepts for ETOPS require precise definition to 
assure common understanding and compliance.
    1. ETOPS: Extended Operations.
    2. ETOPS Dual Maintenance.
B. Certificate Holder Experience Prior To Conducting ETOPS
    Safety is enhanced when, prior to conducting ETOPS, a certificate 
holder gains operational experience in the type of airplane capable of 
ETOPS, and with the operational environment typically encountered on 
longer range flights (up to 180 minutes) in areas where airports 
available for an enroute diversion are limited. Typically, this 
involves prior operational experience on overwater flights to 
international areas of operation in accordance with part 135.
    Operators requesting authority to operate ETOPS would have to show 
operating experience on international routes with a transport category 
turbine powered airplane. For this particular case, experience with 
international operations does not include operations from the 48 
contiguous States to Canada and Mexico. This experience can only be 
obtained on extended flight operations that involve oceanic crossings.
    A minimum 12 months operating experience is required. The proposal 
allows for up to 6 months credit toward the 12-month requirement for 
those operators that were certificated under part 135 or part 121 prior 
to the effective date of this rule. Additionally, for operators with 
previous ETOPS experience with other airplane types may have that 
experience credited in whole, or in part to the 12 month experience 
requirement.
C. Airplane Requirements
    The proposed regulation would require that airplanes operated in 
ETOPS be certificated to the new section 25.1535 standards. In order to 
allow for a smooth industry transition to this requirement for a period 
of 8 years following the effective date of the new part 25 regulation 
with airplanes certificated to the present part 25 standards could be 
used in ETOPS if they have specific electrical and fuel system 
capabilities. Such an airplane would have to be found acceptable to the 
FAA after consultation with the type certificate holder. The 
determination that an airplane is acceptable for ETOPS is a simply a 
verification that the airplane electrical and fuel systems are capable 
of supporting the intended operation. This provision would apply to 
airplanes added to the operator operations specifications on or before 
the date that is 8 years after the new part 25 is in effect. Airplanes 
added to the operating certificate after the 8-year period would have 
to be certificated to the new part 25 standards.
D. Certificate Holder Requirements
    The ARAC recommended that part 135 flights conducted under ETOPS 
authority be limited to a maximum diversion time of 240 minutes from an 
enroute alternate airport, at a speed selected by the certificate 
holder from a range of speeds approved by the FAA that is within the 
certificated operating limits of the airplane, with one engine 
inoperative (under standard conditions in still air). This was deemed 
to be sufficient for the routes that could be expected for an on-demand 
type operation. Having an upper limit would enable an operator to 
maintain an operational readiness and the required reliability 
especially when these types of operations may occur infrequently. The 
FAA accepts the recommendation and reflects it in the proposed rule.
    The proposed rule would require the certificate holder to have the 
means and the procedure to allow flight crews to have in-flight access 
to current weather and operational information on all enroute 
alternate, destination and destination alternate airports proposed for 
each ETOPS flight. By validated ETOPS practices, flights can be 
launched on the basis of weather forecasts that are revised and updated 
while the flight is enroute. It is essential

[[Page 64774]]

that the flight crew be informed and aware of changing weather as well 
as airport status.
E. Operational Requirements
    The proposed rule would require that the flight crew only plan and 
conduct ETOPS on instrument flight rules. The FAA believes that ETOPS 
cannot be conducted safely under visual flight rules. The flight crew 
may not proceed beyond the ETOPS entry point unless the weather and 
operating conditions at the required enroute alternate airports are 
reviewed and expected to be at or above the operating minimums 
specified in the operations specifications during the period in which 
that airport may be expected to be used based on expected estimated 
times of arrival at that airport. The planned route of flight may be 
amended while en route to allow use of additional enroute alternate 
airports provided weather is forecast to be at or above operating 
minima and the airport is within the maximum ETOPS diversion time.
    In ETOPS operations wind becomes an increasingly significant factor 
with increasing diversion times and should be considered in ETOPS 
operations beyond 180 minutes to assure that Airplane Flight Manual 
(AFM) system time limits are not exceeded. For example, while diverting 
with an engine inoperative, it is essential to ensure that there is 
sufficient amount of oil in the tank for continuous operation of the 
remaining engines at Maximum Continuous Thrust for the actual duration 
of divert. As a result, for ETOPS operations with approved diversion 
times greater than 180 minutes the one engine inoperative cruise speed 
(approved) maximum diversion time, taking forecast wind and temperature 
into account, to each ETOPS alternate may not exceed the time specified 
in the airplane flight manual for the airplane's most time-limited 
system minus 15 minutes (for approach and landing). However, there are 
some other time limited systems like cargo fire suppression, where the 
use of cargo fire suppression may not have as much relevance to the one 
engine inoperative diversion time. Data was presented that showed the 
likelihood of an engine failure at the critical point followed by cargo 
fire is extremely remote. Hence for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, cargo 
fire suppression requirement would be based on covering the diversion 
distance authorized (maximum diversion time authorized at the approved 
one engine inoperative speed) at the all engine operating speed. 
Therefore this proposed rule requires that for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes 
with airplanes equipped with a Class C cargo fire suppression system, 
the cargo fire suppression time required be based on the airplane 
operating at all engine operating speed with actual wind.
    The certificate holder may continue ETOPS with airplanes that lack 
the airplane flight manual information regarding time-limited systems 
(e.g. cargo fire suppression) for a period not to exceed 8 years from 
the effective date of this rule. See the discussion in the airplane 
requirements above.
F. Communications Requirements
    The proposal would establish the minimum standard for communication 
for ETOPS. Two independent transmitters and two independent receivers, 
appropriate to the planned route, would be required for ETOPS flights. 
At least one of each would have to be capable of voice communication. 
If operating in areas where voice communication is not possible or of 
poor quality, alternate systems (data link, SATCOM, etc.) may be used.
G. Fuel Planning Requirements
    An airplane should not be released for an ETOPS flight unless it 
carries sufficient fuel and oil to meet the requirements of section 
135.223, and any additional fuel that may be determined in accordance 
with the critical fuel reserves of this section. In establishing the 
critical fuel reserves, the operator would determine the fuel necessary 
to fly to the most critical point and execute a diversion to an ETOPS 
alternate under the conditions outlined in paragraph 1(b) of this 
section for the critical fuel scenario. The computed critical fuel 
reserve would be compared to the normal section 135.223 fuel 
requirements for the flight. If it is determined by this comparison 
that the fuel to complete the critical fuel scenario exceeds the fuel 
that would be on board at the most critical point, as determined by 
section 135.223 requirements, additional fuel should be included to the 
extent necessary to safely complete the critical fuel scenario.
    To determine the critical fuel reserves necessary, the operator 
would plan on that which is operationally the most critical considering 
both time and the airplane configuration, such as one engine 
inoperative or all engines running. For those airplanes that are not 
certificated to operate above Flight Level (FL) 450, the flight would 
also be planned for failure of the pressurization system to an altitude 
of 10,000 feet or at an altitude in compliance with the oxygen supply 
requirements of section 135.157. (ICAO Annex 6, Part I, section 
4.3.6.4(d) for fuel planning requires consideration of additional fuel 
in the event of loss of pressurization).
    The critical fuel scenario would require an immediate descent to 
the determined altitude and continued cruise at the planned one-engine 
inoperative speed to the enroute alternate and upon reaching the 
alternate airport, a descent to 1,500 feet, hold for 15 minutes, and 
then conduct an instrument approach and land.
    A pad for wind speed error would be required. Based on the weather 
forecasting techniques of the early 1980s, ETOPS critical fuel planning 
required a five percent fuel pad to account for wind forecast errors. 
However, winds aloft forecasting has improved dramatically in the last 
twenty years as a result of sophisticated wind modeling with super 
computers, and weather information that is automatically down linked at 
much more frequent intervals. There are many more collection points, as 
well as satellite depictions of air mass movement. This information is 
collected, analyzed, and distributed worldwide by the World Area 
Forecast System (WAFS). This centralized distribution of weather 
information provides for a consistent level of accuracy that can 
eliminate the assignment of arbitrary penalties, provided that 
individual airlines subscribe to the service and make use of this level 
of information. Therefore, given the documented improvements in 
forecasting accuracy when using WAFS, a more accurate means of 
determining the fuel used during a decompression profile involves 
adding a pad to the actual forecast winds in making the fuel 
calculation rather than adding an arbitrary fuel penalty. The addition 
of a five-percent wind error pad provides an accurate case-by-case 
adjustment as compared with a five-percent fuel penalty, while 
preserving the necessary level of safety. However, if a certificate 
holder elects not to use such accurate winds in the computation of 
decompression fuel, then the proposed rule will require the operator to 
continue applying the five percent fuel pad to account for wind 
forecast errors.
    Consideration of fuel for icing at the cabin depressurization 
cruise altitude is also required. Studies done by the Atmospheric 
Environment Service of Canada with the assistance of airplane 
manufacturers under the second Canadian Atlantic Storms Program (CASP 
II) confirm that the probability of a continuous or repetitive 
significant icing encounter is very small on a long

[[Page 64775]]

flight segment. The airspeeds associated with cruise at cabin 
depressurization altitude are not conducive to ice build-up. Moreover, 
pilots can avoid icing with minor changes in altitude or by changing 
the cruise speed, either of which can have a large effect on ice 
accretion. Based on the CASP II study, considering the probability of 
encountering depressurization at the critical point and icing on the 
same flight, an argument was made that fuel for icing in addition to 
fuel for depressurization is not necessary. However, as a conservative 
measure, this section requires fuel to compensate for the greater of 
the effect of airframe icing (including the fuel used by engine and 
wing anti-ice during this period) during 10 percent of the time for 
which icing is forecast, or a combination of fuel for engine anti-ice, 
and for some models of airplanes based on their characteristics and the 
manufacturer's recommended procedures fuel for wing anti-ice for the 
time during which icing is forecast.
    The proposal also requires that the fuel supply be increased by 5 
percent to account for deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance 
unless the certificate holder has a program established to monitor 
airplane in-service deterioration of cruise fuel burn performance and 
includes in fuel supply calculations fuel sufficient to compensate for 
any such deterioration.
    Finally, if the APU is a power source required by this appendix, 
then its fuel consumption must be accounted for.
H. Maintenance Program Requirements
(a) Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP)
    This type design document establishes the baseline configuration 
standard for each specific airplane and engine combination used in 
ETOPS. The importance of the CMP is discussed more fully above in the 
discussion of part 25 amendments of this proposal.
(b) Continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP)
    A CAMP is a comprehensive oversight program to ensure the 
continuing airworthiness of an airplane. A CAMP includes but is not 
limited to maintenance tasks, inspection tasks, auditing requirements, 
and data analysis. CAMP is required by section 135.411(a)(2). The 
proposed regulation would expand the scope of CAMP for ETOPS operators 
to encompass issues unique to ETOPS. The following are considered basic 
additional elements of a CAMP for an ETOPS operator.
(1) ETOPS pre-departure service check
    The pre-departure service check is designed to ensure that ETOPS 
significant systems will perform their intended function throughout the 
flight. An ETOPS pre-departure service check would have to verify the 
status of ETOPS significant systems. Some certificate holders 
conducting ETOPS flights have elected to add other items to their check 
as a result of operational experience and knowledge gained through 
reliability data. Regardless of any additional items an operator may 
add to a check, the focal point of this check must be inspection, 
servicing, and maintenance of ETOPS significant systems.
(2) Dual Maintenance
    There have been instances of a single mechanic repeating a 
maintenance error on multiple systems. An example of dual maintenance 
is failing to install o-rings on engine oil or fuel components on 
multiple engines. Establishing procedures to avoid dual maintenance can 
minimize the probability of such errors. The use of two or more 
mechanics reduces the risk of this type of error. Routine tasks on 
multiple similar elements, such as oil and fuel filter changes, should 
never be assigned on the same maintenance visit.
    However, the FAA is aware that under some limited circumstances, 
dual maintenance may be unavoidable. For instance, a pilot's report of 
a discrepancy on an ETOPS significant system may require maintenance on 
one engine at the same time as a scheduled maintenance event for the 
other engine. In such cases, the certificate holder must establish and 
follow procedures to mitigate the risk of a common cause human error 
jeopardizing the ETOPS flight.
(3) Verification Program
    The verification program ensures the effectiveness of ETOPS 
maintenance actions. Verification programs are designed to identify any 
potential problems and may consist of ground tests, flight tests, use 
of built in test equipment (BITE), and other tests as appropriate. 
Verification action must be accomplished following corrective action to 
an ETOPS significant system, primary system failure, IFSD or in 
response to significant adverse trends. The certificate holder must 
establish procedures to clearly indicate who is going to initiate the 
action, what verification action is necessary. A verification flight 
may be performed in combination with an ETOPS revenue flight, provided 
the verification phase is documented as satisfactorily completed upon 
reaching the ETOPS entry point.
(4) Task Identification
    ETOPS maintenance programs include numerous tasks. Under this 
proposal, the certificate holder would have to identify specific tasks 
that must be accomplished by ETOPS qualified personnel. These ETOPS-
specific tasks are performed during all phases of maintenance. On the 
other hand, some tasks in an ETOPS maintenance program are identical to 
tasks on a non-ETOPS airplane. The FAA realizes that tasks, such as 
checking seat belts prior to a flight, do not involve ETOPS significant 
systems and may be performed by non-ETOPS qualified personnel. ETOPS 
specific tasks would either be identified on the certificate holder's 
routine work forms and related instructions or parceled together and 
identified as an ``ETOPS package.''
(5) Centralized Maintenance Control Procedures
    The certificate holder would have to develop and clearly define in 
their program ETOPS related procedures, duties, and responsibilities, 
such as involvement of centralized maintenance control. The function of 
centralized maintenance control is to be a focal point for operational 
aspects of ETOPS maintenance and to ensure that ETOPS aircraft are 
airworthy. Procedures and centralized control processes would be 
established which would preclude an airplane being dispatched for ETOPS 
flights after a propulsion system shut-down, significant primary 
airframe system failure, or significant adverse trends in system 
performance without appropriate corrective action having been taken. 
Confirmation of corrective maintenance would require appropriate 
verification action prior to dispatch on an ETOPS flight. Depending on 
the size and scope of the ETOPS operation, the maintenance control 
entity could be an entire department or one ETOPS-qualified individual 
for a small operation. ``Centralized maintenance control'' is also 
referred to as ``technical services center'', ``maintenance operations 
control (MOC)'', and ``maintenance coordination center'' among other 
terms within industry.
(6) ETOPS Program Document
    The certificate holder would have to develop a document that 
identifies all ETOPS requirements, including supportive programs, 
procedures, duties, and responsibilities for use. The ETOPS program 
document would be for use by personnel involved in ETOPS and would be 
readily accessible to those

[[Page 64776]]

personnel. This document need not be inclusive but should at least 
reference the maintenance program and other requirements, and clearly 
indicate where they are located in the certificate holder's document 
system. The ETOPS program document would have to be submitted to the 
CHDO for approval at least 60 days before beginning ETOPS flights and 
be subject to revision control.
(7) ETOPS Parts Control
    Under this proposal, the certificate holder would have to develop a 
parts control program that ensures the proper parts and configurations 
are maintained for ETOPS airplanes. The program should include 
procedures to verify that the parts installed on ETOPS airplanes during 
parts borrowing or pooling arrangements, as well as those parts used 
after repair or overhaul, maintains the necessary ETOPS configuration. 
In many cases, certificate holders utilize the Illustrated Parts 
Catalog (IPC) as the ETOPS parts controlling document. However, other 
methods may be used provided that the configuration standard of the 
airplane and engine is maintained.
(8) Enhanced Continuing Analysis and Surveillance (CAS)
    The certificate holder would have to enhance their existing CAS in 
order to achieve ETOPS reliability goals. This program should be 
designed to identify and prevent ETOPS related problems. The program 
would be event-oriented and incorporate reporting procedures for 
critical events detrimental to ETOPS flights. Reliability data would 
have to be readily available for use by the certificate holder and the 
FAA to ensure that an acceptable level of reliability is achieved and 
maintained.
    In addition to the reporting requirements in section 135.415, the 
following items would have to be reported within 72 hours to the CHDO.
    (a) In-flight shutdowns.
    (b) Diversions or turnback.
    (c) Uncommanded power changes or surges.
    (d) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power.
    (e) Problems with systems critical to ETOPS.
    (f) Any other event detrimental to ETOPS.
    (2) Certificate holders would also be required to furnish the 
following information:
    (a) Airplane identification (type and N-number)
    (b) Engine identification (make and serial number)
    (c) Total time, cycles and time since last shop visit.
    (d) For systems, time since overhaul or last inspection of the 
discrepant unit.
    (e) Phase of flight.
    (f) Corrective action
    This proposed regulation would require certificate holders to 
conduct an investigation into the cause of the occurrence of any event 
listed above in addition to any event described in section 135.415. The 
certificate holder would have to submit findings and description of 
corrective action taken to the CHDO. The FAA expects certificate 
holders to investigate events above in conjunction with manufacturers. 
The report must be submitted in the manner prescribed by section 
135.415(e).
(c) Propulsion System Monitoring
    Propulsion system monitoring is vital to ensure safe ETOPS flights. 
A propulsion system-monitoring program is intended to detect adverse 
trends, to identify potential problems, and to establish criteria for 
when corrective action may be necessary.
    Propulsion system problems and IFSD may be caused by type design 
deficiencies, ineffective maintenance, or operational procedures. It is 
very important to identify the root cause of events so that corrective 
action may be determined.
    The diverse causes of propulsion system problems require different 
solutions. For example, type design problems may affect an entire fleet 
of aircraft. If an individual certificate holder experiences a problem 
caused by a type design issue, it may not be appropriate for the FAA to 
withdraw ETOPS authority. The FAA will normally address by an 
Airworthiness Directive fundamental design problems that require an 
effective hardware (or software) final fix. Inspections may be 
satisfactory as an interim solution but long-term design solutions are 
required for terminating action. However, maintenance or operational 
problems may be wholly, or partially, the responsibility of the 
certificate holder. In these cases, the cause would be specific to that 
certificate holder and may require changes to their operational, 
dispatch or maintenance procedures.
(d) Engine Condition Monitoring
    The certificate holder would have to monitor the condition of 
engines on ETOPS airplanes. The monitoring program would describe the 
engine performance parameters to be tracked, method of data collection, 
and corrective action processes. It would detect deterioration in 
engine performance by tracking parameters such as rotor speeds, exhaust 
gas temperatures, and fuel flow and allow for corrective action before 
safe operation is affected. The program should reflect the 
manufacturer's instructions and industry practices. Engine limit 
margins must be maintained so that prolonged engine inoperative 
diversions may be conducted without exceeding approved engine limits at 
all approved power levels and expected environmental conditions. Engine 
margins are maintained through this program to account for the effects 
of additional engine loading demands such as electrical and pneumatic 
systems that may be required during a diversion. If oil analysis such 
as Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program (SOAP) is meaningful, it should 
be included.
(e) Oil Consumption Monitoring
    The certificate holder would have to establish an engine oil 
consumption-monitoring program to ensure that there is enough oil to 
complete any ETOPS flight. The certificate holder's consumption limit 
would not be allowed to exceed the manufacturer's recommendations, and 
would have to be sensitive to oil consumption trends. The program would 
have to track the amount of oil added at the departing ETOPS station 
with reference to the running average consumption. The monitoring must 
be continuous up to and including the oil added at the ETOPS departure 
station. For example, after servicing, the oil consumption may be 
calculated by maintenance personnel as part of the pre-departure check 
or may be automatically calculated by a computer program. The amount of 
oil added could also be reported to centralized maintenance control for 
calculation prior to the ETOPS flight. If an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 
is required for ETOPS, then its oil consumption must be included in the 
program.
(f) APU In-Flight Start Program
    If APU in-flight start capability is required for ETOPS, the 
certificate holder would be required to establish an in flight start 
and run monitoring program. The primary function of an APU is to 
provide backup electrical power in the event of a main system failure 
such as engine in-flight shut down or generator loss. This program 
would have to ensure that the APU in-flight start capability will 
continue at a level of performance and reliability established by the 
manufacturer or the FAA. The program would have to be acceptable to the 
Administrator and include periodic sampling of each ETOPS airplane's 
APU in-flight starting

[[Page 64777]]

capabilities. Certificate holders with existing approved programs may 
continue under that authority under this proposal. Sampling intervals 
may be adjusted according to system performance and fleet maturity. The 
Advisory Circular accompanying this proposal contains guidance for APU 
reliability and performance assessment.
(g) Maintenance Training
    The certificate holder would have to develop additional ETOPS 
specific training that focuses on the special nature of ETOPS and is 
required for all personnel involved in ETOPS. This training would be in 
addition to the certificate holder's accepted maintenance training 
program to qualify individuals for specific airplanes and engines. This 
program may be incorporated into the accepted maintenance training 
curricula. The certificate holder would have to review the entire 
maintenance-training program with the CHDO to ensure that it adequately 
supports ETOPS training requirements. The goal of this program is to 
ensure that all personnel involved in ETOPS are provided the necessary 
training so that the ETOPS maintenance requirements are properly 
accomplished.
    The program must establish a system to qualify ETOPS maintenance 
personnel. ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel are those who have 
successfully completed the certificate holder's ETOPS training program 
and who have satisfactorily performed extended range tasks under the 
direct supervision of an FAA certificated maintenance person who has 
had previous experience with maintaining the particular make and model 
aircraft being utilized under the certificate holder's maintenance 
program. For new aircraft introduction, the previous experience for 
training can be obtained from the manufacturers training program.
(h) Procedural Changes
    Following approval of the maintenance and training procedures 
established to qualify for ETOPS; substantial changes to those 
procedures must be submitted to the CHDO and approved before they may 
be adopted. The determination of what constitutes substantial changes 
should be negotiated between the certificate holder and the CHDO. This 
is to allow some flexibility depending on the certificate holder's 
ETOPS experience and performance history. The CHDO may require 
submission of all changes for a new ETOPS operator or for an operator 
experiencing difficulties. However, as experience is gained the CHDO 
may reevaluate what substantial changes it needs to approve.
(i) Reporting
    The FAA proposes to require certificate holders to report the 
operating hours and cycles for each airplane and engine authorized for 
use in ETOPS on a quarterly basis to the CHDO and the respective 
manufacturers. These reports would allow the FAA and manufacturers to 
ensure safe operations and to anticipate potential problems.

Continuing Surveillance

    As with all other operations, the CHDO may also monitor all aspects 
of the ETOPS operations it has authorized, to ensure that the levels of 
reliability achieved in ETOPS operations remain at acceptable levels, 
and that the operation continues to be conducted safely. In the event 
that an acceptable level of reliability is not maintained, if 
significant adverse trends exists, or if critical deficiencies are 
detected in the type design or in the conduct of ETOPS operations, the 
CHDO may initiate a special evaluation, impose operational 
restrictions, and ensure the operator adopts corrective actions in 
order to resolve the problems in a timely manner. The CHDO should alert 
the appropriate FAA Aircraft Certification Office and Aircraft 
Evaluation Group when problems associated with airplane design or 
operations are identified.

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 has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
(SARPS) that correspond to these proposed regulations. ICAO SARPS are 
currently being developed for ETOPS and we expect that this proposed 
rule and rules currently being developed in Europe would affect the 
ICAO SARPS. We expect that there will be some differences between the 
rule developed in the United States and the rules developed in Europe.

Economic Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal 
agency must propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. sections 2531-2533) 
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing 
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation.).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed 
rule: (1) Would have benefits that justify its costs, would be a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and would be ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) would 
not constitute a barrier to international trade; and (4) would not 
impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or 
on the private sector. The FAA has placed these analyses in the docket 
and summarized them as follows.

Cost Savings

    The ability to fly the most direct route between two points results 
in time and fuel savings and thus reduces operating costs. The mileage 
savings for a two-engine ETOPS flight can be very significant. For 
example, a two-engine operator approved for 180 minutes flying the 
Great Circle Route, the shortest distance between two points on the 
earth, between Milan, Italy and Barbados would save over 1,300 nautical 
miles compared to a routing staying within 60 minutes of an adequate 
airport.
    Part 121 operators of two-engine airplanes will elect to incur the 
costs associated with the higher ETOPS requirements based on their 
judgment of whether cost savings would exceed the cost of compliance. A 
new 2-engine ETOPS operator operating a single daily roundtrip is 
estimated to save 38 minutes per round trip. This timesaving is based 
on the reported timesaving of a current twin-engine Part 121 ETOPS

[[Page 64778]]

operator operating a route beyond 180-minutes. The operator reported 
that operating beyond 180-minutes saved 27 minutes on a westbound 
trans-Pacific flight and 11 minutes on the return leg. The annual hours 
saved would total approximately 231 hours based on a single daily 
roundtrip. The total annual savings based on hourly operating costs of 
$4,500 would be $1,040,000; the ten-year savings would be $10.4 million 
or $7.3 million, discounted. The costs of the proposed rule to this 
operator are estimated in the Cost section at $106,500 or $75,900, 
discounted. This operator would have net cost savings of $10.3 million 
or $7.2 million, discounted over a 10-year period.
    Part 121 operators of three- or four-engine airplanes would be 
required to make a similar judgment if they elect to fly beyond 180-
minutes ETOPS. However, the net cost savings would take longer to 
achieve than if the rule had not been proposed since there are proposed 
costs that are not currently required for three- or four-engine 
airplanes to fly beyond 180-minutes. A part 121 operator of a three- or 
four-engine fleet serving a single route beyond 180-minutes assuming 
the same time savings of 38 minutes per round trip and a single daily 
roundtrip would have total annual savings of $1,965,000 based on an 
hourly operating costs of $8,500. The ten-year savings would be $19.7 
million or $13.8 million, discounted. The costs of the proposed rule to 
this operator are estimated in the Cost section at $3.7 million or $2.8 
million, discounted. This operator would have net cost savings of $16 
million or $11 million, discounted over a 10-year period.
    Part 135 operators currently are not permitted to operate beyond 
180-minutes from an airport meeting minimum requirements but the 
proposed rule would allow these operators to do so. Those that elect to 
incur the costs associated with the proposed rule would experience cost 
savings attributable to the proposed rule. The timesaving varies by 
route, airplane speed, and prevailing winds. A part 135 operator with 
less fuel capacity would be able to avoid a fuel stop in each 
direction, which would result in significant timesaving. The FAA 
estimates that a part 135 operator would save 2 hours of flying time 
per round trip by operating beyond 180-minutes. A part 135 operator 
with a fleet of four airplanes, with each airplane operating 12 
roundtrips beyond 180-minutes ETOPS per year would save 96 hours 
annually or 960 hours over a 10-year period. The cost savings 
associated with the timesaving would total $9.6 million or $6.7 
million, discounted. The costs of the proposed rule to this operator 
are estimated in the Cost section at $1.1 million or $777,000, 
discounted. This operator would experience net cost savings of $8.5 
million or $6.0 million, discounted over a 10-year period based on an 
airplane operating cost of $10,000 per hour.
    The net cost savings to individual operators are summarized in 
Table 1.

                      Table 1.--Net Ten-Year Cost Savings to Individual New ETOPS Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              New 2-engine      3 or 4-engine       Part 135
                                                                operator          operator          operator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost savings........................................       $10,395,000       $19,650,000        $9,600,000
Total Cost................................................           106,500         3,676,100         1,030,400
Net Cost Savings..........................................        10,288,500        15,973,900         8,569,600
Present Cost savings......................................         7,300,400        13,800,200         6,742,100
Present Cost..............................................            75,900         2,789,200           741,100
Net Present Cost Savings..................................         7,224,500        11,011,000         6,001,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An applicant seeking certification of a new type engine (as opposed 
to an applicant seeking a type certificate through an amendment of an 
existing type certificate or through supplemental type certificate 
procedures) for ETOPS eligibility would realize cost savings under 
proposed 33.200(f). Proposed 33.200(f) would allow the applicant to 
interrupt the 3000 cycle engine test required by 33.200(c) to show 
compliance with the existing initial maintenance inspection (IMI) test 
and inspection required by sections 33.90(a-b). The applicant would 
then resume the ETOPS test to complete the requirements of section 
33.200. Thus the applicant for a new type design engine would only have 
to provide one engine to complete the existing IMI test and inspection 
and the 3,000-cycle test of the proposed section 33.200(f) rather than 
2 engines. The 3,000-cycle test is estimated in the Cost section to 
cost $6.5 million or $6.1 million, discounted. The FAA requests 
comments and data addressing this issue.
    Manufacturers of business airplanes do not have direct offsetting 
cost savings. These manufacturers would only voluntarily incur these 
costs after making a business decision that they could recoup their 
costs by the sale of airplanes capable of operating beyond 180-minutes 
ETOPS. The substantial net cost savings that could be achieved by a 
part 135 operator operating beyond 180-minutes ETOPS would aid the 
market demand for such airplanes by business airplane operators.
    The total cost savings to operators are estimated at $1.09 billion 
over a ten-year period or $762.3 million, discounted as shown in Table 
2. These savings are based on the following assumptions:
    [sbull] There are currently 3 2-engine operators flying beyond 180 
minutes on an exception basis. It is assumed they will routinely fly 
231 hours each beyond 180 minutes.
    [sbull] There are currently 7 ``low cost'' passenger carriers 
(AirTran, America West, ATA, Frontier, JetBlue, Southwest, and Spirit 
as defined by the Aviation Daily). It is assumed each would operate 4 
ETOPS airplanes on a single route.
    [sbull] There are currently 13 U.S. operators of 3- or 4-engine 
aircraft and it is assumed each would operate 1 route beyond 180 
minutes.
    [sbull] There are 81 Part 135 operators that both meet the proposed 
aircraft and maintenance requirements and each would save 96 hours 
annually.

              Table 2.--Ten-Year Cost Savings to Operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cost-savings to--             Cost savings      Present value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Existing 2-engine Operators.......       $31,185,000       $21,901,225
7 New 2-engine Operators............        72,054,500        50,596,140

[[Page 64779]]

 
13 3- or 4-engine Operators.........       207,660,700       143,142,935
81 Part 135 Operators...............       777,600,000       546,108,480
                                     -------------------
    Total Cost Savings..............     1,089,210,700       762,255,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The net cost-savings to the industry are reduced by the costs 
incurred by the operators and manufacturers. These costs are addressed 
in the Cost section. These costs are estimated to be less than the 
estimated savings and the net cost-savings to the industry are 
estimated at $823.9 million or $530.2 million, discounted as shown in 
Table 3.

        Table 3.--Ten-Year Net Cost-Savings or Costs to Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cost savings or
             Category                      cost          Present value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 2-engine Operators.......        $20,449,500         14,341,826
7 New 2-engine Operators..........         72,019,500         50,571,560
13 3- or 4-engine Operators.......        159,866,200        106,879,435
81 Part 135 Operators.............        694,137,600        486,079,380
Reporting and Certification Costs
 for:
    3 models of 3- or 4- engine          (11,875,500)        (9,797,100)
     airplanes....................
    5 Business Aircraft                  (36,065,000)       (33,720,900)
     Manufacturers Part 25 costs..
    5 Business Aircraft                  (50,625,000)       (47,337,500)
     Manufacturers Part 33 Costs..
Current Part 135 Operators:
Aircraft Replacement Costs........       (24,000,000)       (22,440,000)
                                   --------------------
        Total Net Cost Savings....        823,907,300        530,234,875
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to cost savings to operators there are other benefits 
of the proposed rule.

Benefits

    Accidents due to diversions are non-existent for twin-engine 
aircraft operating under parts 121 or 135 and for more than two engine 
aircraft operating under part 121. The FAA believes the proposed 
weather provisions of the rule would reduce the probability of an 
accident occurring and the provision requiring rescue fire fighting 
services at ETOPS alternate airports would minimize the impact if an 
accident were to occur. In addition, the FAA believes the proposed 
requirements to require certificate holders to develop and implement 
passenger recovery plans for ETOPS alternate airports would better 
protect passengers and crew if a diversion is made for any reason.
    Benefits cannot be assigned to specific provisions of the proposed 
rule; rather, it is assumed that the proposed revisions would work 
together to prevent diversions and to reduce the impact of any 
diversions that do occur. Aviation routes not supported within 180-
minute diversion authority tend to be routes over remote areas of the 
world that are uniquely challenging. The additional operational 
challenges of these routes are equally demanding of all airplanes, 
regardless of the number of engines, and require all operators to equip 
their aircraft and train their personnel to prevent diversions and to 
minimize the impact of diversions that do occur. All operators must 
support any diversion that occurs and the subsequent recovery by 
providing the added planning, training and expertise demanded by the 
event. The FAA believes the requirements of the proposed rule provide 
the support and procedures necessary to minimize the stress on the 
airplane, crew, and passengers inherent in a diversion experience.
    The FAA believes that the proposed ETOPS requirements would 
increase the system reliability of an operator that decides to conduct 
ETOPS operations and thus costly diversions could be reduced. One study 
that only addressed the cost of an ``irregular'' operation, unrelated 
to an ETOPS-type diversion, estimated the cost of a single diversion of 
a wide-body international flight with passengers having an overnight 
stay at another airport at between $89,400 and $181,800 \1\. The 
estimate is based on 200 passengers and 400 passengers and includes 
allowance for hotel, meals and telephone, aircraft operating costs, 
lost opportunity cost, and revenue lost from the diverted flight to 
passengers switching to another carrier. Omitting the opportunity cost 
would reduce these estimates by $10,000 resulting in a minimum cost of 
approximately $79,000. The cost of a diversion to a remote site would 
incur significant costs since recovery times as long as 48 hours are 
anticipated and per passenger costs may exceed the estimate included in 
the study. A worst-case scenario presented by Airbus in a CD labeled 
LROPS involves an engine loss and diversion to an airport in Siberia. 
Airbus estimated the recovery costs could be as high as $1 million 
including passenger accommodations, chartering an airplane to ferry the 
passengers to their destination, chartering an airplane to ferry a 
replacement engine, ferrying the repaired airplane to its station, and 
loss of airplane use. The FAA requests comments on the number of 
diversions that might be avoided on flights beyond 180-minutes as a 
result of the proposed rule and seeks diversion cost data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Improving Airline Profitability Through Better Estimated 
Times of Arrival and Terminal Area Flight Information: a Benefit 
Analysis of PASSUR'' Darryl Jenkins and Bill Cotton. Available at 
http://www.passur.com/report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs

    Compliance with the proposed rule is voluntary for all operators, 
airframe-engine manufacturers. Since the decision is voluntary, the FAA 
has estimated the cost to current ETOPS operators for the cost of 
provisions not incurred by current practices and has estimated the cost 
savings and costs to individual operators, and airframe and engine 
manufacturers. The FAA has also

[[Page 64780]]

estimated the total cost to industry based on a set of assumptions as 
to the number of operators and airplane manufacturers that would 
voluntarily participate.
    The FAA estimates that the cost of the rule to a new entrant part 
121 operator of a twin-engine airplane would be approximately $106,500 
over 10 years more than the operator would incur under the existing 
deviation policy and procedures. This reflects the cost of preparing 
and maintaining passenger recovery plans and maintenance investigation 
and resolution costs for a four-airplane ETOPS operation.
    A part 121 operator of a three- or four-engine fleet serving a 
single route beyond 180-minutes would incur costs of approximately $3.7 
million over 10 years. It is assumed that the route would require a 
four-airplane fleet with 60 crewmembers, supported by 2 dispatchers and 
20 mechanics.
    A part 135 operator seeking authorization to conduct ETOPS 
operations beyond 180-minutes would incur costs of approximately $1.0 
million over 10 years. This estimate is based on a fleet of 4 airplanes 
flown by a crew of 16 pilots and maintained by 2 certified mechanics, 
and each aircraft conducts a monthly ETOPS operation. The fleet 
excludes aircraft with a Class C cargo compartment. Aircraft with Class 
C cargo compartments would add $1.5 million to the cost. All aircraft 
are capable of operating between the West Coast-Hawaii. Currently 6 
operators that are authorized to fly between the West Coast and Hawaii 
only operate airplanes that would not be acceptable to the FAA under 
the proposed rule. These operators would have to upgrade to an 
acceptable aircraft at an estimated cost of $4 million per aircraft to 
continue these flights.
    A business aircraft manufacturer would incur reporting and 
investigation costs that would be required by the proposed provisions 
of part 21 estimated at $3.2 million over 10 years. This expenditure 
would by incurred to fund 2 full-time staff for reporting purposes and 
a full-time staff member to conduct investigations of incidents. The 
manufacturer would also incur airplane ETOPS certification costs of 
$7.2 million. This would consist of design costs of $6 million, and 
assessment and validation costs of $1.2 million. Engine certification 
costs that would be required to make an engine ETOPS eligible would 
cost $10.1 million. This would consist of design costs $3.2 million, 
testing costs of $6.5 million and establishing engine-monitoring 
procedures at a cost of $400,000. The total cost to a business aircraft 
manufacturer for reporting and investigation, and airframe and engine 
certification would be $20.6 million.
    The manufacturer of an existing three- or four-engine airplane 
would incur additional reporting costs under part 21 of $1.9 million to 
include operators that choose to fly beyond 180-minutes, supplemental 
certification costs of $1.9 million to allow operators of existing 
three- or four-engine airplanes to increase the capacity of the cargo 
fire suppression system required for beyond 180-minute ETOPS and other 
required costs of $200,000 for a total cost of $4 million.
    The quantified costs to all the individual entities affected by the 
proposed rule are summarized in Table 4. The FAA requests comments and 
data addressing these estimates.

              Table 4.--Estimated Ten Year Quantified Costs of Proposed Rule to Individual Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Cost area                                      Total cost       Present value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to a New Part 121 Twin-Engine ETOPS Operator...........................          $106,500           $75,900
Cost to a 3- or 4-Engine Operator...........................................         3,676,500         2,789,500
Cost to a Part 135 Operator.................................................         1,030,400           741,100
Costs to a Business Aircraft Manufacturer for Reporting and Investigation,          20,560,000        18,474,500
 and Certification of Airframe and ETOPS-Eligible Engine....................
Reporting and Certification Costs to Manufacturer of 3- or 4-engine airplane         3,958,500         3,265,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the total cost of the provisions of the proposed rule 
for existing two-engine ETOPS operators over a ten-year period beyond 
those incurred to comply with the existing policy and guidance is 
estimated at $10.7 million or $7.6 million, discounted.
    The total costs to the industry are estimated at $265.3 million 
over a ten-year period or $217.7 million, discounted as shown in Table 
5. These costs are based on the following assumptions:
    [sbull] Costs to existing 2-engine operators as shown in the 
Regulatory Evaluation.
    [sbull] Costs for a single operator, as shown in the Regulatory 
Evaluation, are multiplied by the number in the first column for each 
row to obtain the Total Cost and Present Value columns.
    [sbull] There are currently 7 ``low cost'' passenger carriers 
(AirTran, America West, ATA, Frontier, JetBlue, Southwest, and Spirit 
as defined by the Aviation Daily). It is assumed each would operate 4 
ETOPS airplanes on a single route.
    [sbull] There are currently 13 U.S. operators of 3- or 4-engine 
aircraft and it is assumed each would operate 1 route beyond 180 
minutes.
    [sbull] There are 81 Part 135 operators that both meet the proposed 
aircraft and maintenance requirements.
    [sbull] There are 3 ``makes'' of 3- or 4-engine airplanes (B-747, 
DC-10, MD-11).
    [sbull] There are 5 ``major'' business airplane manufacturers 
serving this market segment. (Boeing, Cessna, Gulfstream, Raytheon, and 
Sabreliner)
    There are 6 current Part 135 operators using airplanes that could 
not be upgraded to meet the specifications of the proposed rule. It 
would cost each operator approximately $4 million to replace a single 
airplane to meet the specifications.

             Table 5.--Estimated Ten-Year Costs to Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Costs incurred by--              Total cost     Present value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Existing 2-engine Operators............     $10,735,500      $7,559,400
 7 New 2-engine Operators...............         745,500         531,300
 13 3- or 4-engine Operators............      47,794,500      36,263,500
 81 Part 135 Operators..................      83,462,400      60,029,100
 Reporting and Certification Costs for:

[[Page 64781]]

 
     3 makes of 3- or 4-engine airplanes      11,875,500       9,797,100
     5 Business Aircraft Manufacturers        36,065,000      33,720,900
     Part 25 Costs......................
     5 Business Aircraft Manufacturers        50,625,000      47,337,500
     Part 33 Costs......................
 Current Part 135 Operators:
     Aircraft Replacement Costs.........      24,000,000      22,440,000
                                         -----------------
         Total Costs....................     265,303,400     217,678,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA 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 agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA.
    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 RFA 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 proposed rule would affect airframe and engine manufacturers 
and part 121 and part 135 operators engaged in ETOPS operations. All 
United States manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the 
Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,500 employees 
for aircraft manufacturers. Those U.S. manufacturers include: Boeing, 
Cessna, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Raytheon, and 
Sabreliner. All United States manufacturers of ETOPS-capable engines 
exceed the Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,000 
employees for aircraft engine manufacturers. Those U.S. manufacturers 
include: General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce. All United 
States operators of transport category airplanes that are currently 
authorized to conduct 180-minute ETOPS operations exceed the Small 
Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,500 employees for 
scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation firms. Those U.S. 
operators include: American, American Trans Air, Continental, Delta, 
United, U.S. Airways, and UPS. There are a number of small non-
scheduled part 121 operators that operate 3- or 4-engine aircraft that 
have the capability to operate ETOPS flights beyond 180 minutes. Those 
operators include: Atlas, Evergreen, Gemini, Kalitta, Southern Air, 
Polar, and World. There are a number of small non-scheduled part 135 
operators that operate 2-engine aircraft that have the capability to 
operate ETOPS flights beyond 180 minutes. These non-scheduled part 121 
and part 135 operators are not required to conduct beyond 180-minute 
ETOPS operations. Those who voluntarily decide to equip their aircraft 
and conduct the required training and planning under this proposed rule 
will have made their own business decisions that the costs associated 
with this NPRM are less than the cost savings of operating beyond 180-
minute ETOPS flights. The FAA therefore certifies that the proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small operators. The FAA seeks public comments regarding this 
finding and requests that all comments be accompanied with detailed 
supporting data.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not 
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would 
impose requirements on airframe and engine manufacturers that both 
domestic and foreign firms would have to comply with. U.S. operators of 
3- and 4-engine aircraft that seek authority to operate beyond 180-
minutes ETOPS flight would have to comply with the same proposed 
equipment and training provisions regardless of the country of origin 
of the aircraft or engine manufacturer. Also the FAA does not believe 
that U.S. operators of 3- and 4-engine airplanes would be placed at a 
competitive disadvantage to foreign operators of 3- and 4-engine 
airplanes as a result of this proposed rule. The FAA seeks public 
comments regarding this finding and requests that all comments be 
accompanied with detailed supporting data.
    The FAA concludes that these proposed requirements would have a 
neutral impact on foreign trade and, therefore, create no obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment

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

[[Page 64782]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains new information collection requirements. As 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), 
the FAA will submit the information requirements associated with this 
proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its review. A 
summary of those requirements follows.
    Title: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-engine Airplanes
    Summary: The regulations currently prohibit operators of two engine 
airplanes from flying more than one hour from an adequate airport. The 
NPRM would codify current practices that permit certificated air 
carriers to obtain approval under the Administrator's deviation 
authority to operate two-engine airplanes further than one hour from an 
adequate airport. It would also add regulations for ETOPS for all 
carriers regardless of the number of engines. ETOPS is voluntary for 
operators and manufacturers.
    Use of the information: This rule is necessary to support the 
following elements of the FAA's strategic plan:
    [sbull] Global leadership--The worldwide aviation industry is 
interested in extended operations. Civil aviation authorities of other 
countries and international aviation organizations are carefully 
watching the FAA's efforts to develop rules to govern extended 
operations. This proposed rule will enhance worldwide air travel safety 
and efficiency.
    [sbull] System efficiency--Allowing extended operations allows 
operators to take more direct routes to long-range destinations and 
improves overall system efficiency.
    Safety--The proposed rule addresses the safety aspects of extended 
operations.
    Respondents: The likely respondents to this proposed information 
requirement are airplane manufacturers and air carriers who wish to 
operate on routes that go more than one hour from an adequate airport.
    Frequency: Initial authorization and additional annual 
requirements.
    Annual Burden Estimate:
    This collection of information includes four areas:
    1. Operators who elect to use the ETOPS alternative would have to 
prepare a passenger recovery plan applicable to each ETOPS alternate 
airport listed in the carrier's operations specifications. The FAA 
estimates that the initial preparation of such plans would require 100 
staff hours, and to keep the plans up-to-date and viable would expend 
an additional 50 hours annually.
    2. Operators are required under 121.703 to file mechanical 
reliability reports concerning the failure, malfunction, or defect for 
17 areas. This proposal, however, would require that operators 
investigate certain failures and submit findings and corrective actions 
acceptable to the FAA. The FAA believes that there is a 5% probability 
of such a failure that would require additional reporting, and that 
such action could be resolved in two staff days.
    3. Section 121.374 would require each certificate holder operating 
beyond the 180-minutes to have an ETOPS maintenance program in addition 
to the program currently required by 121.367. The program consists of 
18 areas, including manual preparation, establishing procedures, and 
conducting training. The FAA estimates that it would take 3 months to 
develop.
    4. Section 121.374 would require the certificate holder to develop 
and write procedures for a pre-departure check. The FAA estimates that 
it would take 6 weeks to develop this check. In addition, the carrier 
must develop and write procedures for identifying ETOPS specific 
procedures, which is estimated to take 8 hours. Carriers must also 
supplement their existing reliability program; estimated time to 
complete is 100 hours.
    Each of these four areas is covered under three types of operators: 
2-engine, 3-4 engine, and business jets. In addition, there are 
reporting requirements for parts 21, and 25 certification requirements. 
The burden is estimated based on the assumption that there will be 7 
new 2-engine ETOPS Part 121 operators, 13 Part 121 3- or 4-engine 
operators and 81 business jet operators. Since many aspects of the 
proposed rule are voluntary the actual burden may vary significantly. 
The hours and costs per hour break down as follows:

Two-engine operators:

    Passenger recovery plans--For current operators using ETOPS, 
estimate 19 plans x 100 hours x $75 = $142,500 for the initial plan. 
Thereafter, operators would spend 40 hours annually reviewing and 
validating the plan for a total 10-year cost of $655,000.

Initial development = 100 hrs x 19 plans = 1900 hours
Initial cost = $142,500
Recurring hours = 40 hrs x 19 plans x 9 years = 6840 hours
Recurring cost = $513,000
Total Hours = 8,740
Total Cost = $655,500

    For estimated 7 new ETOPS operators:

Initial development = 100 hrs x 7 plans = 700 hours
Initial cost = $52,500
Recurring hours = 40 hrs x 7 plans x 9 years = 2520 hours
Recurring cost = $189,000
Total Hours = 3220
Total Cost = $241,500

Reporting failures and findings

    For existing operators:

Initial = 16 hrs x 1,400 incidents = 22,400 hours x $45 = $1,008,000
Total over 10 years = 224,000 hours x $45 = $10,080,000
For estimated 7 new operators:
Initial = 16 hours x 7 operators x 10 incidents per = 1,120 hours x $45 
= $50,400
Total over 10 years = 11,200 hours = $504,000

3- or 4-engine airplanes

Passenger recovery plans

    For estimated 13 new ETOPS operators

Initial development = 100 hrs x 13 plans = 1,300 hours
Initial cost = 1,300 hours x $75 = $97,500
Recurring hours = 40 hrs x 13 plans x 9 years = 4680 hours
Recurring cost = $351,000
Total Hours = 5,980
Total Cost = $448,500

ETOPS Maintenance Program

    For estimated 13 new ETOPS operators
    Program document:

One time cost of 520 hours x 13 = 6760 hours x $85 = $574,600

    Pre-departure check program:

240 hours x 13 = 3,120 hours x $85 = $265,200

    ETOPS specific procedures:

8 hours x 13 = 104 hours x $85 = $8,840

    Reliability program:

200 hours x 13 = 2600 hours x $85 = $221,000

    Pre-departure service check:

2 hours x 3 planes x 360 days x 13 = 28080 hours x $45 = $1,263,600
Total Hours = 280,800
Total Cost = $12,636,000

Reporting Failures and Findings

16 hours x 10 incidents x 13 = 2080 hours x $45 = $93,600
Total Hours = 20,800
Total Cost = $936,000

Training

Initial Training

    [sbull] 44 hours x 20 mechanics x 13 = 11440 hours x $45 = $514,800

[[Page 64783]]

    [sbull] 16 hours x 20 pilots x 13 = 4160 hours x $173 = $719,680
    [sbull] 4 hours x 40 flight attendants x 13 = 2080 hours x $52 = 
$108,160
    [sbull] 12 hours x 8 dispatchers x 13 = 1248 hours x $38 = $47,424
    Total Hours = 18,928
    Total Cost = $1,390,064

Recurrent Training

    [sbull] 1 hour x 20 mechanics x 13 x 9 = 2340 hours x $45 = 
$105,300
    [sbull] 1 hour x 20 pilots x 13 x 9 = 2340 hours x $173 = $404,820
    [sbull] 1 hour x 40 flight attendants x 13 x 9 = 4680 hours x $52 = 
$243,360
    [sbull] 1 hour x 8 dispatchers x 13 x 9 = 936 hours x $38 = $35,568
    Total Hours = 10,296
    Total Cost = $789,048

Ten Year Training

    Total Hours = 29,224
    Total Cost = $2,179,112

Business Jets

    For estimated 81 new ETOPS operators

    Maintenance program:

50 hours x 81 = 4050 hours x $100 = $405,000

    Pre-departure service check:

1 hour x 24 inspections x 81 = 1944 hours x $45 = $87,480
Total Hours = 19,440
Total Cost =$874,800

    Continuing Analysis Surveillance Program (CASS)

100 hours x 81 = 8100 hours x $45 = $364,500

    Monitoring programs.

1 mechanic x 81 x 2080 hours = 168480 x $45 = $7,581,600
Total Hours = 1,684,800
Total Cost = $75,816,000
Training

Initial Training

    [sbull] 4 hours x 2 mechanics x 81 = 648 hours x $45 = $29,160

Recurrent Training

    [sbull] 1 hour x 2 mechanics x 81 x 9 = 1458 hours x $45 = $65,610
    Total Hours = 2,106
    Total Cost = $94,770
    Quarterly reporting:

8 hours x 81 = 648 hours x $45 = $29,160

8 hours x 81 x 10 = 6480 hours x $45 = $291,600
    For operations north of latitude N78:
    Recovery plan:
Initial development t = 40 hrs x 81 plans = 3240 hours
Initial cost = 3240 hours x $75 = $243,000
Recurring hours = 10 hrs x 81 plans x 9 years = 7290 hours
Recurring cost = 7290 x $75 = $546,750
Total Hours = 10,530
Total Cost = $789,750
Training

Initial Training

    [sbull] 16 hours x 16 pilots x 81 = 20736 hours x $173 = $3,587,328

Recurring Training

    [sbull] 1 hour x 16 pilots x 81 x 9 = 11664 hours x $173 = 
$2,017,872
    Total Hours = 32,400
    Total Cost = $5,605,200

Part 21

    Expanded ETOPS reporting:

Two engineer aides x 2080 = 4,160 hours x $45 = $187,200
Total Hours = 41,600
Total Cost = $1,872,000
    New ETOPS reporting:
    For estimated 5 new ETOPS manufacturers

Two engineer aides x 2080 = 4,160 hours x 5 = 20,800 hours x $45 = 
$936,000
Total Hours = 208,000
Total Cost = $9,360,000

    Investigation of shutdown causes:

2,000 hours x 5 = 10,000 hours x $67.50 = $675,000
Total Hours = 100,000
Total Cost = $6,750,000

Part 25

    One time certification for fire suppression:

25,000 hours (for 3 type certificates) x $75 = $1,875,000 million

    In summary, the FAA estimates that the one-time and first year 
burden of the paperwork requirements for ETOPS operators and 
manufacturers would be approximately 357,000 hours and cost $21.2 
million, undiscounted. The ten-year burden is estimated at 2.7 million 
hours and the undiscounted cost is estimated $132.8 million as shown in 
the attached table.
    In addition, there are other certification costs that are difficult 
to sort by information requirements. Some of these other costs are 
manufacturing costs with additional reporting requirements.
    The FAA is soliciting comments to--
    (1) evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirement by January 13, 2004, and should 
direct them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), 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 OMB control number. The OMB 
control number for this information collection will be published in the 
Federal Register, after the Office of Management and Budget approves 
it.

                             Summary of Initial and Total Paperwork Hours and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Initial                    Ten year      Ten year
                        Category                              hours     Initial cost      hours         costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-engine:
    Recovery Plans:
        Existing........................................         1,900      $142,500         8,740      $655,500
        New.............................................           700        52,500         3,320       241,500
    Reporting:
        Existing........................................        22,400     1,008,000       224,000    10,080,000
        New.............................................         1,120        50,400        11,200       504,000
More than 2-engine:
    Recovery Plans......................................         1,300        97,500         5,980       448,500

[[Page 64784]]

 
    ETOPS Program document..............................         6,760       574,600         6,760       574,600
    Pre-departure Program...............................         3,120       265,200         3,120       265,200
    ETOPS SpecificProcedures............................           104         8,840           104         8,840
    Reliability Program.................................         2,600       221,000         2,600       221,000
    Pre-departure Service Check.........................        28,080     1,263,600       280,800    12,636,000
    Reporting Failures..................................          2080        93,600        20,800       936,000
    Training............................................         18928     1,390,064        29,224     2,179,112
Business Jets:
    ETOPS Maintenance Program...........................          4050       405,000         4,050       405,000
    Pre-departure Service Check.........................          1944        87,480        19,440       874,800
    CASS................................................          8100       364,500         8,100       364,500
    Monitoring Programs.................................       168,480     7,581,600     1,684,800    75,816,000
    Training............................................           648        29,160         2,106        94,770
    Quarterly Reporting.................................           648        29,160         6,480       291,600
    Polar Recovery Plan.................................         3,240       243,000        10,530       789,750
    Polar Training......................................        20,736     3,587,328        32,400     5,605,200
Part 21:
    ETOPS Reporting:
        Expanded........................................         4,160       187,200        41,600     1,872,000
        New.............................................        20,800       936,000       208,000     9,360,000
    Shutdown Investigations.............................        10,000       675,000       100,000     6,750,000
Part 25: Certification..................................        25,000     1,875,000        25,000     1,875,000
                                                         ---------------
        Total...........................................       356,898    21,168,232     2,739,154   132,848,872
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier 
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
    [sbull] Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
    [sbull] Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were 
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
    [sbull] Is the description in the preamble helpful in understanding 
the proposed regulations?
    Please send your comments to the address specified in the ADDRESSES 
section.

Environmental Analysis

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

Energy Impact

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

Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to submit a Statement of 
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, for matters 
identified as significant energy actions. A significant energy action 
is an action that (1) is significant under Executive Order 12866 and is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy or (2) is designated by the 
administrator of the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy 
action. This proposed rule would save fuel for operators who obtain 
authorization for ETOPS routes and would therefore have a significant 
positive effect on energy use. We are not required to submit a 
Statement of Energy Effects for this proposed rule because we do not 
expect this rule to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy and the Administrator of OIRA has not 
identified it as a significant energy action.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, 
Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug 
abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 14 CFR parts 1, 25, 33, 121, and 
135 as follows:

[[Page 64785]]

PART 1--DEFINITIONS

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  1.1 by adding the definitions of ``Early ETOPS'', 
``ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures Standard (CMP)''. 
``ETOPS Significant Systems'', ``Extended Operations (ETOPS)'', ``Group 
1 Systems'', ``Group 2 Systems'', and ``In-flight shutdown (IFSD)'', to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.1  General Definitions.

* * * * *
    Early ETOPS means obtaining ETOPS type design certification without 
first gaining service experience on the airplane/engine combination to 
be certified.
* * * * *
    ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures Standard (CMP) 
means specific airframe and engine configuration minimum requirements, 
including any special inspection, hardware life limits, Master Minimum 
Equipment List (MMEL) constraints and maintenance practices found 
necessary by the FAA to establish the suitability of that airframe and 
engine combination for ETOPS.
* * * * *
    ETOPS Significant Systems means the airplane propulsion system and 
any other airplane systems whose failure could adversely affect the 
safety of an ETOPS flight, or whose functioning is important to 
continued safe flight and landing during an airplane diversion. Each 
ETOPS significant system is either a Group 1 or Group 2 system based on 
the relationship to the number of engines, or to continued safe engine 
operation.
    Extended Operations (ETOPS) means an airplane flight operation in 
which a portion of the flight is operated beyond a predetermined time 
threshold, as identified in parts 121 and 135 of this title, from an 
adequate airport based on an approved one engine inoperative cruise 
speed under standard conditions in still air.
* * * * *
    ETOPS Group 1 Systems: Group 1 Systems include any systems that 
relate to the number of engines on the airplane and are important to 
the safe operation of the airplane on an ETOPS flight. The following 
provides additional discriminating definitions of an ETOPS Group 1 
Significant System:
    (1) A system for which the fail-safe redundancy characteristics are 
directly linked to the number of engines (for example, hydraulic 
system, pneumatic system, electrical system).
    (2) A system that may affect the proper functioning of the engines 
to the extent that it could result in an in-flight shutdown or 
uncommanded loss of thrust (for example, fuel system, thrust reverser 
or engine control or indicating system, and engine fire detection 
systems).
    (3) A system which contributes significantly to the safety of an 
engine inoperative ETOPS diversion and is intended to provide 
additional redundancy to accommodate the system(s) lost by the 
inoperative engine. These include back-up systems such as an emergency 
generator or APU.
    (4) Any system essential to prolonged operation at engine 
inoperative altitudes including anti-icing systems for a twin-engine 
airplane if single engine performance results in the airplane operating 
in the icing envelope.
    ETOPS Group 2 Systems: Group 2 Systems are systems that do not 
relate to the number of engines on the airplane, but are important to 
the safe operation of the airplane on an ETOPS flight. The following 
provides additional discriminating definitions of an ETOPS Group 2 
Significant System:
    (1) A system the failure of which would reduce the capability of 
the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with an ETOPS 
diversion, (for example, long-range navigation or communication, 
equipment cooling, or systems important to safe operation on a ETOPS 
diversion after a decompression.)
    (2) Time-limited systems including cargo fire suppression and 
oxygen if the duration of ETOPS dependent on the availability of such 
systems.
    (3) Systems whose failure would result in excessive crew workload 
or have operational implications or significant detrimental impact on 
flight crew or passengers physiological well being for an ETOPS 
diversion (for example flight control forces that would be exhausting 
for a maximum ETOPS diversion, system failures that would require 
continuous fuel balancing to ensure proper Center of Gravity (CG), or a 
cabin environmental control failure that could cause extreme heat or 
cold that it could incapacitate the crew or cause physical harm to the 
passengers).
    (4) Any other system specifically installed to enhance the safety 
of long-range operations including an ETOPS diversion regardless of the 
applicability of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this definition (for 
example SATCOM, GPS).
* * * * *
    In-flight shutdown (IFSD) means when an engine ceases to function 
in flight and is shutdown, whether self-induced, crew initiated or 
caused by some other external influence. (The FAA considers IFSD for 
all causes, for example. flameout, internal failure, crew initiated 
shutoff, foreign object ingestion, icing, inability to obtain and/or 
control desired thrust.)

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

    3. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 
44701-44701, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

    4. Add Sec.  21.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.4  ETOPS reporting requirements.

    (a) Early ETOPS problem reporting, tracking, and resolution. (1) 
The holder of a type certificate of an airplane that has been approved 
for ETOPS without service experience in accordance with section II, 
paragraph (a), or section III, paragraph (a), of Appendix L of 14 CFR 
part 25 must establish a system for reporting, tracking, and promptly 
resolving problems encountered with ETOPS Significant Systems.
    (2) The system must contain a means for the prompt identification 
of problems with ETOPS Significant Systems, for the reporting of such 
problems to the responsible FAA certification office, and for 
proffering solutions to and obtaining FAA approval for the resolution 
of the problems. The implementation of the problem resolution can be 
accomplished by way of an FAA approved change(s) in the type design, 
the manufacturing process, or an operating or maintenance procedures.
    (3) The reporting system must be in place for the first 250,000 
fleet engine hours. For a two-engine ETOPS airplane, the reporting 
requirement remains in place until the fleet has demonstrated a stable 
in-flight shutdown rate in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section for the maximum diversion time for which the airplane has been 
certified.
    (4) If the airplane or engine type certificated is a derivative of 
a previously certificated airplane or engine, the type certificate 
holder may, with prior authorization from the Administrator, report 
only on systems that have changed from the original type certificate.
    (5) For the early ETOPS service period, an applicant must define 
the sources and content of in-service data that will be made available 
to them in support of their problem reporting and

[[Page 64786]]

tracking system. The content of this data must be adequate to evaluate 
the specific cause of all service incidents reportable under Sec.  
21.3(c) of part 21, in addition to any occurrences that could affect 
the safety of ETOPS operations and must be reported, including:
    (i) In-flight shutdown events, and for twin-engine ETOPS airplanes, 
in-flight shutdown rates;
    (ii) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power;
    (iii) Precautionary thrust reductions (except for normal 
troubleshooting as allowed in the aircraft manual);
    (iv) Degraded propulsion in-flight start capability;
    (v) Inadvertent fuel loss or fuel unavailability, or uncorrectable 
fuel imbalance in flight;
    (vi) Technical air turn backs or diversions associated with an 
ETOPS Group 1 Significant System;
    (vii) Inability of an ETOPS Group 1 Significant System, designed to 
provide backup capability after failure of a primary system, to provide 
the required backup capability in-flight;
    (viii) A complete loss of any electrical power generating system or 
hydraulic power system during an operation of the aircraft;
    (ix) Any event that would jeopardize the safe flight and landing of 
the airplane on an ETOPS flight;
    (x) Unscheduled engine removals for conditions that could result in 
one of the reportable items listed above.
    (b) ETOPS operational service reliability reporting for two-engine 
airplanes.
    (1) Two engine reliability reporting. Type Certificate Holder of 
engines and airplanes used in ETOPS service must report monthly on the 
reliability of their two-engine airplane fleets in service. The 
Administrator may approve reporting on a quarterly basis if the 
airplane and engine demonstrate sustained IFSD rates below those 
identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. This reporting may be 
combined with the reporting requirements of Sec.  21.3. Causes of 
propulsion system in-flight shutdown must be investigated by the 
manufacturer(s), and where appropriate for the safety and airworthiness 
of ETOPS operations, FAA approved corrective action must be 
implemented. Reporting must include:
    (i) Propulsion system in-flight shutdown events (excluding normal 
training events)
    (ii) In-flight shutdown rates for all causes (excluding normal 
training events).
    (iii) ETOPS fleet utilization, including a list of operators, their 
ETOPS diversion time authority, flight hours, and cycles.
    (2) ETOPS World Fleet In-Flight Shutdown Rate Requirements. Type 
Certificate Holders of engines and airplanes approved for ETOPS service 
must monitor and report the worldwide fleet in-flight shutdown rates by 
airplane-engine type combinations to ensure appropriate rates are 
maintained. ETOPS 12 month rolling average in-flight shutdown rates 
must be maintained at the following levels:
    (i) A threshold rate of 0.05 per 1,000 fleet engine hours for two-
engine airplanes in ETOPS for initial approval up to 120 minutes, with 
continuing improvement toward a rate of 0.02 per 1,000 fleet engine 
hours;
    (ii) A rate of 0.02 per 1,000 fleet engine hours for two-engine 
airplanes in ETOPS up to 180 minutes, and as provided for flight by 
flight exception based operations up to 207 minutes maximum diversion 
time in the North Pacific area of operation as defined in 14 CFR Part 
121;
    (iii) A rate of 0.01 per 1,000 fleet engine hours for twin-engine 
airplanes in ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, except as provided for flight by 
flight exception based operations up to 207 minutes maximum diversion 
time in the North Pacific area of operation as defined in 14 CFR Part 
121.

PART 25--AIRPLANE TYPE DESIGN

    5. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

    6. Amend Sec.  25.857 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.857  Cargo compartment classification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) There is an approved built-in fire extinguishing or suppression 
system controllable from the cockpit. For ETOPS approval, the certified 
time capability of the system must be provided as required by Sec.  
25.1581(a)(2).
* * * * *
    7. Add Sec.  25.1535 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1535  ETOPS approval.

    Each applicant seeking type design certification for ETOPS must:
    (a) Comply with the requirements of this part considering the 
maximum mission time and the longest diversion time for which approval 
is being sought.
    (b) Consider crew workload and operational implications and the 
flight crew's and passengers' physiological needs of continued 
operation with failure effects for the longest diversion time for which 
approval is being sought, and
    (c) Comply with the requirements of Appendix L of this part.
    8. Add Appendix L to read as follows:

Appendix L to Part 25--Extended Operations (ETOPS)

    This appendix defines additional airworthiness requirements for 
the approval of an airplane-engine combination for Extended 
Operations (ETOPS) in accordance with Sec.  25.1535. Two engine 
airplanes must comply with Sections I and II of this appendix. 
Airplanes with more than two engines must comply with Sections I and 
III of this appendix.

Section I--Design Requirements

    (a) Airplane Systems. (1) Operation in icing conditions. (i) The 
airplane must be certificated for operation in icing conditions in 
accordance with Sec.  25.1419.
    (ii) The airframe and propulsion system ice protection must be 
capable of continued safe flight and landing at engine inoperative 
and decompression altitudes in icing conditions.
    (iii) The applicant must show that the unprotected areas of the 
airplane will not collect a load of ice that would make the airplane 
uncontrollable or create too much drag to safely complete a 
diversion in icing conditions.
    (2) Electrical power supply. The electrical power supply system 
must be designed so that--
    (i) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent 
the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane on an ETOPS 
flight is extremely improbable, and
    (ii) The occurrence of any other failure conditions which would 
reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to 
cope with adverse operating conditions on an ETOPS flight is 
improbable.
    (iii) For airplanes to be certificated for usage on routes 
further than 180 minutes from a suitable airport, the airplane must 
be equipped with at least three independent electrical generation 
sources.
    (3) Time limited systems. For each ETOPS Significant System that 
is time limited, the system capability must be defined. The most 
limiting ETOPS Significant System capability must be stated in the 
Airplane Flight Manual per the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of 
Section I of this appendix.
    (b) Propulsion systems. (1) Fuel system design. Fuel necessary 
to complete an ETOPS mission, including a diversion for the longest 
time for which approval is being sought, must be available to the 
operating engine or engines at the pressure and flow required by 
Sec.  25.955 under any airplane failure condition not shown to be 
extremely improbable. Examples of the types of failures to be 
considered include crossfeed valve failures, automatic fuel 
management system failures, and normal electrical power generation 
failures.
    (i) For two engine airplanes to be certificated for usage on 
routes further than 180 minutes from a suitable airport, one fuel 
boost pump in each main tank and actuation

[[Page 64787]]

capability of at least one crossfeed valve must be able to be 
powered by a back-up electrical generation source other than the 
primary engine driven or APU driven generators, unless the required 
fuel boost pressure or crossfeed valve actuation is not provided by 
electrical power.
    (ii) Alerts must be displayed to the flight crew when the 
quantity of fuel available to the engines falls below that level 
required to complete the mission. These alerts must include 
provisions for abnormal fuel management or transfer between tanks, 
and possible loss of fuel.
    (2) APU design. If operation of the APU installation is required 
to comply with this appendix, the applicant must substantiate that:
    (i) The APU has adequate reliability for that operation, and;
    (ii) If in-flight start and run capability is necessary, the APU 
in-flight operating envelope shall extend to the maximum operating 
altitude of the airplane, but need not exceed 45,000 feet.
    (3) Engine oil tank design. The engine oil tank filler cap must 
comply with section 33.71(c)(4).
    (c) Engine condition monitoring. Procedures for an engine 
condition monitoring process must be defined and validated in 
accordance with Part 33 Appendix A, paragraph 33.3(c).
    (d) Configuration, maintenance and procedures. If the airplane, 
propulsion, and ETOPS Significant System assessments identify 
configuration, maintenance or operational standards necessary to 
maintain appropriate reliability for ETOPS, the applicant must 
identify the appropriate standards in a Configuration, Maintenance 
and Procedures (CMP) document.
    (e) Airplane flight manual. The airplane flight manual must 
contain the following information.
    (1) Special limitations, including any limitations associated 
with operation of the airplane up to the maximum diversion time 
being approved.
    (2) Required markings or placards.
    (3) The airborne equipment, installation, and flight crew 
procedures required for extended operations.
    (4) The maximum diversion time capability of the airplane for 
ETOPS required by paragraph (a)(3) of this appendix in accordance 
with Sec.  25.1581(a)(2), ``Furnishing information.''
    (5) The following statement: ``The type design reliability and 
performance of this airframe-engine combination has been evaluated 
in accordance with Sec.  25.1535 and found suitable for (state 
maximum diversion time) extended operations (ETOPS) with the 
incorporation of the approved airplane configuration CMP standard 
contained in (state description or reference to a document 
containing the approved CMP standard). This finding does not 
constitute approval to conduct ETOPS.''

Section II--Two Engine Airplanes

    An applicant for a two engine airplane must use one of the 
methods described in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Section II of 
this appendix to certify the airplane for Extended Operations.
    (a) Service experience method. The applicant must demonstrate 
that the airplane and engine combination for which approval is 
sought has the required airplane and propulsion system capability to 
safely conduct an ETOPS mission and maximum diversion and has 
achieved required airframe and propulsion system reliability based 
upon fleet in-service experience.
    (1) Required service experience. After accumulating 250,000 
worldwide fleet engine hours on the airplane and engine combination 
for which approval is sought, a reliability review must be 
performed. The number of hours may be reduced if adequate 
compensating factors are identified which give a reasonable 
equivalent database. Where experience on another airplane is 
applicable, a significant portion of the 250,000 hours must be 
obtained on the candidate airplane.
    (2) Propulsion system assessment. (i) The applicant must conduct 
a propulsion system assessment based on the following data, 
collected from the entire fleet of the specific airplane and engine 
combination for which approval is sought:
    (A) A list of all engine shutdown events both ground and in-
flight for all causes (excluding normal training events) including 
flameouts. The list should provide identification (engine and 
airplane model and serial number), engine configuration and 
modification history, engine position, circumstances leading up to 
the event, phase of flight or ground operation, weather/
environmental conditions, and reason for shutdown. In addition, 
similar information should be provided for all occurrences where 
control of desired thrust level was not attained.
    (B) Unscheduled engine removal rate (accumulated 6- and 12-month 
rolling averages), removal summary, time history of removal rate and 
primary causes for unscheduled removal.
    (C) Dispatch delays, cancellations, aborted takeoffs (includes 
those induced by maintenance or crew error) and en-route diversions 
chargeable to the propulsion system.
    (D) Total engine hours and cycles and engine hour population 
(age distribution).
    (E) Mean time between failure of propulsion system components 
that affect reliability.
    (F) IFSD rate based upon a 6- and 12-month rolling average.
    (ii) All causes or potential causes of engine in-flight 
shutdowns or loss of thrust control occurring in service must have 
corrective actions that are shown to be effective in preventing 
future occurrences.
    (3) Airplane systems assessment. Airplane systems must comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  25.1535(a) using available in-service 
reliability data for ETOPS significant systems. All causes or 
potential causes of ETOPS significant system failures occurring in 
service must have corrective actions that are shown to be effective 
in preventing future occurrences.
    (4) In-flight shutdown (IFSD) rates. The demonstrated airplane 
and engine combination world fleet propulsion system 12 month 
rolling average IFSD rate must be commensurate with the level of 
ETOPS approval being sought.
    (i) For operations up to 120 minutes: A rate of approximately 
0.05 or less per 1,000 fleet engine hours with a required list of 
corrective actions in the CMP document that would result in 
continuing improvement toward an IFSD rate of 0.02 per 1,000 fleet 
engine hours.
    (ii) For operations up to 180 minutes: A rate of approximately 
0.02 or less per 1,000 fleet engine hours with an existing 120 
minute CMP standard, or new or additional CMP requirements that have 
been demonstrated to achieve this in-flight shutdown rate.
    (iii) For operations beyond 180 minutes: A rate of approximately 
0.01 or less per 1,000 fleet engine hours with an existing 120 
minute or 180 minute CMP standard, or new or additional CMP 
requirements that have been demonstrated to achieve this in-flight 
shutdown rate.
    (5) Airplane flight test requirements. A flight test must be 
conducted to validate the adequacy of the airplane's flying 
qualities, performance and the flight crew's ability to deal with 
engine inoperative and non-normal worst case system failure 
conditions expected to occur in service.
    (b) Early ETOPS method.
    (1) Relevant experience assessment. The applicant must identify 
specific corrective actions taken on the airplane design to address 
relevant design, manufacturing, operational and maintenance problems 
experienced on previously certified Part 25 airplanes manufactured 
by the applicant. Specific corrective actions are not required if 
the nature of the problem is such that the problem would not 
significantly impact the safety or reliability of the system. 
Relevant problems are those problems on ETOPS Group 1 Significant 
Systems that have or could have resulted in in-flight shutdowns or 
diversions. To experience of supplier-provided ETOPS Group 1 
Significant Systems and similar or identical equipment utilized on 
aircraft built by other manufacturers must be included.
    (2) Propulsion system design. (i) Engine ETOPS eligibility. The 
engine must be approved for ETOPS eligibility in accordance with 
Sec.  33.200.
    (ii) Design to preclude in-flight shutdowns. The applicant must 
design the propulsion system to preclude failures or malfunctions 
that could result in an engine in-flight shutdown. The applicant 
must substantiate compliance with this requirement by analysis, 
test, in-service experience on other airplanes, or other means. The 
analysis must show that the propulsion system design will minimize 
failures and malfunctions with the objective of achieving the 
following in-flight shutdown rates: 0.02 per 1,000 engine fleet 
hours for ETOPS (180 minutes or less) 0.01 per 1,000 engine fleet 
hours for ETOPS (beyond 180 minutes).
    (3) Maintenance and operational procedures. The applicant must 
validate all ETOPS significant systems maintenance and operational 
procedures. Any problems found as a result of the validation must be 
tracked and resolved through the Problem Tracking and Resolution 
System required by Section II, paragraph (b)(8) of this appendix.
    (4) Propulsion system validation test. The installed engine 
configuration for which

[[Page 64788]]

approval is being sought must comply with Sec.  33.200(c). The test 
engine must be configured with a complete airplane nacelle package, 
including engine-mounted equipment except for any configuration 
differences necessary to accommodate test stand interfaces with the 
engine nacelle package. At the conclusion of the test, the 
propulsion system must be:
    (i) Visually inspected according to the applicant's on-wing 
inspection recommendations and limits.
    (ii) Completely disassembled and the propulsion system hardware 
must be inspected in accordance with the service limits submitted in 
compliance with Sec.  25.1529. Any potential sources of in-flight 
shutdown, loss of thrust control, or other power loss encountered 
during this inspection must be tracked and resolved in accordance 
with Section II, paragraph (b)(8) of this appendix.
    (5) New technology demonstration testing. Testing must be 
conducted to substantiate the suitability of any technology new to 
the applicant, including substantially new manufacturing techniques.
    (6) APU validation test. If utilizing an APU in order to meet 
the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of section I of this appendix, 
one APU of the type to be certificated with the airplane must 
complete a test consisting of 3,000 equivalent airplane operational 
cycles. Following completion of the demonstration test, the APU must 
be disassembled and inspected. Any potential sources of in-flight 
start problems or run problems or both must be identified, tracked 
and resolved in accordance with Section II, paragraph (b)(8) of this 
appendix.
    (7) Airplane demonstration test. For each airplane and engine 
combination to be certificated one or more airplanes must conduct 
flight-testing that demonstrates that the aircraft, its components 
and equipment are capable of and function properly during ETOPS and 
ETOPS diversions. This flight-testing may be coordinated with, but 
is not in place of flight-testing required for compliance to Sec.  
21.35(b)(2).
    (i) The flight test program must include:
    (A) Flights simulating actual ETOPS operation including normal 
cruise altitude, step climbs, and APU operations if paragraph (b)(2) 
of section I of this appendix applies.
    (B) Demonstration of maximum normal flight duration with maximum 
diversion time for which eligibility is sought.
    (C) Engine inoperative maximum time diversions to demonstrate 
the airplane and propulsion system capability to safely conduct an 
ETOPS diversion, including a repeat of a maximum continuous thrust 
(MCT) diversion on the same engine.
    (D) Non-normal conditions to demonstrate the airplane's 
capability to safely conduct an ETOPS diversion under worst-case 
system failure conditions expected to occur in service.
    (E) Diversions into representative operational diversionary 
airports.
    (F) Repeated exposure to humid and inclement weather on the 
ground followed by long-range operations at normal cruise altitude.
    (ii) The flight testing must validate the adequacy of the 
airplane's flying qualities, performance and flight crew's ability 
to deal with the conditions of paragraphs (b)(7)(i)(C), 
(b)(7)(i)(D), and (b)(7)(i)(E) of Section II of this appendix.
    (iii) The engine-inoperative diversions must be evenly 
distributed among the number of engines in the applicant's flight 
test program except as required by paragraph (b)(7)(i)(C) of Section 
II of this appendix.
    (iv) The test airplane or airplanes must be operated and 
maintained using the recommended operations and maintenance manual 
procedures during the airplane demonstration test.
    (v) At the completion of the airplane or airplanes demonstration 
testing, the ETOPS significant systems must undergo an airplane 
visual inspection per the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
of Sec.  25.1529. The engines must also undergo a gas path 
inspection. These inspections are intended to identify any abnormal 
conditions that could result in an in-flight shutdown or diversion. 
Any abnormal conditions must be identified, tracked and resolved in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(8) of Section II of this appendix.
    (8) Problem tracking and resolution system. A problem tracking 
and resolution system must be established to address problems, as 
identified in Sec.  21.4(a)(5), encountered on the ETOPS significant 
systems during airplane and engine testing that could affect the 
safety of ETOPS operations. If the airplane or engine type 
certificated is a derivative of a previously certificated airplane 
or engine, the criteria of Sec.  21.4(a)(4) may apply.
    (i) The system must contain a means for prompt identification of 
problems that could impact the safety of ETOPS operations.
    (ii) The system must contain the process for the timely 
notification to the responsible FAA office of all relevant problems 
encountered, and corrective actions deemed necessary, in a manner 
that allows for appropriate FAA review of all planned corrective 
actions.
    (iii) The system must be in effect during the phases of airplane 
and engine development that will be used to assess early ETOPS 
eligibility.
    (iv) Upon Type Certification, the certificate holder must comply 
with problem tracking and resolution system requirements of Sec.  
21.4.
    (9) Reliability demonstration acceptance criteria. For airplane, 
propulsion and ETOPS significant systems, the type and frequency of 
failures that occur during the airplane flight test program and the 
airplane demonstration test required by paragraph (b)(7) of Section 
II of this appendix must be consistent with the type and frequency 
of failures or malfunctions that would be expected to occur on 
presently certified ETOPS airplanes.
    (c) Combined service experience and early ETOPS method.
    (1) The in-service experience requirements of paragraph (a)(1) 
may be reduced to 15,000 engine hours provided compliance to 
paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), 
(b)(8), and (b)(9) of Section II of this appendix have been met.
    (2) Additionally, as allowed by Sec.  21.21(b)(1), the in-
service experience requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section II of 
this appendix may be reduced to some level other than 15,000 engine 
hours provided compensating factors that provide an equivalent level 
of safety are provided.

Section III--Airplanes With More Than Two Engines

    An applicant for an airplane with more than two engines must use 
one of the methods described in the following paragraphs (a), (b) or 
(c) of Section III of this appendix to certify the airplane for 
Extended Operations.
    (a) Service experience method. The applicant must demonstrate 
that the airplane and engine combination for which approval is 
sought has the required airplane and propulsion system capability to 
safely conduct an ETOPS mission and maximum diversion and has 
achieved required airplane system reliability based upon fleet in-
service experience.
    (1) Required service experience. After accumulating 250,000 
worldwide fleet engine hours on the airplane and engine combination 
for which approval is sought, the applicant must perform a 
reliability review. The number of hours may be reduced if adequate 
compensating factors are identified which give a reasonable 
equivalent database. Where experience on another airplane is 
applicable, a significant portion of the 250,000 hours must be 
obtained on the candidate airplane.
    (2) Airplane systems assessment. Airplane systems must comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  25.1535(a) using available in-service 
reliability data for ETOPS significant systems. All causes or 
potential causes of ETOPS significant system failures occurring in 
service must have corrective actions that are shown to be effective 
in preventing future occurrences.
    (3) Airplane flight test requirements. The applicant must 
conduct a flight test to validate the adequacy of the airplane's 
flying qualities, performance and the flight crew's ability to deal 
with engine inoperative and non-normal worst case system failure 
conditions expected to occur in service.
    (b) Early ETOPS method.
    (1) Maintenance and operational procedures. The applicant must 
validate all ETOPS Significant Systems maintenance and operational 
procedures. The applicant must track and resolve any problems found 
as a result of the validation through the Problem Tracking and 
Resolution System required by paragraph (b)(5) of Section III of 
this appendix.
    (2) New technology demonstration testing. The applicant must 
conduct testing to substantiate the suitability of any technology 
new to the applicant, including substantially new manufacturing 
techniques.
    (3) APU validation test. If utilizing an APU in order to meet 
the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of section I of this appendix, 
one APU of the type to certificated with the airplane must complete 
a test consisting of 3,000 equivalent airplane operational cycles. 
Following completion of the demonstration test, the APU must be 
disassembled and inspected. Any potential sources of in-flight start 
problems or run problems or both must be identified, tracked and 
resolved in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of Section III of this 
appendix.

[[Page 64789]]

    (4) Airplane demonstration test. For each airplane and engine 
combination to be certificated, the applicant must conduct flight-
testing with one or more airplanes to demonstrate that the aircraft, 
its components and equipment are capable of and function properly 
during ETOPS and ETOPS diversions. This flight-testing may be 
coordinated with, but is not in place of flight-testing required for 
compliance to Sec.  21.35(b)(2).
    (i) The flight test program must include:
    (A) Flights simulating actual ETOPS operation including normal 
cruise altitude, step climbs, and APU operations if compliance to 
paragraph I (b)(2) of this appendix is necessary.
    (B) Demonstration of maximum normal flight duration with maximum 
diversion time for which eligibility is sought.
    (C) Engine inoperative maximum time diversions to demonstrate 
the airplane and propulsion system's capability to safely conduct an 
ETOPS diversion, including a repeat of a maximum continuous thrust 
(MCT) diversion on the same engine.
    (D) Non-normal conditions to demonstrate the airplane's 
capability to safely conduct an ETOPS diversion under worst case 
system failure conditions expected to occur in service.
    (E) Diversions into representative operational diversionary 
airports.
    (F) Repeated exposure to humid and inclement weather on the 
ground followed by long-range operations at normal cruise altitude.
    (ii) The flight testing must validate the adequacy of the 
airplane's flying qualities, performance and flight crew's ability 
to deal with the conditions of paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(C), 
(b)(4)(i)(D), and (b)(4)(i)(E) of Section III of this appendix.
    (iii) The engine-inoperative diversions must be evenly 
distributed among the number of engines in the applicant's flight 
test program except as required by paragraph (b)(4)(i)(C) of Section 
III of this appendix.
    (iv) The test airplane or airplanes must be operated and 
maintained using the recommended operations and maintenance manual 
procedures during the airplane demonstration test.
    (v) At the completion of the airplane or airplanes demonstration 
testing, the ETOPS Significant Systems must undergo an airplane 
visual inspection per the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
of Sec.  25.1529. The engines must also undergo a gas path 
inspection. These inspections are intended to identify any abnormal 
conditions that could result in an in-flight shutdown or diversion. 
The applicant must identify, track and resolve any abnormal 
conditions in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of Section III of 
this appendix.
    (5) Problem tracking and resolution system. The applicant must 
establish a problem tracking and resolution system to address 
problems, as identified in Sec.  21.4(a)(5), encountered on the 
ETOPS Significant Systems during airplane and engine testing that 
could affect the safety of ETOPS operations. If the airplane or 
engine type certificated is a derivative of a previously 
certificated airplane or engine the criteria of Sec.  21.4(a)(4) may 
apply.
    (i) The system must contain a means for prompt identification of 
problems that could impact the safety of ETOPS operations.
    (ii) The system must contain the process for the timely 
notification to the responsible FAA office of all relevant problems 
encountered, and corrective actions deemed necessary, in a manner 
that allows for appropriate FAA review of all planned corrective 
actions.
    (iii) The system must be in effect during the phases of airplane 
and engine development that will be used to assess early ETOPS 
eligibility.
    (iv) Upon type certification, the problem tracking and 
resolution system will revert to the requirements of Sec.  21.4.
    (6) Reliability demonstration acceptance criteria. For ETOPS 
significant systems, the type and frequency of failures that occur 
during the airplane flight test program and the airplane 
demonstration test required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section must 
be consistent with the type and frequency of failures or 
malfunctions that would be expected to occur on presently certified 
ETOPS airplanes, or any non-ETOPS derivative models of those 
aircraft or engines.
    (c) Combined service experience and early ETOPS method.
    (1) The in-service experience requirements of paragraph (a)(1) 
of Section III of this appendix may be reduced to 15,000 engine 
hours provided compliance to paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(2), 
(b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of Section III of this appendix have been 
met.
    (2) Additionally, as allowed by Sec.  21.21(b)(1), the in-
service experience requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section III 
of this appendix may be reduced to some level other than 15,000 
engine hours provided compensating factors that provide an 
equivalent level of safety are provided.

PART 33--ENGINE CERTIFICATION

    9. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702-44704.

    10. Amend Sec.  33.71 by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  33.71  Lubrication system.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Each oil tank cap must provide an oil-tight seal. For 
applicants seeking type design eligibility for engines to be installed 
in an Extended Operations (ETOPS) airplane in accordance with Sec.  
25.1535, the oil tank must be designed to prevent a hazardous quantity 
of oil loss due to oil tank cap installation errors.
* * * * *
    11. Revise Sec.  33.90 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.90  Initial maintenance inspection test.

    Each engine, except engines being type certificated through 
amendment of an existing type certificate or through supplemental type 
certification procedures, must complete one of the following tests on 
an engine that substantially conforms to the final type design to 
establish when the initial maintenance inspection is required:
    (a) An approved engine test that simulates the conditions in which 
the engine is expected to operate in service, including typical start-
stop cycles.
    (b) An approved engine test in accordance with Sec. Sec.  33.200(c) 
and 33.200(f) of this part.
    12. Add subpart G of part 33 to read as follows:

Subpart G--Special Requirements: Turbine Aircraft Engines


Sec.  33.200  Early extended operations (ETOPS) eligibility and test 
requirements.

    Each applicant seeking engine type design eligibility for an engine 
to be installed in a twin-engine ETOPS airplane that does not have the 
service experience required by 14 CFR part 25, Appendix L, section II, 
paragraph (a) must comply with the following:
    (a) The engine must be designed using a design quality process 
acceptable to the Administrator, which assures that design features of 
the engine minimize the occurrence of failures, malfunctions, or 
maintenance errors that could result in loss of thrust control, in-
flight shutdown, or other power loss.
    (b) The design features of the engine must address problems that 
have been shown to result in loss of thrust control, in-flight 
shutdown, or other power loss, when compared to the applicant's other 
relevant type design approvals received within the past ten years, 
providing that adequate service data is available within that ten year 
period. Applicants without applicable engine service experience may 
show equivalent experience and equivalent knowledge of problem 
mitigating design practices to that gained from actual service 
experience in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (c) The following test must be conducted on an engine that 
substantially conforms to the type design and in accordance with an 
approved test plan that consists of:
    (1) Simulated ETOPS Mission Cyclic Endurance. The test must include 
a minimum of 3,000 representative service start-stop mission cycles 
(take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing and thrust 
reverse), plus three simulated diversion cycles at maximum continuous 
thrust for the maximum diversion time for which ETOPS eligibility is 
sought. The diversions are to be approximately evenly distributed over 
the cyclic duration of the test, with the last diversion to be 
conducted

[[Page 64790]]

within 100 cycles of the completion of the test.
    (2) Unbalance and Vibration Endurance. (i) The simulated ETOPS 
mission cyclic endurance test required by Sec.  33.200(c)(1) must be 
performed with the high speed and low speed main engine rotors 
independently unbalanced to obtain a minimum of 90 percent of the 
recommended field service maintenance vibration levels. In addition to 
the specified unbalance for the low and high-speed rotors, for engines 
with three main engine rotors, the intermediate speed rotor must also 
be independently unbalanced to obtain a minimum of 90 percent of the 
recommended production acceptance vibration level. The vibration level 
must be defined as the peak level seen during a slow acceleration and 
deceleration of the engine across the operating speed range.
    (ii) Each 60 rpm incremental step of the typical high-speed rotor 
start-stop mission cycle speed range (take-off, climb, cruise, descent, 
approach, landing and thrust reverse) must be subjected to a minimum of 
three million vibration cycles during the cyclic endurance test. The 
test may be conducted using any rotor speed step increment up to 200 
rpm provided that the typical service start-stop cycle speed range is 
covered. For a 200 rpm step the corresponding vibration cycle count is 
to be ten million cycles.
    (iii) Each 60 rpm incremental step of the high-speed rotor approved 
operational speed range between minimum flight idle and cruise power, 
and not covered by Sec.  33.200(c)(2)(ii), must be subjected to a 
minimum of 300,000 vibration cycles during the cyclic endurance test. 
The test may be conducted using any rotor speed step increment up to 
200 rpm provided that the applicable speed range is covered. For a 200 
rpm step the corresponding vibration cycle count is to be 1 million 
cycles.
    (iv) Vibration surveys will be conducted at periodic intervals 
throughout the cyclic endurance test. The equivalent value of the peak 
vibration level observed during the surveys must meet the minimum 
vibration requirement of Sec.  33.200(c)(2)(i).
    (v) An alternate vibration test that provides an equivalent 
demonstration of the unbalance and vibration endurance test specified 
in paragraphs Sec. Sec.  33.200(c)(2)(i) through 33.200(c)(2)(iv) may 
be approved by the Administrator.
    (d) Prior to the testing required by Sec.  33.200(c), the test 
engine must be subjected to a calibration run to document power and 
thrust characteristics.
    (e) At the conclusion of the testing required by Sec.  33.200(c), 
the test engine must:
    (1) Be subjected to a calibration test at sea-level conditions; and 
any change in thrust characteristics must be within certified limits.
    (2) Be visually inspected in accordance with the on-wing inspection 
recommendations and limits contained in the Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness submitted in support of Sec.  33.4.
    (3) Be completely disassembled and:
    (i) The engine hardware must be inspected:
    (A) In accordance with the applicable inspection recommendations 
and limits contained in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
submitted in support of Sec.  33.4;
    (B) With consideration of the causes of loss of thrust control, in-
flight shutdown or other power losses identified by Sec.  33.200(b); 
and
    (C) In a manner to identify wear or distress conditions which could 
result in loss of thrust control, in-flight shutdown, or other power 
loss, and which are not specifically identified by Sec.  33.200(b) or 
addressed within the current Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    (ii) The engine hardware must not show distress to the extent that 
could result in loss of thrust control, in-flight shutdown, or other 
power loss within a period of operation before the component, assembly 
or system would likely have been inspected or functionally tested for 
integrity while in service. Such hardware distress must have corrective 
action implemented by way of design changes, maintenance instructions 
or operational procedures before ETOPS eligibility is granted.
    (iii) The type and frequency of hardware distress that occurs 
during the engine test must be consistent with the type and frequency 
of hardware distress that would be expected to occur on ETOPS eligible 
engines, or any non-ETOPS derivative engines of this type. Additional 
analysis and/or tests may be required to satisfy this requirement.
    (f) The 3,000 cycle simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test 
required by Sec.  33.200(c) may be used to show compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  33.90 and 33.90(b). After completing the full number of test 
cycles required for an initial maintenance inspection test conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  33.90(a), the 3,000 cycle simulated ETOPS mission 
cyclic endurance test may be interrupted so that the engine may be 
inspected by an on-wing or other method and criteria acceptable to the 
Administrator. Following the Sec.  33.90(b) inspection, the ETOPS test 
must be resumed to complete the requirements of Sec.  33.200.
    13. Add paragraph A33.3(c) to Appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 33--Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

* * * * *

A33.3 Content

* * * * *
    (c) Extended Operations (ETOPS) Requirements. For engines to be 
installed in ETOPS airplanes, procedures for engine condition 
monitoring must be included within the Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness. The engine condition monitoring procedures must be 
able to determine prior to flight, whether an engine is capable of 
providing, within certified engine operating limits, the maximum 
power or thrust, bleed air and power extraction required for the 
desired engine inoperative diversion. For engines to be installed on 
twin-engine ETOPS airplanes, the engine condition monitoring 
procedures must be validated before ETOPS eligibility is granted.

PART 121--AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.

    15. Add Sec.  121.7 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.7  Definitions and designations.

    The following definitions apply to those sections of part 121 that 
apply to ETOPS:
    Adequate airport means an airport that:
    (1) The Administrator determines satisfies safety requirements of 
part 139, subpart D, excluding aircraft rescue and fire fighting 
service, or
    (2) Meets the landing performance requirements of Sec.  121.197, or
    (3) Is a military airport that is active and operational, and meets 
the landing performance requirements of Sec.  121.197.
    ETOPS alternate means an adequate airport listed in the certificate 
holder's operations specifications that meets the requirements of Sec.  
121.624 and the Rescue and Fire Fighting (RFF) requirements of Sec.  
121.106 designated in a dispatch/flight release. This definition 
applies to flight planning and does not in any way limit the discretion 
of the pilot in command during flight.
    ETOPS area of operation. (1) ETOPS area of operation means for 
turbine engine powered airplanes with two engines, an area beyond 60 
minutes from an adequate airport, or with more than two engines, an 
area beyond 180 minutes from an adequate airport, and

[[Page 64791]]

within the authorized ETOPS maximum diversion time approved for the 
operation being conducted or an area designated by the Administrator as 
an area of ETOPS applicability. An ETOPS area of operation is 
calculated at a one-engine inoperative cruise speed (approved) under 
standard conditions in still air.
    (2) The Administrator designates the following areas as ETOPS areas 
in which the planning, operational, and equipage requirements for ETOPS 
apply:
    (i) NOPAC: The North Pacific Air Traffic Service routes and 
adjacent airspace between Anchorage and Tokyo Flight Information 
Region.
    (ii) North Pacific: Pacific Ocean areas north of 40[deg] N 
latitudes including NOPAC ATS routes, and published PACOTS (Pacific 
organized track system) tracks between Japan and North America.
    (iii) Polar areas--North Pole: The entire area north of 78[deg] N 
latitude.
    (iv) Polar areas--South Pole: The entire area south of 60[deg] S 
latitude.
    ETOPS dual maintenance means maintenance actions performed on the 
same element of identical, but separate ETOPS maintenance significant 
systems, during the same routine or non-routine visit. This is to 
recognize and preclude common cause human failure modes without proper 
verification process or operation test prior to ETOPS.
    (1) For turbine engine powered airplanes with two engines--A 
maintenance action performed on the same element of identical but 
separate ETOPS significant systems during the same routine or non-
routine visit.
    (2) For turbine engine powered airplanes with more than two 
engines--A maintenance action performed on the same element of 
identical but separate ETOPS significant systems on 2 engines of a 3 
engine aircraft, or more than 1 engine per side of a 4 engine aircraft 
during the same routine or non-routine visit.
    ETOPS entry point means, for turbine engine powered airplanes, the 
first point on the route of an authorized flight which is more than 60 
minutes from an adequate airport for airplanes with two engines, or 180 
minutes from an adequate airport for airplanes with more than two 
engines, or a point designated as an entry point in an area designated 
by the Administrator as an area of ETOPS applicability. The ETOPS entry 
point is calculated at a one-engine inoperative cruise speed (approved) 
under standard conditions in still air.
    ETOPS maintenance significant system means:
    (1) A system for which the redundancy characteristics are directly 
linked to the number of engines; or
    (2) A system that may affect the proper functioning of the engines 
to the extent that it could result in an in-flight shutdown or 
uncommanded loss of thrust; or
    (3) A system that contributes significantly to the safety of a 
diversion.
    ETOPS qualified personnel means maintenance personnel that have 
completed the certificate holder's ETOPS training program.
    Maximum diversion time means for the purposes of ETOPS in part 121 
the diversion time, under standard conditions in still air at the One 
Engine Inoperative Cruise Speed (Approved).
    One engine inoperative cruise speed means, for the purposes of 
those sections of part 121 applicable to ETOPS, a speed within the 
certified operating limits of the airplane, selected by the certificate 
holder and approved by the FAA, that is used for calculating fuel 
reserve requirements and the still air distance associated with the 
maximum approved one engine inoperative diversion distance for the 
flight.
    16. Amend Sec.  121.97 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121. 97  Airports: Required data.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Public protection including the availability of facilities at 
each airport or in the immediate area sufficient to protect the 
passengers and crew from the elements and to see to their welfare.
* * * * *
    17. Amend Sec.  121.99 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.99  Communications facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) For ETOPS where voice communication facilities are available, 
voice communications must be provided. The certificate holder must 
consider potential routes and altitudes necessary for diversion to 
ETOPS alternates in determining whether voice communication facilities 
are available. Where voice communication facilities are not available 
or is of poor quality, and voice communication is not possible, 
communications using alternative systems must be substituted.
    (d) For ETOPS beyond 180 minutes the certificate holder must have 
an additional communication system that is capable of providing 
immediate satellite based voice communications of landline telephone-
fidelity. The system must provide communication capability between the 
flight crew and air traffic services and the flight crew and the 
certificate holder. The certificate holder must consider potential 
routes and altitudes necessary for diversion to ETOPS alternates in 
determining whether immediate, satellite based voice communications are 
available. Where immediate, satellite based voice communications are 
not available, or are of poor quality, communications using alternative 
systems must be substituted.
    18. Add Sec.  121.106 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.106  ETOPS alternate: Rescue fire fighting service (RFFS).

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
following rescue fire fighting service must be available at each 
airport designated as an ETOPS alternate listed in a dispatch or flight 
release.
    (1) For ETOPS up to 180-minute diversion length, the designated 
ETOPS alternates must have rescue fire fighting capability equivalent 
to that specified by ICAO Category 4.
    (2) For Two-Engine 207-Minute operations the designated ETOPS 
Alternates must have rescue fire fighting capability equivalent to that 
specified by ICAO Category 4. In addition, at least one adequate 
airport within the 207-minute diversion time must have rescue fire 
fighting capability equivalent to that specified by ICAO Category 7.
    (3) For all other ETOPS operations beyond 180 minutes, the 
designated ETOPS alternates must have rescue fire fighting capability 
equivalent to that specified by ICAO Category 7.
    (b) If the equipment and personnel required in paragraph (a) are 
not immediately available at the airport, the airport may still be 
listed on the dispatch or flight release if the required RFFS 
capability can be augmented from the local fire fighting assets. Such 
equipment and personnel must be available on arrival of the diverting 
airplane and must remain as long as the diverting airplane requires the 
services. A 30-minute response time for augmentation by the local fire 
department is adequate if the initial notification to respond can be 
initiated while the diverting airplane is enroute.
    19. Add Sec.  121.122 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.122  Communications facilities.

    (a) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations must 
show that a two-way radio communication system or other means of 
communication approved by the Administrator is available at points that 
will ensure reliable and rapid communications, under normal operating 
conditions over the entire

[[Page 64792]]

route, (either direct or via approved point-to-point circuits) between 
each airplane and the certificate holder, and between each airplane and 
the appropriate air traffic services, except as specified in Sec.  
121.351(c).
    (b) For ETOPS where voice communication facilities are available, 
voice communications must be provided. The certificate holder must 
consider potential routes and altitudes necessary for diversion to 
ETOPS alternates in determining whether voice communication facilities 
are available. Where voice communication facilities are not available 
or is of poor quality, and voice communication is not possible, 
communications using alternative systems must be substituted.
    (c) For ETOPS beyond 180 minutes the certificate holder must have 
an additional communication system that is capable of providing 
immediate satellite based voice communications of landline telephone-
fidelity. The system must provide communication capability between the 
flight crew and air traffic services and the flight crew and the 
certificate holder. The certificate holder must consider potential 
routes and altitudes necessary for diversion to ETOPS alternates in 
determining whether immediate, satellite based voice communications are 
available. Where immediate, satellite based voice communications are 
not available, or are of poor quality, communications using alternative 
systems must be substituted.
    20. Amend Sec.  121.135(b) by:
    a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(10) through (b)(22) as paragraphs 
(b)(11) through (b)(23);
    b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(23) and (b)(24) as paragraphs 
(b)(25) and (b)(26); and
    c. Adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (b)(24) as follows:


Sec.  121.135  Contents.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) For ETOPS, airplane performance data to support all phases of 
these operations.
* * * * *
    (24) For flag and supplemental operations, a passenger recovery 
plan applicable to each approved en route alternate airport listed in 
the air carrier's operations specifications.
* * * * *
    21. Amend Sec.  121.161 by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.161  Airplane limitations: Type of route.

    (a) No certificate holder may operate a turbine engine powered 
airplane over a route that contains a point farther than 60 minutes 
flying time from an adequate airport for airplanes with two engines, or 
180 minutes flying time from an adequate airport for airplanes with 
more than two engines, (in still air at normal cruising speed with one 
engine inoperative) or within an area designated by the Administrator 
as an Area of ETOPS Applicability unless approved by the Administrator 
in accordance with Appendix O of this part. The polar areas are 
designated as areas of ETOPS applicability. ETOPS must be authorized in 
the certificate holder's operations specifications.
* * * * *
    (d) Unless authorized by the Administrator, based on the character 
of the terrain, the kind of operation or the performance of the 
airplane to be used, no certificate holder may operate a reciprocating 
engine powered airplane over a route that contains a point farther than 
60 minutes flying time (in still air at normal cruising speed with one 
engine inoperative) from an adequate airport.
    22. Add Sec.  121.374 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.374  ETOPS maintenance elements.

    Each certificate holder authorized to conduct ETOPS under Appendix 
O must have a maintenance program that includes the following:
    (a) Configuration, maintenance, and procedures (CMP) compliance. A 
system to ensure compliance with the minimum requirements set forth in 
the Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) for each airframe 
and engine combination, or the Type Design document for each airframe 
and engine combination. Any CMP changes necessary for continued safe 
ETOPS flights will be mandated through the Airworthiness Directive 
procedures pursuant to part 39 of this chapter.
    (b) Continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP). Develop 
and follow a continuous airworthiness maintenance program based on the 
manufacturers maintenance program or one currently approved for the 
operator and supplemented for ETOPS for each airframe and engine 
combination. The program must include the following:
    (1) ETOPS pre-departure service check. A check that must be 
accomplished immediately prior to an ETOPS flight and certified 
complete by an ETOPS qualified maintenance person.
    (2) Dual maintenance. (i) Procedures to preclude ETOPS dual 
maintenance.
    (ii) Procedures to use if ETOPS dual maintenance cannot be avoided.
    (3) Verification program. Procedures for corrective action to an 
ETOPS maintenance significant system.
    (4) Task identification. Identify ETOPS specific procedures or 
tasks that must be accomplished or verified by ETOPS qualified 
personnel.
    (5) Centralized maintenance control procedures. Establish and 
document procedures for centralized Maintenance Control related to 
ETOPS.
    (6) ETOPS program document. Develop a document for use by personnel 
involved in ETOPS. All ETOPS requirements, including supportive 
programs, procedures, duties and responsibilities, must be identified 
in this document and submitted for approval to the CHDO. This document 
is not required to be inclusive but must at least reference the 
maintenance programs and clearly define where they are located in the 
certificate holder's document system. Changes to the ETOPS document 
must be submitted to the CHDO and approved before such changes may be 
adopted.
    (7) ETOPS parts control. Develop an ETOPS parts control program to 
ensure the proper identification of parts to maintain the ETOPS 
configuration.
    (8) Reliability program. Develop an ETOPS reliability program, or 
supplement the existing reliability program. The program must be event-
oriented and incorporate reporting procedures for significant events 
detrimental to ETOPS flights.
    (i) In addition to the reporting requirements in Sec.  121.703, the 
following items must be reported within 72 hours to the CHDO:
    (A) In-flight shutdowns.
    (B) Diversions or turnback.
    (C) Uncommanded power changes or surges.
    (D) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power.
    (E) Problems with systems critical to ETOPS.
    (F) Any other event detrimental to ETOPS.
    (ii) The certificate holder must conduct an investigation into the 
cause of the occurrence of any event listed in Sec.  121.703 and 
paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this section in conjunction with manufacturers 
and submit findings and description of corrective action to the CHDO. 
The report must be submitted in the manner prescribed by Sec.  
121.703(e). The corrective action must be acceptable to the CHDO.
    (c) Propulsion system monitoring. (1) If the IFSD rate computed on 
a 12-month rolling average exceeds the following values, the 
certificate holder, in conjunction with the CHDO, must

[[Page 64793]]

investigate common cause effects or systemic errors.
    (i) Two engine airplanes:
    (A) 0.05/1,000 engine hours for ETOPS up to and including 120 
minutes;
    (B) 0.03/1,000 engine hours for ETOPS beyond 120 minutes up to and 
including 180 minutes, and 207 minutes in North Pacific; and
    (C) 0.02/1,000 engine hours for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, except 
for 207 minutes in North Pacific.
    (ii) For airplanes with more than two engines:
    (A) 0.2/1,000 engine hours for 3-engine ETOPS; and
    (B) 0.1/1,000 engine hours for 4-engine ETOPS.
    (2) The report of investigation and, if necessary, corrective 
action taken, must be submitted within 30 days through the CHDO to the 
Director of the Flight Standards Service for approval.
    (d) Engine condition monitoring. The certificate holder must 
establish and conduct an Engine Condition Monitoring program to detect 
deterioration, at an early stage, and to allow for corrective action 
before safe operation is affected.
    (1) This program must describe the parameters to be monitored, 
method of data collection, analysis, and corrective action process.
    (2) The program must ensure that engine limit margins are 
maintained so that a prolonged engine inoperative diversion may be 
conducted without exceeding approved engine limits (for example, rotor 
speeds, exhaust gas temperatures) at all approved power levels and 
expected environmental conditions.
    (e) Oil consumption monitoring. The certificate holder must 
establish and conduct an engine oil consumption monitoring program to 
ensure that there is enough oil to complete any ETOPS flight. The 
operator's consumption limit must not exceed the manufacturer's 
recommendations. The program must consider the amount of oil added at 
the departing ETOPS stations with reference to the running average 
consumption. The monitoring must be continuous up to and including oil 
added at the ETOPS departure station. The APU must be included if an 
APU is required for ETOPS.
    (f) APU in-flight start program. If APU in-flight start capability 
is required for ETOPS, the certificate holder must have a cold soak in-
flight APU start and run reliability program acceptable to the 
Administrator.
    (g) Maintenance training. The certificate holder must review the 
airplane and engine combination maintenance training program with the 
CHDO to ensure that it adequately supports ETOPS training requirements. 
The certificate holder must develop additional ETOPS specific training 
that focuses on the special nature of ETOPS and is required for all 
personnel involved in ETOPS. This training is in addition to the 
operator's accepted maintenance training program to qualify individuals 
for specific airplanes and engines.
    (h) Procedural changes. Any substantial changes to the maintenance 
or training procedures established to qualify for ETOPS must be 
submitted to the CHDO and approved before they may be adopted.
    23. Amend Sec.  121.415 by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.415  Crewmember and dispatcher training requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Training for crewmembers and dispatchers in their roles and 
responsibilities in the certificate holder's passenger recovery plan.
* * * * *
    24. Amend Sec.  121.565 by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.565  Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever 
an engine of an airplane fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to 
prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane 
at the nearest suitable airport in point of time at which a safe 
landing can be made.
* * * * *
    25. Add Sec.  121.624 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.624  ETOPS alternates.

    (a) No person may dispatch an airplane for ETOPS unless the ETOPS 
Alternates listed in the dispatch or flight release are located such 
that the airplane remains within the authorized ETOPS maximum diversion 
time under which the flight is to be dispatched. The certificate holder 
must consider all adequate airports within the diversion limits of the 
operation that meet the standards of this part. Each required ETOPS 
Alternate must be listed in the dispatch or flight release.
    (b) No person may list an airport as an ETOPS Alternate in the 
dispatch or flight release unless the appropriate weather reports or 
forecasts or any combination thereof indicating that weather conditions 
are at or above ETOPS Alternate minima specified in the certificate 
holder's operations specifications and with field condition reports 
indicating that a safe landing can be accomplished at the time of the 
intended operation (from the earliest to the latest time of landing at 
that airport). Once a flight is enroute, the ETOPS Alternates must meet 
the requirements of Sec.  121.631(c).
    (c) No person may list an airport as an ETOPS Alternate in the 
dispatch or flight release unless that airport meets the requirements 
of this part.
    (d) No person may list an airport as an ETOPS Alternate in the 
dispatch or flight release unless that airport meets the public 
protection requirements of Sec.  121.97(b)(1)(ii).
    26. Revise Sec.  121.625 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.625  Alternate airport weather minimums.

    Except as required by Sec.  121.624, no person may list an airport 
as an alternate in the dispatch or flight release unless the 
appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof 
indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the alternate 
weather minimums specified in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications for that airport when the flight arrives.
    27. Amend Sec.  121.631 by redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as 
paragraphs (e) and (f), respectively, and adding new paragraphs (c) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.631  Original dispatch or flight release, redispatch or 
amendment of dispatch or flight release.

* * * * *
    (c) For ETOPS, in addition to paragraph (b) of this section, no 
person may allow a flight to continue beyond the ETOPS Entry Point 
unless the weather conditions at required ETOPS Alternates specified in 
the dispatch or flight release are reviewed and forecast to be at or 
above the operating minimums specified in the operations specifications 
for that airport during the period in which that airport may be 
expected to be used (from the earliest to the latest time of landing at 
that airport). Such a review must include all ETOPS Alternates within 
the dispatch diversion time of the planned routing and advice to the 
flight crew of any changes that have occurred since dispatch. However, 
the dispatch or flight release may be amended en route to add any ETOPS 
Alternate with weather above operating minima and that is within the 
maximum ETOPS diversion time that could be authorized for that flight.
    (d) The pilot in command for supplemental operators, or a 
dispatcher for flag operators must, prior to the ETOPS Entry Point, use 
company communications to update any revised flight plan if required as 
a result of

[[Page 64794]]

re-evaluation of aircraft system capabilities.
    28. Add Sec.  121.633 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.633  ETOPS: Time limited system planning.

    (a) For ETOPS up to and including 180 minutes, the time required to 
fly the distance to the planned ETOPS Alternate or Alternates, at the 
approved one engine inoperative cruise speed, in still air and standard 
day temperature, may not exceed the time specified in the Airplane 
Flight Manual for the airplanes most time limited system time minus 15 
minutes.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, the time required to fly the distance to 
the planned ETOPS Alternate or Alternates, at the all engines operating 
cruise speed, correcting for wind and temperature, may not exceed the 
time specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane's cargo 
fire suppression system time minus 15 minutes.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, 
for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, the time required to fly the distance to 
the planned ETOPS Alternate or Alternates, at the approved one engine 
inoperative cruise speed, correcting for wind and temperature, may not 
exceed the time specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the 
airplanes most time limited system time (except for cargo fire 
suppression) minus 15 minutes.
    (d) Three and four-engine turbine powered airplanes not meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section as of the effective date 
of this regulation may continue ETOPS operations for a period not to 
exceed 6 years from the effective date of this regulation.
    29. Add Sec.  121.646 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.646  En route fuel supply: flag and supplemental operations.

    (a) No person may dispatch or release for flight or takeoff a 
turbine engine powered airplane with more than two engines more than 90 
minutes (with all engines operating at cruising power) and less than 
180 minutes (at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed) from 
an adequate airport unless, considering wind and other weather 
conditions (including icing), it has enough fuel, assuming a rapid 
decompression at the most critical point followed by descent to a safe 
altitude in compliance with the oxygen supply requirements of Sec.  
121.333, to fly to an adequate airport and conduct a normal approach 
and landing with enough fuel remaining to hold for 15 minutes at 1500 
feet above field elevation.
    (b) No person may dispatch or release for flight or takeoff a 
turbine powered airplane in ETOPS unless, considering wind and other 
weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel to satisfy the 
following requirements (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section:
    (1) Greater of:
    (i) Fuel sufficient to fly to an ETOPS Alternate assuming a rapid 
decompression at the most critical point followed by descent to a safe 
altitude in compliance with the oxygen supply requirements of Sec.  
121.333, or
    (ii) Fuel sufficient to fly to an ETOPS Alternate at the approved 
one engine inoperative cruise speed assuming a rapid decompression and 
a simultaneous engine failure at the most critical point followed by 
descent to a safe altitude in compliance with the oxygen supply 
requirements of Sec.  121.333, or
    (iii) Fuel sufficient to fly to an ETOPS Alternate at the approved 
one engine inoperative cruise speed assuming an engine failure at the 
most critical point followed by descent to the one engine inoperative 
cruise altitude.
    (2) Upon reaching the alternate hold at 1500 feet above field 
elevation for 15 minutes and then conduct an instrument approach and 
land.
    (3) Add a 5% wind speed factor (i.e., an increment to headwind or a 
decrement to tailwind) on the actual forecast wind used to calculate 
fuel in paragraph (b)(1)(i) above to account for any potential errors 
in wind forecasting. If a certificate holder is not using the actual 
forecast wind based on wind model acceptable to the FAA, allow 5% of 
the fuel required for paragraph (b)(1)(i) above, as reserve fuel to 
allow for errors in wind data.
    (4) Compensate in paragraph (b)(1)(i) above for the greater of:
    (A) The effect of airframe icing during 10 percent of the time 
during which icing is forecast (including the fuel used by engine and 
wing anti-ice during this period), or
    (B) Fuel for engine anti-ice, and if appropriate wing anti-ice for 
the entire time during which icing is forecast.
    (C) Unless the certificate holder has a program established to 
monitor airplane in-service deterioration in cruise fuel burn 
performance and includes in fuel supply calculations fuel sufficient to 
compensate for any such deterioration, increase the fuel supply by 5% 
to account for deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance.
    (D) If an APU is a required power source, then its fuel consumption 
must be accounted for during the appropriate phases of flight.
    30. Amend Sec.  121.687 by adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.687  Dispatch release: Flag and domestic operations.

    (a) * * *
    (6) For each flight dispatched as an ETOPS flight, the ETOPS time 
basis (if any) under which the flight is dispatched.
* * * * *
    31. Amend Sec.  121.689 by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.689  Flight release form: Supplemental operations.

    (a) * * *
    (8) For each flight released as an ETOPS flight, the ETOPS time 
basis (if any) under which the flight is released.
* * * * *
    32. Add appendix O to read as follows:

Appendix O to Part 121--Requirements for ETOPS

    The Administrator may approve ETOPS for various areas of 
operation in accordance with the requirements and limitations 
specified in this appendix.

A. ETOPS Authorizations: Airplanes with Two engines

    (a) 75 Minutes ETOPS-- (1) Caribbean/Western Atlantic Area. 
Approvals may be granted to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion 
times up to 75 minutes on Western Atlantic/Caribbean area routes. 
The airframe and engine combination shall be reviewed by the 
Administrator to ensure the absence of factors that could prevent 
safe operations. The airframe and engine combination need not be 
approved for ETOPS; however, it must have sufficient favorable 
experience to demonstrate a level of reliability appropriate for 75-
minute ETOPS. These operations must comply with the requirements of 
section 121.633. The certificate holder must employ an FAA approved 
maintenance program that specifically addresses factors significant 
to 75-minute ETOPS operations except that a service check before 
departure of the return flight may not be required.
    (2) Other Areas. Approvals may be granted to conduct ETOPS 
operations with maximum diversion times up to 75 minutes on other 
than Western Atlantic/Caribbean area routes. The airframe and engine 
combination shall be reviewed by the Administrator to ensure the 
absence of factors that could prevent safe operations. The airframe 
and engine combination need not be approved for ETOPS; however it 
must have sufficient favorable experience to demonstrate a level of 
reliability appropriate for 75-minute ETOPS. These operations must 
comply with the requirements of section 121.633. The certificate 
holder must employ an FAA approved operations and maintenance 
program that specifically addresses factors significant to 75-minute 
ETOPS operations.
    (b) 90-minutes ETOPS (Micronesia). Approvals may be granted to 
conduct ETOPS

[[Page 64795]]

with maximum diversion times up to 90 minutes on Micronesian area 
routes. For such operations the airframe and engine combination must 
be type design approved for a minimum of 120 minute ETOPS. The 
certificate holder must employ an FAA approved operations and 
maintenance program that specifically addresses factors significant 
to 120 minute ETOPS, except that a service check before departure of 
the return flight may not be required. Minimum equipment list 
requirements for 120 minute extended range (``ER'') operations apply 
to such operations.
    (c) 120 minutes. Approvals may be granted to conduct ETOPS with 
maximum diversion times up to 120 minutes. For such operations the 
airframe/engine combination must be type design approved for a 
minimum of 120 minute ETOPS. The certificate holder must employ an 
FAA approved operations and maintenance program that specifically 
addresses factors significant to 120 minute ETOPS. Minimum equipment 
list requirements for 120 minute extended range (``ER'') operations 
apply to such operations.
    (d) 138 Minutes. 138-minute ETOPS must be operated under one of 
the following:
    (1) Extension of 120-minute ETOPS authority. Approvals may be 
granted to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 138 
minutes. This authority is deemed to be an extension of already 
existing 120-minute ETOPS authority, and may only be exercised on a 
flight-by-flight exception basis. For such operations the airframe-
engine combination must be type design approved for a minimum of 120 
minute ETOPS. In addition, airplane time-limited system capability 
may not be less than the authorized 138-minute diversion time in 
still air conditions at the approved one engine inoperative cruise 
speed plus a 15-minute allowance for holding, approach and landing. 
The certificate holder must employ an FAA approved operations and 
maintenance program that specifically addresses factors significant 
to 138-minute ETOPS. Operators with 120-minute ETOPS authority but 
no 180-minute authority may apply to AFS-200 through their 
certificate holding district office (CHDO) for a modified MEL which 
satisfies the MMEL policy for system/component relief in ETOPS 
beyond 120 minutes. The certificate holder shall submit for FAA 
approval a summary of revisions to training curricula for 
maintenance, dispatch and flight crew personnel which identifies 
differences between 138-minute ETOPS diversion authority and its 
previously approved 120-minute ETOPS diversion authority.
    (2) Use of existing 180-minute ETOPS approval. Approvals may be 
granted to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 138 
minutes to certificate holders with existing 180 minute ETOPS 
approval. This authority may be exercised on an unlimited basis. For 
such operations the airframe/engine combination must be type design 
approved for a minimum of 180-minute ETOPS. The certificate holder 
must employ an FAA approved operations and maintenance program that 
specifically addresses factors significant to 138-minute ETOPS. 
Approved minimum equipment list provisions for ``beyond 120 minutes 
ETOPS'' apply to these operations. The certificate holder shall 
submit for FAA approval a summary of revisions to training curricula 
for maintenance, dispatch and flight crew personnel which identifies 
differences between 138-minute ETOPS diversion authority and its 
previously approved 180-minute ETOPS diversion authority.
    (e) 180 minutes. Approvals may be granted to conduct ETOPS with 
maximum diversion times up to 180 minutes. For such operations the 
airframe and engine combination must be type design approved for a 
minimum of 180-minute ETOPS. The certificate holder must employ an 
FAA approved operations and maintenance program that specifically 
addresses factors significant to 180-minute ETOPS operations. 
Minimum equipment list provisions for ``beyond 120 minutes ETOPS'' 
apply to these operations.
    (f) Greater than 180 minutes.
    Approvals may be granted to certificate holders with previous 
ETOPS experience to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times 
exceeding 180 minutes as specified in paragraphs (g) through (j) of 
this appendix. Approvals may be granted only to certificate holders 
with existing 180 minutes ETOPS approval on the airframe/engine 
combination listed in their application. In conducting all such 
operations, operators must make every attempt to minimize diversion 
time along the preferred track and plan ETOPS at maximum diversion 
distances of 180 minutes or less. If conditions prevent the use of 
adequate airports within 180 minutes as ETOPS Alternates, the route 
may be flown beyond 180 minutes authority subject to the 
requirements provided for the specific area of operations. In 
addition to the MEL limitations for 180 minute ETOPS, the following 
systems must be operational for dispatch:
    (1) Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS),
    (2) APU (including electrical and pneumatic supply to its 
designed capability),
    (3) auto throttle system,
    (4) the communication system required by section 121.99(d) or 
121.122(c), as applicable, and
    (5) one engine inoperative auto land capability, if flight 
planning is predicated on its use.
    Operators must inform the flight crew any time an aircraft is 
proposed for dispatch under this authority and make available the 
dispatch considerations requiring such operations.
    (g) North Pacific.
    On flight by flight exception basis, tracked by the certificate 
holder, when an ETOPS Alternate is not available within 180 minutes 
in the North Pacific area of operation, the nearest available ETOPS 
Alternate must be specified within 207 minutes maximum diversion 
time. In conducting such operations the operator must give Air 
Traffic Services preferred track, if available, the first 
consideration. Application of this exception must be limited to 
circumstances such as political or military concern, volcanic 
activity, airport weather below dispatch requirements, temporary 
airport conditions and other weather related events. For such 
operations, the airframe and engine combination must be type design 
approved for a minimum of 180-minute ETOPS. The time required to fly 
the distance to the planned ETOPS Alternate or alternates, at the 
approved one engine inoperative cruise speed, in still air and 
standard day temperature, may not exceed the time specified in the 
Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane's most time limited system 
time minus 15 minutes.
    (h) Polar Area (North Pole) and North of NOPAC.
    On a flight by flight exception basis, tracked by the 
certificate holder, when an ETOPS alternate is not available within 
180 minutes in the Polar Area (North Pole) or north of the North 
Pacific Area of Operations, the nearest available ETOPS Alternate 
must be specified within 240 minutes maximum diversion time. 
Application of this exception shall be limited to circumstances 
related to the weather extremes particular to this area of the world 
such as volcanic activity, extreme cold weather at en route 
airports, airport weather below dispatch requirements, temporary 
airport conditions and other weather related events. The criteria 
used by the certificate holder to make determinations that extreme 
weather precludes the use of an airport must be established by the 
certificate holder and accepted by the FAA and published in the 
certificate holder's manual for the use of dispatchers and pilots. 
For such operations, the airframe/engine combination must be type 
design approved for a minimum of 240-minute ETOPS as specified in 
the Configuration Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) Standard for such 
operations. For such operations, the requirements in paragraph C, 
Polar Area (North & South Pole) and ETOPS beyond 180 minutes North 
of the NOPAC area, of this appendix apply.
    (i) 240 minutes Area of Operations.
    Approvals may be granted to certificate holders with previous 
ETOPS experience and existing 180-minute ETOPS approval for the 
airframe engine combination listed in their application to conduct 
ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 240 minutes on routes in 
the Pacific oceanic areas between the U.S. west coast and Australia, 
New Zealand and Polynesia; south Atlantic oceanic areas; Indian 
Oceanic areas; oceanic areas between Australia and South America. 
The operator must designate the nearest available ETOPS Alternate or 
Alternates along the planned route of flight. For such operations, 
the airframe and engine combination must be type design approved for 
a minimum of 240 minute ETOPS. All requirements specified in the 
Configuration Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) Standard for 240 
minute ETOPS are applicable to such operations.
    (j) Beyond 240 minutes Area of Operations.
    Approvals may be granted, to certificate holders who have been 
operating in accordance with 180 minute or greater ETOPS for 24 
consecutive months, of which at least 12 consecutive months shall be 
at 240 minute ETOPS on the airframe/engine combination for which the 
authority is requested, to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion 
times beyond 240 minutes between city pairs on routes in the Pacific 
oceanic areas between the U.S. west coast and

[[Page 64796]]

Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia; south Atlantic oceanic areas; 
Indian Oceanic areas; oceanic areas between Australia and South 
America, and South Pole area. The operator must designate the 
nearest available ETOPS alternate(s) along the planned route of 
flight. For such operations, the airframe and engine combination 
must be type design approved for at least the maximum authorized 
ETOPS diversion time necessary for that operation. All requirements 
specified in the Configuration Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) 
Standard for beyond 240 minute ETOPS are applicable to such 
operations.

B. ETOPS Authorizations: Airplanes with more than two engines

    Approvals may be granted to conduct ETOPS on a routine basis 
with maximum diversion times up to 240 minutes in any area of 
operations. For all such operations, the nearest available ETOPS 
Alternate within 240 minutes diversion time (in still air at one 
engine inoperative speed) must be specified. If an ETOPS Alternate 
is not available within 240 minutes, the nearest alternate ETOPS 
alternate must be specified. In either case the operator must 
designate the nearest available ETOPS Alternate(s) along the planned 
route of flight. On all such operations, MEL limitations for ETOPS 
apply and in addition, the Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) 
and the communications requirements of Sec.  121.99(d) or Sec.  
121.122(c) must be operational. For company communications on such 
operations, operators must use the system required by Sec.  
121.99(d). For such operations, the airframe and engine combination 
must be type design approved for the maximum authorized ETOPS 
diversion time.

C. Polar Area (North & South Pole) and ETOPS Beyond 180 Minutes 
North of the NOPAC Area

    Approvals may be granted to conduct any operations within these 
areas. To obtain such approvals, in addition to the requirements in 
paragraphs (A) and (B) of this appendix, the operator must consider 
airport requirements for ETOPS Alternates, airline recovery plan for 
passengers at diversion alternates, fuel freeze strategy and 
monitoring, communication capability, Minimum Equipment List 
considerations, airline training issues specific to polar 
operations, long range crew requirements, dispatch and crew 
considerations during solar flare activity, special equipment 
requirements, and validation requirements for area approval in a 
manner acceptable to the Administrator.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS; COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATION 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

    34. Add Sec.  135.98 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.98  Polar operations.

    Except for intrastate operations within the State of Alaska, no 
person may operate an aircraft in the region north of N 78[deg] 00', 
designated as Polar, unless authorized by the Administrator and unless 
the certificate holder's operation specifications address the following 
items:
    (a) Designation and requirements for airports that may be used for 
enroute diversions.
    (b) Recovery plan for passengers at diversion alternates.
    (c) Fuel freeze strategy and monitoring requirements for Polar 
operations.
    (d) Communication capability for Polar operations.
    (e) MEL considerations for Polar operations.
    (f) Training issues for Polar operations.
    (g) Crew considerations during solar flare activity.
    (h) Special equipment for Polar operations
    35. Amend Sec.  135.345 by removing the word ``and'' from the end 
of (a)(7), redesignating paragraph (a)(8) as (a)(10), and by adding new 
paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.345  Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground 
training.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (8) ETOPS, if applicable;
    (9) Passenger Recovery for ETOPS, if applicable; and
* * * * *
    36. Add Sec.  135.364 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.364  Multi-engine airplane limitations: Maximum distance from 
an airport.

    Unless approved by the Administrator in accordance with Appendix H 
of this part (Extended Operations (ETOPS)), no certificate holder may 
operate an airplane outside the continental U.S. unless the planned 
route for that airplane remains within 180 minutes flying time (in 
still air at normal cruise speed with one engine inoperative) from an 
airport meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.385, 135.387, 
135.393 or 135.395, as applicable, and Sec. Sec.  135.219 or 135.221 as 
applicable.
    37. Amend Sec.  135.411 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.411  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) A certificate holder performing Extended Operations must comply 
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and the additional requirements 
of Appendix H of this part.
    38. Add appendix H to read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 135--Extended Operations (ETOPS)

    The Administrator may approve ETOPS for various areas of 
operation in accordance with the requirements and limitations 
specified in this appendix

(A) Definitions

    (1) ETOPS: Extended operations.
    ETOPS is an operation authorized under part 135 for flights 
beyond 180 minutes flying time (in still air at normal cruise speed 
with one engine inoperative) from an airport meeting the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.385, 135.387, 135.393 or 135.395, as 
applicable, and Sec. Sec.  135.219 or 135.221 as applicable. 
However, ETOPS flights must be planned so as to remain within 240 
minutes flying time (in still air with one engine inoperative) from 
an airport meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.385, 135.387, 
135.393 or 135.395, as applicable, and Sec. Sec.  135.219 or 135.221 
as applicable.
    (2) ETOPS dual maintenance.
    Maintenance actions performed on the same element of identical, 
but separate ETOPS maintenance significant systems, during the same 
routine or non-routine visit. This is to recognize and preclude 
common cause human failure modes without proper verification process 
or operation test prior to ETOPS.

(B) Certificate Holder Experience Prior to Conducting ETOPS

    (1) Prior to applying for authorization to conduct ETOPS, the 
certificate holder must have at least 12 months operating experience 
with a type of transport category turbine-engine powered airplane 
conducting international operations (excluding Canada and Mexico). 
For the purpose of this subparagraph, operations to or from the 
State of Hawaii may be considered as experience in international 
operations.
    (2) Certificate holders granted authority to operate under part 
135 or part 121 before [insert date final rule is effective] may 
credit up to 6 months of domestic operating experience (including 
Canada and Mexico) in a transport category turbojet airplane as part 
of the required 12 months of international experience.
    (3) A certificate holder's previous ETOPS experience with other 
aircraft types may be considered by the Administrator as meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (B)(1) in whole or in part.

(C) Airplane Requirements

    (1) No person may conduct ETOPS in a multi-engine airplane that 
was added to the certificate holder's U.S. operations specifications 
after [insert date that is eight years after the effective date of 
this final rule] unless the airplane is certificated to Sec.  
25.1535.
    (2) No person may conduct ETOPS in a multi-engine airplane that 
was added to the certificate holder's U.S. operations specifications 
on or before [insert date that is eight years after the effective 
date of this final rule] unless the airplane has the following 
systems capability acceptable to the Administrator:
    (a) Electrical System. Three or more independent electrical 
power sources must

[[Page 64797]]

be available, each of which must be capable of providing power for 
all of the equipment required by this part for the duration of any 
diversion.
    (b) Fuel System. The fuel supply system must be able to provide 
sufficient fuel for the duration of any diversion following any 
single failure of fuel system components.

(D) Certificate Holder Requirements

    (1) No certificate holder may operate an airplane in accordance 
with ETOPS unless the planned route for that airplane remains within 
240 minutes flying time (in still air and one engine inoperative) 
from an airport meeting the requirements of Sec.  135.385, Sec.  
135.387, Sec.  135.393 or Sec.  135.395, as applicable, and Sec.  
135.219 or Sec.  135.221 as applicable.
    (2) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  135.83, Sec.  
135.225 and Sec.  135.229 the certificate holder will ensure flight 
crews have in-flight access to current weather and operational 
information on all enroute alternate, destination and destination 
alternate airports proposed for each ETOPS flight.

(E) Operational Requirements

    (1) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue beyond 
the ETOPS entry point unless the weather and operating conditions at 
the required enroute alternate airports are reviewed and expected to 
be at or above the operating minimums specified in the operations 
specifications during the period in which that airport may be 
expected to be used based on expected estimated times of arrival at 
that airport. The planned route of flight may be amended while en 
route to allow use of additional enroute alternate airports provided 
weather is forecast to be at or above operating minima and the 
airport is within the maximum ETOPS diversion time.
    (2) Pilots shall plan and conduct ETOPS under instrument flight 
rules.
    (3) Time Limited Systems.
    (a) For ETOPS, the time required to fly the distance to the 
planned ETOPS alternate or alternates, at the all engines operating 
cruise speed, correcting for wind and temperature, may not exceed 
the time specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane's 
cargo fire suppression system time (if installed), minus 15 minutes.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) above, the time required 
to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS Alternate or Alternates, at 
the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed, correcting for 
wind and temperature, may not exceed the time specified in the 
Airplane Flight Manual for the airplanes most time limited system 
time (except for cargo fire suppression) minus 15 minutes.
    (c) Certificate holders operating turbine-engine powered 
airplanes that, on the effective date of this regulation, lack the 
airplane flight manual information required by paragraphs a and b 
above, may continue ETOPS operations for a period not to exceed the 
date that occurs eight years following the effective date of this 
rule.

(F) Communications Requirements

    (1) No person may conduct an ETOPS flight unless the following 
communications equipment, appropriate to the route to be flown, is 
installed and operational:
    (a) Two independent communication transmitters (at least one 
must allow voice communication).
    (b) Two independent communication receivers (at least one must 
allow voice communication).
    (c) Two headsets, or one headset and one speaker.
    (2) In areas where voice communication facilities are not 
available, or voice communication is not possible or is of poor 
quality, communications using alternative systems may be 
substituted.

(G) Fuel Planning Requirements

    1. No person may take off a flight for operations in ETOPS 
unless the fuel carried on board is the greater of:
    a. Fuel required under Sec.  135.223, or
    b. Considering forecast wind and other weather conditions, the 
airplane carries sufficient fuel to complete the flight under the 
following conditions:
    (i) Greater of:
    (a) Fuel sufficient to fly to a ETOPS enroute alternate airport 
assuming a rapid decompression at the most critical point followed 
by descent to a safe altitude in compliance with the oxygen supply 
requirements of Sec.  135.157; or
    (b) Fuel sufficient to fly to a ETOPS enroute alternate airport 
at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed assuming a rapid 
decompression and a simultaneous engine failure at the most critical 
point followed by descent to a safe altitude in compliance with the 
oxygen supply requirements of Sec.  135.157; or
    (c) Fuel sufficient to fly to a ETOPS enroute alternate airport 
at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed assuming an 
engine failure at the most critical point followed by descent to the 
one engine inoperative cruise altitude.
    (ii) Upon reaching the enroute alternate airport, hold at 1500 
ft. above field elevation for 15 minutes and then conduct an 
instrument approach and land.
    (iii) Add a 5% wind speed factor (i.e., an increment to headwind 
or a decrement to tailwind) on the actual forecast wind used to 
calculate fuel in paragragh b.(i) of this appendix to account for 
any potential errors in wind forecasting. If a certificate holder is 
not using the actual forecast wind based on wind model acceptable to 
the FAA, allow 5% of the fuel required for a above, as reserve fuel 
to allow for errors in wind data.
    (iv) Compensate in paragraph b.(i) above for the greater of:
    (A) The effect of airframe icing during 10 percent of the time 
during which icing is forecast, or
    (B) Fuel for engine anti-ice, and if appropriate wing anti-ice 
for the time during which icing is forecast,
    2. Unless the certificate holder has a program established to 
monitor airplane in-service deterioration of cruise fuel burn 
performance and includes in fuel supply calculations fuel sufficient 
to compensate for any such deterioration, increase the fuel supply 
by 5 percent to account for deterioration in cruise fuel burn 
performance.
    3. If the APU is a power source required by this appendix, then 
its fuel consumption must be accounted for.

(H) Maintenance Program Requirements

    Each certificate holder authorized to conduct ETOPS under 
section 135.364 must have a maintenance program that includes the 
following:
    (a) Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) compliance.
    A system to ensure compliance with the minimum requirements set 
forth in the Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) for 
each airframe and engine combination, or the Type Design document 
for each airframe and engine combination.
    (b) Continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP).
    Develop and follow a continuous airworthiness maintenance 
program based on the manufacturers maintenance program or one 
currently approved for the operator and supplemented for ETOPS for 
each airframe and engine combination. The program must include the 
following:
    (1) ETOPS pre-departure service check. A check that must be 
accomplished immediately prior to an ETOPS flight and certified 
complete by an ETOPS qualified maintenance person
    (2) Dual maintenance.
    (a) Procedures to preclude ETOPS dual maintenance.
    (b) Procedures to use if ETOPS dual maintenance cannot be 
avoided.
    (3) Verification program. Procedures for corrective action to an 
ETOPS maintenance significant system.
    (4) Task identification. Identify ETOPS specific procedures or 
tasks that must be accomplished or verified by ETOPS qualified 
personnel.
    (5) Centralized maintenance control procedures. Establish and 
document procedures for centralized Maintenance Control related to 
ETOPS.
    (6) ETOPS program document. Develop a document for use by 
personnel involved in ETOPS. All ETOPS requirements, including 
supportive programs, procedures, duties and responsibilities, must 
be identified in this document and submitted for approval to the 
CHDO. This document is not required to be inclusive but must at 
least reference the maintenance programs and clearly define where 
they are located in the certificate holder's document system. 
Changes to the ETOPS document must be submitted to the CHDO and 
approved before such changes may be adopted.
    (7) ETOPS parts control. Develop an ETOPS parts control program 
to ensure the proper identification of parts to maintain the ETOPS 
configuration.
    (8) Enhanced Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) 
program. The certificate holder must include the ETOPS program 
elements in the certificate holder's CASS program. The program must 
incorporate reporting procedures for significant events detrimental 
to ETOPS flights.
    (a) In addition to the reporting requirements in Sec.  135.415 
and Sec.  135.417, the following items must be reported within 72 
hours to the CHDO.

[[Page 64798]]

    (1) In-flight shutdowns.
    (2) Uncommanded power changes or surges.
    (3) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power.
    (4) Problems with systems critical to ETOPS.
    (5) Any other event detrimental to ETOPS.
    (b) The certificate holder must conduct an investigation into 
the cause of the occurrence of any event listed in Sec.  135.415, 
Sec.  135.417, or paragraph (8)(a) above in conjunction with 
manufacturers and submit findings and corrective action to the CHDO. 
The report must be submitted in the manner prescribed by section 
135.415(e). If the CHDO determines that additional corrective action 
is necessary, the certificate holder must implement the corrective 
action.
    (c) Propulsion system monitoring.
    The certificate holder, in conjunction with the CHDO, must
    (1) establish criteria as to what action is to be taken when 
adverse trends in propulsion system conditions are detected and
    (2) investigate common cause effects or systemic errors and 
submit the findings to the CHDO within 30 days.
    (d) Engine condition monitoring.
    The certificate holder must establish an Engine Condition 
Monitoring program to detect deterioration at an early stage to 
allow for corrective action before safe operation is affected.
    (1) This program must describe the parameters to be monitored, 
method of data collection and corrective action process.
    (2) The program must ensure that engine limit margins are 
maintained so that a prolonged engine inoperative diversion may be 
conducted without exceeding approved engine limits (for example, 
rotor speeds, exhaust gas temperatures) at all approved power levels 
and expected environmental conditions.
    (e) Oil consumption monitoring.
    The certificate holder must establish an engine oil consumption 
monitoring program to ensure that there is enough oil to complete 
any ETOPS flight. The operator's consumption limit must not exceed 
the manufacturer's recommendations. The program must consider the 
amount of oil added at the departing ETOPS stations with reference 
to the running average consumption. The monitoring must be 
continuous up to and including oil added at the ETOPS departure 
station. The APU must be included if an APU is required for ETOPS.
    (f) APU in-flight start program.
    If APU in-flight start capability is required for ETOPS, the 
certificate holder must have a cold soak in-flight APU start and run 
reliability program acceptable to the Administrator.
    (g) Maintenance training.
    The certificate holder must review the airplane and engine 
combination maintenance training program with the CHDO to ensure 
that it adequately supports ETOPS training requirements. The 
certificate holder must develop additional ETOPS specific training 
that focuses on the special nature of ETOPS and is required for all 
personnel involved in ETOPS. This training is in addition to the 
operator's accepted maintenance training program to qualify 
individuals for specific airplanes and engines.
    (h) Procedural changes.
    Any substantial changes to the maintenance or training 
procedures established to qualify for ETOPS must be submitted to the 
CHDO and approved before they may be adopted.
    (i) Reporting.
    For each airplane authorized to conduct ETOPS, the certificate 
holder shall report on a quarterly basis operating hours and cycles 
for each engine and airframe to the CHDO and to the airplane and 
engine manufacturer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2003.
James Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 03-28407 Filed 11-10-03; 2:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P