[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40168-40177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13669]



[[Page 40168]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 129

[Docket No. FAA-2004-17681; Amendment No. 91-283, 121-305, 125-46, 129-
39]
RIN 2120-AI20


Fuel Tank Safety Compliance Extension (Final Rule) and Aging 
Airplane Program Update (Request for Comments)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2004, the FAA extended the date for operators to 
comply with the special maintenance program requirements for transport 
airplane fuel tank systems from December 6, 2004 to December 16, 2008. 
That final rule also included an overview of the findings of the FAA's 
review of our Aging Airplane Program and the rulemaking actions we plan 
as part of that program. As part of the final rule, the FAA sought 
comments on both the fuel tank safety compliance extension and the 
Aging Airplane Program update. This action is a summary and disposition 
of those comments received.

ADDRESSES: You can view the complete document for the final rule by 
going to http://dms.dot.gov. You can also go 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: For the Fuel Tank Safety Compliance 
Extension: Mario L. Giordano, FAA, Aircraft Maintenance Division, 
Flight Standards Service, AFS-300, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington DC 20591; telephone: (412) 262-9034 (x241); fax: (412) 264-
9302, e-mail: [email protected]. All other subjects: Dionne Krebs, 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 
ANM-110, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; 
telephone: (425) 227-2250; fax: (425) 227-1320; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

General

    The FAA developed the Aging Airplane Program to address structural 
and non-structural system safety issues that may arise as airplanes age 
and in response to:
     Airplanes being operated beyond their original design 
service goals;
     The 1988 Aloha B737 accident; and
     The Aging Airplane Safety Act of 1991.
    For purposes of the FAA's review of the Aging Airplane Program, the 
term ``Aging Airplane Program'' consists of the following rulemaking 
projects:
    (1) The Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems;
    (2) The Aging Airplane Safety Rule;
    (3) The Widespread Fatigue Damage Program; and
    (4) The Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.
    In addition, the FAA also reviewed the operational rules of the 
Fuel Tank System Safety Rule (Final Rule), which was issued on April 
19, 2001 in response to certain fuel tank system failures, including 
the 1996 TWA Flight 800 B747 accident. Since there are interactions 
between the operational rules of the Fuel Tank System Safety Rule and 
those Aging Airplane Programs being reviewed, we included it in the 
overall review of the Aging Airplane Program. Therefore, for purposes 
of the FAA's review of the Aging Airplane Program, the term ``Aging 
Airplane Program'' includes the Fuel Tank System Safety Rule.

Aging Airplane Program Update

    The FAA recently performed a comprehensive review of the Aging 
Airplane Program. Based on this review, we decided that:
    (1) We need to realign certain compliance dates in the existing 
rules and pending proposals to be more consistent; and
    (2) We need to make certain substantive changes to the focus and 
direction of some of the individual rulemaking projects to ensure that 
these projects work together.
    Therefore, the FAA has decided to revise the Aging Airplane Program 
accordingly and to align the compliance schedules as nearly as 
possible. You can find a detailed discussion about our review of the 
Aging Airplane Program and our conclusions for each of the programs 
within the Aging Airplane Program in that final rule entitled, ``Fuel 
Tank Safety Compliance Extension (Final Rule) and Aging Airplane 
Program Update (Request for Comments)'' (69 FR 45936, July 30, 2004).
    Since the publication of Fuel Tank Safety Compliance Extension and 
Aging Airplane Program Update, the FAA has completed the following 
actions with regard to the Aging Airplane Program:
    (1) On August 10, 2004, we issued a withdrawal notice for the 
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
    (2) On October 6, 2004, we issued Policy Statement ANM112-05-00 for 
SFAR 88 (SFAR 88 Policy Statement); and
    (3) On January 25, 2005, we issued the Aging Airplane Safety Rule 
(Final Rule).

Fuel Tank Safety Compliance Extension

    During the Aging Airplane Program review, the FAA recognized that 
the Fuel Tank Safety Rule's compliance date of December 6, 2004 was a 
problem. The operators needed to start immediate action to meet the 
Fuel Tank System Safety Rule's requirements by this date but could not 
do so for several reasons (which we discuss in the Fuel Tank Safety 
Compliance Extension and Aging Airplane Program Update (Final Rule)). 
We took action to correct this by extending the compliance date from 
December 6, 2004 to December 16, 2008 in the Final Rule.

Discussion of Comments

    The docket received eleven comments in response to the Final Rule. 
Air Transport Association filed two separate comments. In addition, 
Airbus filed one comment and another comment is an FAA summary of 
telephone conversations between a representative of Airbus and the FAA. 
Those comments that address the compliance date extension were 
unanimously supportive. The FAA appreciates the support for its 
decision to extend the Fuel Tank Safety compliance date, and, after 
considering the comments, we will take no further rulemaking action 
with respect to this part of the Final Rule.
    As for those comments about the Aging Airplane Program update, they 
generally support the Aging Airplane Program's safety objectives and 
alignment plan. They also request clarification on the specifics of the 
upcoming Aging Airplane Program rulemakings because the Final Rule did 
not contain details on these projects. For the most part, these 
comments have already been addressed in the SFAR 88 Policy Statement or 
will be addressed by the FAA in the context of the specific Aging 
Airplane Program rulemakings. However, the FAA received several lengthy 
comments about the proposed Design Approval Holder (DAH) requirements 
that merit independent discussion.
    In the discussion below, the following applies:
    (1) Acronyms:
    (a) To identify the commenters, we use the following acronyms or 
abbreviated company names:

[[Page 40169]]

     Aerospace Industries Association and General Aviation. 
Manufacturers Association (AIA/GAMA).
     Air Transport Association (ATA).
     The Boeing Company (Boeing).
     Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) of France.
     General Electric (GE).
     National Air Carrier Association (NACA).
     Transport Aircraft Technical Services Company, Inc. 
(TATSCI).
    (b) Besides the commenter acronyms, we also use the following 
acronyms:
     Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems 
(EAPAS).
     Design Approval Holder (DAH).
    (2) Section References: When addressing rule language, all section 
references will refer to Title 14 of the Code of the Federal 
Regulations, unless otherwise noted.
    (3) Definitions:
    (a) When referring to the FAA's review of the Aging Airplane 
Program, ``Aging Airplane Program'' means those rulemaking projects 
listed above in the ``General'' subsection of the ``Background'' 
section. When referring to the FAA's future plans for the Aging 
Airplane Program, ``Aging Airplane Program'' means the following 
rulemaking projects (this difference is based on the withdrawal of the 
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program on August 10, 2004):
     The Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems 
(Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in development);
     The Aging Airplane Safety Rule (Final Rule issued on 
January 25, 2005 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in development);
     The Widespread Fatigue Damage Program (Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in development); and
     The Fuel Tank System Safety Rule (Final Rule issued on 
April 19, 2001).
    (b) ``Aging Airplane Program Update'' means that final rule 
entitled, ``Fuel Tank Safety Compliance Extension (Final Rule) and 
Aging Airplane Program Update (Request for Comments)'' (69 FR 45936, 
July 30, 2004).
    (c) ``Design Approval Holders'' (``DAH'') means holders of type and 
supplemental type-certificates and other FAA design approvals.
    (d) ``EAPAS'' means the Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane 
Systems.
    (e) ``Fuel Tank Safety Rule'' means that final rule entitled, 
``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability 
Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements'' (66 FR 23086, 
May 7, 2001).
    (f) ``DAH Policy Statement'' means that policy statement entitled 
``FAA Policy Statement on New Direction for Addressing Airworthiness 
Issues for Transport Airplanes'' and published in the same Federal 
Register as this Disposition of Comments document.
    (g) ``SFAR 88'' means that part of the Fuel Tank Safety Rule 
entitled ``Fuel Tank System Fault Tolerance Evaluation Requirements.''

Response to Comments

Support for DAH Requirements

    ATA and NACA support the intent of the new approach to require DAHs 
to develop data and documents to support operator compliance with the 
related operational rules.
    ATA notes that, historically, rules were adopted with compliance 
times only applicable to operators. At the time these rules were 
adopted, there were no compliant data, documents or parts available, 
and operators absorbed all the schedule risks associated with DAH 
activities. ATA terms these rules ``DCPI'' rules because the product 
must be designed, certificated, produced and installed within the 
compliance deadline mandated for operators. Operators can only perform 
installation after they receive a compliant product. ATA identified 
several examples of DCPI rules: B727 freighter conversion floor 
airworthiness directives (ADs), metallized Mylar ADs, B737 Rudder Power 
Control Unit ADs, and the Reinforced Flight Deck Door rule. For 
Reinforced Flight Deck Door rule, over half of the intended 
installation period had expired before the FAA approved the first of 22 
designs necessary for ATA member airlines. This caused significant 
airplane availability and economic impacts. ATA believes the FAA's 
plans for the Aging Airplane Rules would be an appropriate and logical 
first step to avoid the pitfalls of DCPI rulemaking. ATA states that it 
is important for the FAA to ensure the compliance periods applicable to 
operators are planned realistically, effectively supported and reserved 
solely for the actions of the operators.
    NACA also supports requiring DAHs to develop necessary data and 
continuing airworthiness documents required by operators.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the support for its proposed 
plans for the DAH requirements.

Legal Authority--General

    Airbus does not believe the DAH requirements are necessary for 
safety in air commerce; therefore, Airbus believes the FAA does not 
have the legal authority to issue the proposed DAH requirements. Boeing 
concurs and believes the FAA must show that its regulations are 
``necessary for safety'' to use the authority of 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5). 
Boeing believes there are various methods available for operators to 
meet their continued operational safety requirements, such as the use 
of third-party modifiers and engineering centers. Therefore, Boeing 
states the FAA must show that, in each case, the DAH requirements are 
``necessary for safety.'' Boeing also questions if the FAA has the 
statutory right to add a requirement for DAHs to develop data and 
documents related to future FAA rulemakings as a condition of initial 
design approval or the continued holding of a design approval.
    FAA Response: The FAA has full legal authority to issue the DAH 
requirements. This authority is derived from:
    (1) 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which authorizes the Administrator to 
prescribe ``regulations and minimum standards for other practices, 
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in 
air commerce and national security'';
    (2) 49 U.S.C. 44717, which prescribes regulations that ensure the 
continuing airworthiness of aging airplanes;
    (3) 49 U.S.C. 40113(a), which provides the Administrator with 
authority to prescribe regulations that she ``as appropriate, considers 
necessary to carry out this part''; and
    (4) 49 U.S.C. 40101, which identifies the considerations for 
determining the public interest in carrying out the statute, including 
``assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the 
highest priorities in air commerce.''
    The commenters fail to recognize the broad discretion granted to 
the Administrator in making a finding that a regulation is ``necessary 
for safety.'' This finding is not just a factual finding; it is 
fundamentally a policy finding. In exercising her rulemaking authority, 
the Administrator must weigh all the options available and decide on 
the one that she finds most effective in achieving the desired 
regulatory objective. Her judgment in these matters would be subject to 
legal challenge only if the decision is ``arbitrary and capricious.''
    We believe the DAH requirements are necessary to ensure proper and 
timely action to mitigate the identified safety concerns and we are 
acting under this broad authority in proposing them.

[[Page 40170]]

Legal Authority--Source of Data

    Boeing and Airbus believe the FAA does not have the authority to 
specify the source of compliance data for other parties.
    FAA Response: As the FAA discussed above in more detail, we have 
broad statutory authority to impose requirements we find necessary for 
safety. This includes requirements to ensure that at least one source 
of data is available to the operators for complying with operational 
rules that are necessary for safety, even though other sources may be 
available. The fact that there may be more than one way to fulfill a 
regulatory objective does not prevent us from adopting one way over 
another, as long as the method chosen by us is reasonable.

Existing Practice Works Well

    Airbus states there is no need to mandate DAH requirements because 
the existing practice of issuing operational rules works well. Airbus 
believes that, for the most part, DAHs have always fully cooperated 
with the operators to develop and make available the necessary data in 
a timely manner.
    Boeing agrees, believing that additional airworthiness requirements 
for raising the safety level for airplanes in-service belong in 
operational rules.
    AIA/GAMA also agree, stating that the relationship between 
manufacturers and operators to support the continued airworthiness of 
airplanes is clearly effective based on the U.S. aviation safety 
record.
    FAA Response: Historically, the FAA has worked with DAHs when 
safety issues arise to identify solutions and actions that need to be 
taken. This voluntary cooperative process has addressed some of these 
safety issues successfully.
    However, recent discussions with various operators have confirmed 
that DAH support of operators for compliance with operational rules has 
occasionally been lacking. DAHs have not always developed and made 
available the service information needed for operators to modify 
airplanes or revise programs to comply with operational rules or 
airworthiness directives in a timely, efficient manner. This has 
resulted in delays in adopting corrective action. Some examples of 
programs in which some DAHs did not develop and make available the 
necessary information in a timely manner include:
    (1) Thrust reversers, where it took 10 years to develop some 
service information for airworthiness directive related actions;
    (2) Operators are still awaiting DAH action to assess repairs in 
certain Structural Repair Manuals for damage tolerance, even though the 
DAH committed to completing this activity by 1993;
    (3) Class D to Class C Cargo Conversions, where one TC holder did 
not develop the necessary modifications in time to support operator 
compliance and where several operators were unable to obtain timely 
technical support and modification parts from STC holders; and
    (4) The Reinforced Flight Deck Door Program, where most operators 
had substantially less than the 1-year compliance time originally 
anticipated because of delays in developing and certifying the new 
designs.
    For the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals, clearly 
operators will not be able to comply with several provisions of the 
operational rules without data and documents from DAHs. Since the Aging 
Airplane Program addresses several critical safety issues, the FAA 
believes that we cannot take the risk that this may be one of the 
occasions when DAH support is lacking. A regulatory approach will 
ensure the timely development of necessary service information to allow 
for the orderly and efficient implementation by operators. This will 
then result in a more uniform and speedy response to the safety issues 
covered by the Aging Airplane Program.
    Therefore, the FAA believes DAH requirements are necessary to 
support the safety objectives of the Aging Airplane Program.

Clarification on Use of DAH Requirements

    ATA, Boeing and AIA/GAMA ask the FAA to clarify the circumstances 
under which the FAA will use the DAH requirements and how the FAA will 
then apply these requirements.
    AIA/GAMA believe the DAH requirements should be imposed only when 
necessary to address an unsafe condition and, then, only on a case-by-
case basis. They also suggest the use of ATA's Spec 111, 
``Airworthiness Concerns Coordination Process,'' or an equivalent, to 
ensure the FAA and affected operators and manufacturers work together 
to define the continued airworthiness issue to be addressed.
    FAA Response: The DAH Policy Statement sets forth those factors the 
FAA will consider when determining if DAH requirements are needed to 
support a safety objective. We intend to use the DAH requirements to 
address ``airworthiness issues'' that are broad, fleet-wide safety 
issues. These issues would not relate to specific type designs. This 
rulemaking approach, when applicable, can provide for a more managed 
and less burdensome implementation of the safety initiative.
    The individual Aging Airplane Program rulemakings will clearly 
describe the fleet-wide safety concerns and airworthiness issues that 
each rulemaking addresses. About the use of Spec 111 or an equivalent, 
the FAA agrees that DAHs should work closely with operators in 
complying with DAH requirements to ensure they adequately meet the 
operators' needs. We intend to work closely with industry to ensure 
compliance with the DAH requirements.

Each DAH Requirement Should Be Issued as a Proposed Rule

    AIA/GAMA believe that each new DAH requirement should be issued as 
a proposed rule. This would ensure the appropriate due process and 
regulatory assessment necessary to determine the appropriateness and 
adequacy of the rule.
    FAA Response: The DAH Policy Statement sets forth the actions the 
FAA will take to propose and then implement any DAH requirement.

Approach Is Shift in FAA Regulatory Philosophy

    AIA/GAMA state the proposed DAH requirements represent a 
significant shift in the FAA's philosophy about the regulatory 
responsibility of manufacturers and operators for the continued 
airworthiness of airplanes. They also state that DAH requirements would 
force DAHs to comply with requirements other than those in effect at 
the time of the original certification of the airplane. This evolving 
set of requirements would introduce new challenges in production, 
certification, export, and commercial business relationships.
    Boeing agrees, stating the DAH requirements would transfer some of 
the continued operation regulatory responsibilities from the operators 
to DAHs. In addition, the DAH requirements would cloud the 
responsibilities between DAHs and the operators.
    FAA Response: Because the commenters do not yet have the specific 
details of each rulemaking initiative of the Aging Airplane Program, 
their concerns may be based on a mistaken assumption about the scope of 
the new DAH requirements. For the most part, these DAH requirements 
only require DAHs to develop documents that they have already agreed to 
develop.
    The FAA does not believe the DAH requirements are a significant 
shift in our philosophy about the responsibility

[[Page 40171]]

of manufacturers and operators for the continued airworthiness of 
airplanes. Under current operational rules, operators always have final 
responsibility for maintaining their airplanes in a condition that 
allows for their continued safe operation. The DAH requirements do not 
affect this responsibility.
    However, the operators are not solely responsible for the continued 
airworthiness of airplanes. The DAH requirements simply document in the 
regulations the existing non-regulatory shared responsibility that DAHs 
have acknowledged they have for continued airworthiness. DAHs will now 
be legally required to support their products by making available 
documents and data to the operators that they need to meet their 
airworthiness obligation.
    Therefore, the complementary DAH and operator requirements of the 
Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals will clarify the 
airworthiness responsibilities between the operators and DAHs. In most 
cases, the DAH is required to develop and submit data and documents to 
the FAA for approval by a certain date. This will allow the operators 
enough time to use these data and documents to comply with the 
operational rules. The advantage of this approach over the past 
approach (that is, adopting only an operational requirement) is that 
everyone will clearly understand when the DAH data and documents are to 
be submitted for our approval. The specific rulemaking proposals and 
associated guidance material will also clarify what content and format 
these data or documents must be in and to whom the information must be 
submitted.
    While we agree that this approach imposes new challenges on DAHs, 
they have already agreed to undertake most of these challenges 
voluntarily. The DAH requirements will simply ensure that they meet 
those challenges in time to assist the operators. We consider this 
necessary for safety.

Conflict With Existing Regulations

    AIA/GAMA state there is a conflict with 14 CFR 21.99, which clearly 
states the continued airworthiness safety requirements for DAHs. 
Paragraph (a) requires the holder to make changes necessary to correct 
an unsafe condition. Paragraph (b) allows DAHs to make changes that 
will contribute to the safety of the product where there are no unsafe 
conditions. AIA/GAMA believe the new approach would require DAHs to 
make changes where there are no unsafe conditions to correct.
    FAA Response: Although 14 CFR 21.99(b) allows design changes by the 
DAH to enhance safety, industry advisory committees, of which the 
commenters were participants, have recommended rule changes to require 
operators to take actions necessary for safety. For the Aging Airplane 
Program rulemakings, the FAA is requiring DAHs to develop data and 
documents to support operators in complying with these requirements. We 
do not believe this is a conflict with Sec.  21.99. Instead, we believe 
it is an extension of our prior use of this section. Section 21.99 
establishes the obligation for DAHs to develop data necessary to 
address unsafe conditions. These rules would extend that obligation to 
other circumstances where their support is necessary for safety.

Non-Regulatory Solutions Should Be Pursued First

    Boeing believes the FAA should pursue non-regulatory solutions 
first. Boeing notes that there have been cases where the FAA has been 
unhappy with the time it took for DAHs to develop data and documents to 
assist the operators in meeting regulatory compliance dates. However, 
Boeing states that some of those problems were a result of 
unrealistically short compliance dates that did not consider other 
conflicting priorities. Boeing believes that mandating these 
unrealistically short dates will not solve the issues the FAA is trying 
to address. Boeing also states that the FAA does not consider the 
cumulative burdens of its rulemaking initiatives. Therefore, Boeing 
suggests the FAA should instead develop a process to more fully 
understand the time constraints associated with developing data and 
documents so they can establish more realistic compliance dates.
    FAA Response: The FAA infers that Boeing believes the related 
operational rules are appropriate, but wants non-regulatory solutions 
for providing the data and documents to the operators so they can 
comply with the operational rules. The FAA understands Boeing's 
rationale to be that if the FAA identified realistic compliance times, 
then there would be no need for rules mandating development of the data 
and documents to support operator compliance. Therefore, the DAH 
requirements would be unnecessary.
    For the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals, operators will 
not be able to comply with several provisions of the operational rules 
without data and documents from DAHs. Since the Aging Airplane Program 
addresses several critical safety issues, the FAA believes that we 
cannot take the risk that this may be one of the occasions when DAH 
support is lacking. A regulatory approach will result in a more uniform 
and speedy response to the safety issues covered by the Aging Airplane 
Program. Therefore, the FAA believes DAH requirements are necessary to 
support the safety objectives of the Aging Airplane Program. In each of 
the specific Aging Airplane Program proposals, we will specify why we 
believe the DAH requirements are necessary.
    The FAA does not agree that compliance times for rulemaking 
proposals have been unrealistic, in general. The FAA strives to 
identify the best times for compliance that assume sincere efforts from 
industry to comply with the requirements (for example, assigning 
satisfactory resources, working with the FAA to clarify compliance 
methods). When developing compliance times for rulemaking actions, we 
also consider industry input, both from advisory committees and 
comments received to rulemaking proposals.
    For the Aging Airplane Program, the FAA has assessed the cumulative 
effect on industry of multiple regulatory actions. As discussed in the 
Aging Airplane Program Update, one of the goals of the FAA's review of 
the Aging Airplane Program was to identify how to most effectively 
align the rulemaking proposals to ensure there was no overlapping or 
redundant requirements. As a result of that review and in consideration 
of the cumulative impacts, we have proposed changes to the Aging 
Airplane Program based on the impact of multiple compliance dates and 
the demands placed on both DAHs and the operators.

No Precedent for Placing a Regulatory Burden on DAHs

    Boeing believes the FAA has not placed an associated regulatory 
burden on DAHs when it previously issued retroactive safety standards.
    FAA Response: When the FAA issued SFAR 88, we did place an 
associated regulatory burden on DAHs to support the operators' 
compliance with the fuel tank safety operational rules. Therefore, 
there is precedent for the proposed DAH requirements.

Section 21.21 Excludes Compliance With Additional Airworthiness 
Requirements

    Boeing states that Sec.  21.21 excludes compliance with any 
additional airworthiness requirements in the operational rules as a 
condition for issuance of a type-certificate or changed type-
certificate approval.

[[Page 40172]]

    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that Sec.  21.21 excludes 
compliance with additional airworthiness requirements. As stated above, 
we have the statutory authority to require actions of DAHs to ensure an 
acceptable safety level is maintained in the fleet. Sections 21.21 and 
21.17 also allow for certain later amendments or regulations to be 
applied to design changes as appropriate.

Reason for DAH Requirements

    Airbus and AIA/GAMA question the reasons that led to the 
development of the DAH requirements.
    FAA Response: The DAH Policy Statement sets forth the reasons why 
the FAA believes the DAH requirements are necessary for the Aging 
Airplane Program rulemakings.

Part 25--Support for Placement

    The FAA received several comments about the placement of the DAH 
requirements in part 25. While ATA supported this choice, other 
commenters objected to the use of part 25 and suggested the following 
alternatives: (1) Part 21 (Boeing, Airbus and AIA/GAMA), (2) a new SFAR 
(Boeing and AIA/GAMA) and (3) a new part (AIA/GAMA).
    FAA Response: The FAA originally believed the proposed location of 
the DAH requirements in part 25 was a straightforward and effective 
means of ensuring that the data required to support compliance with the 
operational rules would be developed and provided to the operators. 
However, based on the comments received on the Aging Airplane Program 
Update and our own internal discussions on the subject, we now 
recognize that part 25 may not be the best location for the DAH 
requirements. In addition, in conversations with the other regulatory 
authorities, the FAA has become aware of some procedural difficulties 
these authorities may experience if certain DAH requirements are in 
part 25.
    Since we have already developed the NPRMs for the Aging Airplane 
Program rulemakings, these NPRMs will likely identify part 25 as the 
location for the DAH requirements even though we are now considering 
other alternatives. As part of the public comment process for these 
rulemakings, we will seek input about alternative locations for the DAH 
requirements. We will make any appropriate changes when we develop the 
final rules. Each of the final individual Aging Airplane Program 
rulemakings will say where we will place the DAH requirements 
associated with that rulemaking, along with a justification for this 
choice.

Part 25--``Retroactive'' Requirements

    GE is concerned that the FAA intends some future part 25 
requirements to be ``retroactive.'' GE believes this is a major 
departure from established practice.
    FAA Response: ``Retroactive'' regulations are not a new practice. 
In fact, we have already used part 25 for such a regulation when, in 
1990, we added Sec.  25.2 to part 25. This section contains special 
retroactive requirements for each applicant for a supplemental type-
certificate (STC)(or an amendment to a type-certificate (ATC)), 
irrespective of the date of application. For example, affected STC or 
ATC applicants would need to comply with a requirement related to door 
locking mechanisms (Sec.  25.783(g)) in effect on October 25, 1967, 
even if the airplane was certified to earlier regulations. As discussed 
earlier, GE is correct that, regardless of location, we do intend to 
adopt requirements applicable to holders of existing design approvals. 
While these requirements may appear ``retroactive,'' they would require 
DAHs to take actions prospectively.

Part 25--Potential Impact on Delivery Contracts

    Airbus states that placing the DAH requirements in part 25 could 
impact airplane delivery contracts because they commit DAHs to 
compliance with part 25.
    FAA Response: Without access to the airplane delivery contract 
language referred to, the FAA cannot respond to Airbus' concern 
specifically. We have tried to structure the DAH requirements to mirror 
the existing requirements of Sec. Sec.  21.50 and 21.99 for DAHs to 
``make available'' certain documents. Contractual relationships between 
DAHs and operators already recognize this type of requirement. Using 
the same terminology, the DAH requirements will impose an obligation on 
DAHs to make certain data and documents available to the operators. 
However, as noted earlier, the placement of the DAH requirements is 
currently under review.

Compliance--General

    Boeing, GE and AIA/GAMA raise several issues about compliance with 
the DAH requirements.
    FAA Response: As stated in the DAH Policy Statement, whenever the 
FAA proposes and then issues a DAH requirement, we will clearly specify 
(1) what data, documents or action are required to comply with that DAH 
requirement, (2) the acceptable methods for attaining compliance, (3) 
who has the burden of compliance and (4) how compliance should be 
demonstrated to us.

Compliance--Enforcement Policy

    Boeing, GE and AIA/GAMA ask the FAA to define its enforcement 
policy should it conclude a DAH has failed to comply with the DAH 
requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA's general enforcement policies, which are set 
forth in 14 CFR part 13 and FAA Order 2150.3, will apply to the DAH 
requirements. These general policies provide wide discretion for us to 
impose administrative action, fines (up to $25,000 per violation per 
day) or action against a DAH's certificate (including suspension or 
revocation). If a DAH is found to be non-compliant, we will consider 
the circumstances of non-compliance before determining an appropriate 
course of action. For example, deliberate violations will be treated 
more severely than inadvertent noncompliance. So, any enforcement 
action the FAA may choose to take will be in consideration of the 
circumstances of the violation and defined on a case-by-case basis.

Compliance--Realistic Dates

    ATA states that it is important the FAA ensures compliance periods 
applicable to operators are planned realistically, effectively 
supported and reserved solely for the actions of the operators. ATA 
recommends that phased scheduling may be required in cases where the 
development of a product by a supplemental type-certificate (STC) 
holder cannot be accomplished or approved until the type-certificate 
(TC) holder develops a baseline. ATA believes this approach should 
allow the original DAH or an applicant to develop compliant solutions.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that compliance with the 
operational rules is dependent on FAA approved data being made 
available to operators in a timely manner. The primary objective of the 
proposed DAH requirements is to ensure that this data is developed and 
made available to operators in a timely manner.
    The FAA is developing compliance dates that recognize the roles 
played by the various parties affected by the Aging Airplane Program 
rulemaking proposals and the fact that compliance can be dependent on 
the prior action of other parties. For example, for the DAH 
requirements, we will have separate compliance dates for DAHs and the 
operators, with reasonable gaps between these dates. We recognize that 
sometimes STC holder compliance will be dependent on information 
developed

[[Page 40173]]

by TC holders. In those cases, we will provide STC holders a suitable 
amount of time after TC holder compliance is required.

Applicability--Non-Existent DAHs

    Boeing states the DAH requirements set an unbounded precedent to 
place regulatory burdens on the DAH for as long as a particular model 
is in operation, even after the DAH has ceased to exist.
    Airbus and AIA/GAMA believe that it is inappropriate for the FAA to 
impose requirements on DAHs to support operators because this approach 
does not work for DAHs who are out of business or have surrendered 
their type-certificate.
    FAA Response: The FAA expects that existing DAHs will support 
developing data related to their airplanes no longer in production if 
that model is still in operation. We do not believe that this 
obligation is a new precedent, as a continuing operational safety 
burden on DAHs and the operators already exists. Whether we address 
this burden via airworthiness directives or new rules is dependent on 
the urgency and scope of the safety issue and the ability to manage the 
safety risks. The rulemaking approach, when applicable, can provide for 
a more managed and less burdensome implementation of the safety 
initiative.
    As for the comments about DAHs that no longer exist, while a 
technical obligation would be on that DAH to comply with the DAH 
requirements, there would be no means to enforce this obligation if the 
DAH no longer exists. In this case, the burden will fall on the 
operators of these airplanes to develop the data necessary to comply 
with the operational rules of the Aging Airplane Program rulemakings. 
To accomplish this, there may be some cases where operators may need to 
contract with a third party to develop and make this data available.

Applicability--Affected Models

    Boeing, Airbus, GE and AIA/GAMA raise several comments about which 
airplanes the DAH requirements would apply to.
    FAA Response: As stated in the DAH Policy Statement, whenever the 
FAA proposes and issues a DAH requirement, we will clearly specify in 
the applicable rulemaking which airplanes and the types of operations 
that the DAH requirement covers.
    The commenters raise various issues that they believe we should 
consider before deciding which airplanes should be affected. These 
include fleet size, whether an airplane is still in production, and 
``as-delivered'' versus ``in-service'' models. The DAH Policy Statement 
addresses some of these questions generally. We will consider issues 
like these in a specific context when determining the applicability of 
any DAH requirement.

Applicability--Burden on Every DAH

    Boeing asks the FAA to place an appropriate burden on every DAH. 
Boeing goes on to state:
    (1) The term DAH includes holders of type-certificates (TC), 
supplemental type-certificates (STC), technical service orders 
authorizations (TSO) and parts manufacturing authorizations (PMA). 
Boeing believes that if the approved designs are affected by an 
operational rule for which the FAA mandates DAH data and documents, the 
other DAHs should have similar mandates (not just the type-certificate 
holders).
    (2) STC holders have essentially the same design and continued 
operational safety responsibilities as the TC holder. Furthermore, STC 
modifications can be very extensive (for example, adding cargo doors, 
converting airplanes from passenger to all-cargo configurations, 
upgrading cockpit designs).
    (3) TSO holders alone possess the knowledge necessary to develop 
the data and reports for their FAA-approved products.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that we must address the ``appropriate 
DAHs'' in each of the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals. This 
is one reason we are using a regulatory approach, rather than relying 
on voluntary actions. Defining the ``appropriate DAHs'' is an issue-
specific determination. For some of the safety initiatives, we will 
include STC as well as TC holders. However, since a TSO product becomes 
part of the TC for a specific airplane design, we do not anticipate 
addressing TSO holders separately from TC holders unless there are 
safety issues related to specific TSO articles.
    As for PMA holders, they provide replacement or modification parts. 
For replacement parts, PMA parts would not have different 
considerations from TC holders' parts. The specific rulemaking 
proposals may address PMA modification parts. If the FAA determines it 
is appropriate to impact these DAHs in future rulemaking initiatives, 
we will define that in the specific rulemaking proposal.

Applicability--Effect on TSO Holders

    Boeing believes the holder of a Technical Service Order 
Authorization (TSO) is also an equally affected DAH, and TSO 
requirements are not in part 25.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that a TSO holder is 
necessarily an equally affected DAH for purposes of DAH requirements. A 
TSO article becomes part of the type design of the affected product, 
and a TC applicant for a transport category airplane must show that its 
product meets all applicable part 25 standards, including those 
relevant to the TSO article. The issues addressed by the Aging Airplane 
Program's rulemaking proposals relate to structural and wiring 
integrity and do not affect TSOs directly. Therefore, these proposals 
will not consider TSO holders separately. In the future, if we decide 
that fleet-wide airworthiness issues do affect TSO articles, we would 
consider adopting DAH requirements that apply specifically to TSO 
authorization holders.

Applicability--Impact on Small Businesses

    Airbus and AIA/GAMA believe the FAA should consider the impact to 
small businesses in its analysis of alternative approaches to achieving 
the rulemaking objectives. They each note that many of the supplemental 
type-certificate holders are small businesses that must be considered 
in the regulatory impact analyses, in accordance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA).
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the RFA requires us to 
determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. When there is a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the RFA then 
requires us to consider alternative approaches to achieve the 
rulemaking objectives.
    As part of each Aging Airplane Program rulemaking initiative, the 
FAA will perform a RFA analysis to determine the proposed rule's impact 
on small businesses and will proceed accordingly based on the results. 
Each of the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals will contain a 
full discussion of this analysis and our findings. In addition, the 
public will have the opportunity to comment on this analysis and our 
findings.

Source of Data--DAHs Versus Other Sources of Support

    Boeing and AIA/GAMA are concerned that the FAA does not state any 
intent to require operators to only use the data generated by DAHs. 
Boeing and Airbus also believe that it would be either inappropriate or 
unfair to impose requirements on DAHs when other

[[Page 40174]]

sources could offer the requisite support.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that DAHs may not be the only 
source of the data needed by the operators to meet their obligations 
under the Aging Airplane Program. If third parties can develop the 
required data or documents on their own, the FAA is not precluding 
their involvement in the process. If we required the use of DAH data 
only, we would be limiting the flexibility normally allowed operators 
and establish a monopoly in favor of DAHs. This would be an 
unacceptable outcome.
    Furthermore, we believe DAHs should have an advantage over third 
parties. We base this on the fact that they have all the original data 
necessary to evaluate the current design and develop modifications or 
programs that will enable them to show compliance with the operational 
rules. Sometimes, only DAHs have the data necessary to develop the 
information needed for operator compliance. Third parties interested in 
offering competing solutions would need to get that data from DAHs 
through licensing agreements (which would likely involve compensation 
to DAHs). In both ARAC (for WFD) and ATSRAC (for EAPAS), DAHs have 
acknowledged that only they have the necessary data to develop the 
required programs (and they have agreed to do so). Therefore, in these 
areas, DAHs will be the only source of certain data and documents by 
default.
    For DAH requirements that may involve development of design 
modifications, it is possible that third parties would be competitive 
with DAHs. But in some cases, these rules would also require that 
airplanes produced after a certain date incorporate the modification. 
So, DAHs would have to develop the modification for any model still in 
production. This would enable DAHs to amortize their development costs 
over a larger fleet. This would provide another competitive advantage 
over third parties, who could only amortize their costs over the 
existing fleet in need of retrofit.
    The FAA recognizes there is a potential for third parties to also 
develop and make available some of the necessary support to the 
operators. However, we believe it is necessary to adopt DAH 
requirements to ensure the appropriate data is available in a timely 
manner for the operators to comply with the operational rules of the 
Aging Airplane Program.
    If a DAH decides that third parties can provide a better market 
solution for compliance, the DAH requirements would not prohibit it 
from outsourcing the development of the data and documents. This is a 
common practice for DAHs in certification and has been used before to 
support other operational rules (for example, the reinforced flight 
deck door program).

Guidance--Material Requested

    Boeing recommends that the FAA consider releasing policy and 
associated guidance material concurrent with, or within three months 
of, any future rules. Boeing also states that they would expect that 
any policy, guidance, schedule or penalty proposed by the FAA would 
include public review before implementation. ATA agrees, suggesting the 
FAA publish guidance material before, or concurrently with, the 
publication of the proposed and final rules.
    FAA Response: As stated in the DAH Policy Statement, the FAA will 
publish guidance materials associated with the safety initiatives 
concurrently with the proposals, or shortly thereafter, so industry can 
evaluate all of the related materials and provide comprehensive 
comments to the FAA. For the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking 
proposals, the FAA intends to draft guidance materials for comment 
concurrently with the applicable notice of proposed rulemaking or as 
soon thereafter as possible. In addition, we also intend to publish the 
final guidance materials concurrently with the applicable final rules 
or as soon thereafter as possible.

Effect on Business Arrangement Between DAHs and Operators

    Airbus, Boeing and AIA/GAMA state that it is inappropriate for the 
FAA to impose requirements on DAHs to support operators because these 
requirements have the possibility of changing the business relationship 
between operators and DAHs.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not intend to adversely impact the 
business relationships between DAHs and the operators and we believe 
the proposed DAH requirements do not have this effect. In fact, we 
believe these requirements actually build on the existing relationship 
between operators and DAHs. However, since the commenters do not 
provide any justification or rationale for their belief, we cannot 
address their specific concern.

Effect on the Legal Relationships for Product Liability

    AIA/GAMA state the DAH requirements proposal will have a 
substantial effect on the legal relationships between DAHs, suppliers 
and operators for product liability.
    FAA Response: AIA/GAMA do not provide any justification or 
rationale for its statements that the DAH requirements will have a 
substantial effect on the legal relationships between DAHs, suppliers 
and operators for product liability. The FAA requests that AIA/GAMA 
provide additional information on this subject as part of its comments 
to any of the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals so we can 
respond to AIA/GAMA's concerns.

FAA Will Be Regulating Commercial Air Commerce Financial Interests

    Boeing believes the DAH requirements place the government in the 
position of regulating commercial air commerce financial interests, 
which was supposedly abandoned with deregulation.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the proposed DAH 
requirements place the government in the position of regulating 
commercial air commerce financial interests. These rules will require 
DAHs to develop data and documents to be made available to the 
operators to support compliance with operational rules. The requirement 
for making data and documents available has a precedent in Sec. Sec.  
21.50 and 21.99, which do not regulate financial interests.
    As we stated before, we recognize that other parties could offer 
support for compliance with the operational rules of the Aging Airplane 
Program. However, we cannot predict whether third parties will choose 
to participate in those areas where the operators need support to 
comply with those operational rules. Therefore, it is necessary to 
ensure there is at least one source of timely support. While third 
parties could support the operators, because DAHs hold all the 
underlying type design data, they are the appropriate ones to identify 
as the ultimate source of support.

Need To Address Intent and Regulatory and Commercial Issues

    Boeing believes the FAA avoided any reference to DAHs providing the 
required data or documents to anyone. If the FAA decides DAHs must 
provide these items to the operators, Boeing contends the FAA must 
consider the significant additional regulatory and commercial issues 
associated with that choice and include them in the Aging Airplane 
Program rulemakings or guidance material.
    FAA Response: It is the FAA's intent to require DAHs to develop the 
necessary data and documents and to make them available to the 
operators. In each of the individual Aging Airplane Program rulemaking 
proposals, we will

[[Page 40175]]

provide specifics about all aspects of the DAH requirements, including 
our reasons for decision to proceed with the DAH requirements and the 
regulatory and economic impact of our decision.

Need To Address Problem and Safety Benefits

    Boeing believes the FAA must be clear about the exact problem it is 
trying to solve in the specific regulatory proposal and make the case 
that the proposed solution is necessary. In addition, Boeing believes 
the FAA must explain what safety benefits are derived from placing an 
additional regulatory burden on DAHs, separate from the benefits to be 
derived from placing a regulatory burden on the operators.
    FAA Response: Each rulemaking initiative of the Aging Airplane 
Program will specify the exact safety issue being addressed and explain 
why the proposed solution is needed.
    In addition, the FAA will evaluate the regulatory costs and 
benefits for each of the Aging Airplane Program's rulemaking proposals. 
We will present our findings in each proposal. However, without the 
transfer of the necessary data, analysis and documentation from DAHs to 
the operators, the safety benefit cannot be achieved. Thus, the 
anticipated benefit will be assessed for the DAH compliance actions and 
the operator compliance actions together.

Need for Prior Meetings

    NACA recommends the FAA convene a meeting of an appropriate group 
of stakeholders to thoroughly air the issues associated with the DAH 
requirements before any final rule is issued.
    AIA/GAMA state that industry does not have a clear enough 
understanding of the problem the FAA is trying to address through the 
DAH requirements. Therefore, AIA/GAMA propose the FAA hold a public 
workshop on this topic prior to moving ahead with such a significant 
and fundamental change to the existing regulations.
    ATA also recommends the FAA consult with industry to avoid 
unintended consequences.
    FAA Response: The FAA's intent in providing the Aging Airplane 
Program Update was twofold: (i) To provide a summary of the findings 
from our review of the Aging Airplane Program and (ii) to outline the 
rulemakings that we plan as a result of this review. It was always our 
intent to provide the specifics about these matters in the individual 
rulemaking proposals for the Aging Airplane Program. Therefore, we 
recognize there was not enough information in the Aging Airplane 
Program Update for industry to fully assess the impact of the DAH 
requirements. We believe that any confusion caused by this will be 
addressed after industry has had the opportunity to read each of the 
Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals. In addition, industry will 
have the opportunity to comment on each of the rulemaking proposals and 
we will review, consider and address any comments and/or consequences 
identified by industry that we have not anticipated.
    As for the suggestion that the FAA hold a public meeting, we will 
determine if a meeting is necessary after the first notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposing DAH requirements is issued.

Harmonization

    Airbus and AIA/GAMA request that the FAA harmonize their proposals 
with other aviation authorities.
    FAA Response: The FAA has already discussed our plan for the Aging 
Airplane Program with management and specialists from EASA and 
Transport Canada. We have asked that they identify Aging Airplane 
Program rulemaking initiative points of contact so we can begin 
discussions with them about the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking 
proposals. As most of the technical aspects of the rules are based on 
recommendations from advisory committees, on which other authorities 
participated, many of the requirements should already be harmonized. We 
plan to work with the other authorities so our rulemaking plans for 
these initiatives will be harmonized to the greatest extent 
practicable.

Uncertainty About Future Responsibilities of a DAH

    Boeing is concerned that if the FAA begins requiring changes to 
design approvals (certificates) for upgrades in safety, as opposed to 
declaring an unsafe condition, it creates significant uncertainty about 
future responsibilities of a DAH.
    Boeing also believes the FAA has a long history of mandating 
changes to a type-certificate only when an unsafe condition exists. 
This has been done to bring the airworthiness of the airplane up to its 
certificated safety level and not because it wants to upgrade the 
safety level for in-service airplanes.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that requiring changes to 
design approvals for upgrades in safety, as opposed to declaring an 
unsafe condition, creates significant uncertainty about the future 
responsibilities of a DAH. The uncertainty of future actions necessary 
to maintain a certain safety level for the existing fleet is a reality 
for any regulated industry.
    Whether we classify any particular safety issue as an ``unsafe 
condition'' and issue ADs on a model-by-model basis, or whether we 
address fleet-wide problems through general rulemaking, the issues 
being addressed were not anticipated by either the applicant or the FAA 
at the time of certification.
    As the FAA becomes aware of safety issues in the fleet and 
determines that additional requirements are necessary to ensure an 
acceptable safety level, we work with industry to define appropriate 
actions. We adopt these actions only after we provide full notice and 
opportunity to comment (except for emergency actions). This situation 
is the same for the operators as well as DAHs.

Effect on Type-Certificates

    Boeing believes that adding new requirements to an existing type-
certificate (TC), as a condition of the continued validity of that TC, 
is the same as saying the old TC is invalid and a new TC must be 
issued. Boeing states that it appears the FAA wants to change its 
historical practice for DAHs by placing a continuing burden on them as 
a condition for continued validity of a design approval. Finally, 
Boeing maintains that any new requirement placed on a DAH would change 
the conditions under which that certificate remains valid, not because 
of an unsafe condition, but because the FAA wishes to raise the general 
level of safety of airplanes in service.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that adding new requirements 
for existing TC holders affects the validity of the TC. These 
requirements only mandate new actions by the TC holders. However, while 
the rule itself does not invalidate the TC, the FAA has the authority 
to suspend or revoke the TC if the TC holder violates the requirements 
and the FAA believes the violation warrants such action.
    This is comparable to the situation for operators when we adopt an 
operational rule. In that case, imposing a new requirement on the 
operators does not ``invalidate'' their operating certificate. It 
simply imposes a new requirement on the certificate holder. However, 
failure to comply with the operational rules may subject an operator to 
FAA action against its certificate.

Regulatory Analysis Should Separate Operator and DAH Cost/Benefits

    AIA/GAMA believe the operator and DAH must be considered 
independently in the cost/benefit analysis of the DAH requirements.

[[Page 40176]]

    Boeing agrees, stating the FAA must perform a regulatory analysis 
each time the FAA places a burden on the DAH and this analysis should 
separate operator and DAH costs and benefits. Boeing also believes that 
since the FAA must define the cost burden and expected benefits 
associated with any particular rule, the FAA could not issue a single 
rule that automatically imposes a burden for undefined future 
operational rule changes. Finally, Boeing states the regulatory 
analysis must also consider alternative regulatory actions.
    FAA Response: Each time the FAA proposes to adopt a DAH 
requirement, the FAA will conduct a regulatory analysis of the specific 
change. As is the case with all rulemaking proposals, the regulatory 
evaluations for each of the Aging Airplane Program rulemaking proposals 
will consider the costs and benefits for all affected parties and will 
address any alternative regulatory approaches that we considered.
    Historically, when the FAA issued operational rules (without 
associated DAH requirements), we determined the costs the DAH would 
incur to support the initiative. Without the DAH support, operators may 
not be able to comply, in which case the anticipated safety benefits 
would not be achieved. So, this aspect was addressed in regulatory 
evaluations for operational rules even without the specific 
requirements for DAHs to develop the data or documents necessary for 
operator compliance. While we can identify the DAH and operator costs 
separately, the benefits are dependent on both actions and we will not 
estimate them separately.

``Overwhelming'' Workload for FAA

    Airbus believes the workload created by enacting the DAH 
requirements would be overwhelming to the FAA. Airbus believes there is 
substantial training and documentation that would need to be developed 
to prepare the FAA for this activity. Airbus also states the 
requirement for the FAA to review and approve data submittals extends 
the time to achieve compliance by the operations.
    FAA Response: Regardless of whether the FAA adopts DAH 
requirements, we would have a similar workload, as the design and 
program approvals would still be necessary. The DAH requirements 
provide advantages such as:
    (1) Standardized application of guidance material;
    (2) Compliance planning to streamline the coordination of the 
actions required of DAHs; and
    (3) Specified compliance dates for DAHs.
    These advantages reduce our workload and increase our efficiency 
because we have defined goals and objectives and means to ensure that 
DAHs are fulfilling them.
    In addition, the FAA has tasked ARAC to develop recommendations for 
addressing certain issues and the necessary data for compliance. This 
will provide guidance for DAHs to develop standardized data. The 
associated ARAC/ASTRAC standardized approach should reduce the review 
time and workload.
    As for training, the FAA intends to develop training to provide a 
better understanding of the technical and administrative requirements 
and processes associated with the Aging Airplane Program. We will make 
this training available to FAA employees, other aviation authorities 
and industry.
    Finally, the compliance plan requirements of the proposed rules 
will address Airbus' concern about the timeliness of FAA approvals. 
This will ensure both the DAH and the FAA have a good understanding of 
the DAH's proposed compliance methods and deliverables. It will also 
provide for a means to monitor the compliance progress and provide a 
means for correction, if determined necessary before final submittal.

May Force Retirement of Some Airplane Models

    Airbus notes the FAA's past approach to airworthiness issues placed 
the burden on the operator to make a decision whether or not to have 
the required analyses and data developed. Under the DAH requirement 
approach, Airbus believes that, if the operator and DAH cannot reach 
agreement on the economic terms of compliance, the operator would be 
forced to retire the airplane.
    FAA Response: The cost recovery is a commercial issue between DAHs 
and operators. Each DAH is free to charge whatever the market will bear 
to recoup its costs associated with developing the data and documents 
required by the DAH requirements. Based on the amount of this DAH fee 
and the costs associated with complying with the operational rules, 
each operator will then have to make an economic decision as to whether 
these costs are offset by future revenue streams from a fleet of 
airplanes. The FAA recognizes that this decision may result in an 
operator deciding to retire certain airplanes rather than incur these 
costs.

Miscellaneous Comments

Expansion of Aging Program to Non-Structure Related Parts of Airplanes

    DGAC would like the FAA to expand its aging activity to all systems 
that could be involved in hazardous or catastrophic failure. DGAC 
states that it has found it useful to perform an aging systems analysis 
on these systems for Airbus airplanes and believes that such an 
analysis would be of benefit to other transport category airplanes of 
similar design. DGAC believes the most satisfactory way to put such an 
activity into force is by updating the regulations by expanding their 
scope to the non-structure related parts of airplanes.
    FAA Response: The FAA shares DGAC's concerns about the aging of all 
critical systems in airplanes. We will work closely with DGAC and other 
aviation authorities to develop harmonized approaches to resolving 
these aging issues.
    Generally, we identify and address aging issues through the 
airworthiness directive process when appropriate. Under EAPAS, the FAA, 
JAA, Transport Canada and industry successfully identified and 
addressed the aging issues in airplane wiring interconnection systems. 
Also, to address specific items, we are proactively working with EASA, 
Transport Canada and DAHs to study and identify aging issues in 
mechanical systems. Our Aging Mechanical Systems Program consists of 
various projects, including:
    (1) Testing single-element, dual-load path flight control linkages 
(a report has been completed and is available on request);
    (2) An aging flight controls systems assessment to develop methods 
to study and assess the safety of mechanical systems (this assessment 
is in work); and
    (3) A new 18-month study of emergency evacuation systems to 
evaluate current problems with aging operating emergency evacuation 
slides and doors (this study is expected to be completed in mid-2006).
    Future work will focus on other aging mechanical systems including 
hydraulic lines and oxygen systems.
    In addition, application of the new certification requirement for 
wiring systems will include airplane engine wiring. However, because of 
the rigorous maintenance requirements and procedures currently in 
place, we did not consider engines as part of the Aging Airplane 
Program. Therefore, we welcome any information that DGAC might have 
about aging issues for propulsion systems.

[[Page 40177]]

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

    TATSCI asks for an explanation of how the FAA would mandate 
operators of in-service aircraft, engines and propellers to comply with 
the current requirements for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
(ICA). TATSCI points out that most products certified before the ICA 
requirements existed do not have ICA.
    FAA Response: Before the ICA requirements existed, Sec.  25.1529 
required type-certificate holders to provide maintenance manuals 
containing much of the information currently required in ICA. The 
primary difference is the current requirement for an airworthiness 
limitations section (ALS) as part of the ICA (and the corresponding 
operational rules that mandate compliance with the ALS requirement (for 
example, Sec.  91.403(c))). In those DAH requirements that mandate 
revisions of the ALS, the FAA is proposing to require that type-
certificate holders establish an ALS if they have not already done so.

Conclusion

    After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the 
Final Rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is 
necessary. Amendment Nos. 91-283, 121-305, 125-46 and 129-39 remain in 
effect as adopted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 6, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-13669 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P