[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14721-14722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0263]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Collection Approval of Information Collection: 
Safe Disposition of Life Limited Aircraft Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew this information 
collection. The collection involves maintaining and recording ``the 
current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, 
propeller, rotor, and appliance. The information to be collected is 
necessary for maintaining and recording that the part is airworthy.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into 
search field).
    By mail: David A. Hoyng, FAA Headquarters, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 
North, SW 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
    By fax: FAX: 202-267-1812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Hoyng by email at: 
[email protected] or [email protected]; phone: 
(325)260-6858 or (202)267-1675

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0665.
    Title: Safe Disposition of Life Limited Aircraft Parts.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

[[Page 14722]]

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

Current Requirements

    The type design of an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 
includes the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), which 
includes the Airworthiness Limitations that describe life limits for 
parts installed on the product. See, for instance, 14 CFR 21.3(c) and 
21.50.
    In order for an aviation product to comply with its type design, 
the life-limited parts installed on it must fall within the acceptable 
ranges described in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. For this reason, installation 
of a life-limited part after the mandatory replacement time has been 
reached would be a violation of the maintenance regulations. Section 
43.13(b) requires that maintenance work be completed so that the 
product worked on ``will be at least equal to its original or properly 
altered condition.* * *'' The product is not at least equal to its 
original or properly altered condition if a life-limited part has 
reached or exceeded its life limit. Existing regulations require that 
specific markings be placed on all life-limited parts at the time of 
manufacture. This includes permanently marking the part with a part 
number (or equivalent) and a serial number (or equivalent). See 14 CFR 
45.14. Persons who install parts must have adequate information to 
determine a part's current life status. In particular, documentation 
problems may mislead an installer concerning the life remaining for a 
life-limited part. This rule further provides for the data needs of 
subsequent installers to ensure they know the life remaining on a part 
and prevent the part being used beyond its life limit. Existing 
regulations provide for records on life-limited parts that are 
installed on aircraft. The regulations require that each owner or 
operator under Sec.  [thinsp]91.417(a)(2)(ii) and each certificate 
holder under Sec.  [thinsp]121.380(a)(2)(iii) or Sec.  
[thinsp]135.439(a)(2)(ii), maintain records showing ``the current 
status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, 
rotor, and appliance.'' These regulations do not govern the disposition 
of the part when it is removed from the aircraft. If the part is 
intended to be reinstalled, however, a record of the life status of the 
part will be needed at the time of reinstallation to show that the part 
is within its life limit and to create the required record under 
Sec. Sec.  [thinsp]91.417(a)(2)(ii), 121.380(a)(2)(iii), or 
135.439(a)(2)(ii), as applicable. Therefore, when a life-limited part 
is removed from an aircraft and that part is intended to be reinstalled 
in an aircraft, industry practice is to make a record of the part's 
current status at the time of removal. Repair stations, air carriers, 
and fixed base operators (FBO's) have systems in place to keep accurate 
records of such parts to ensure that they can reinstall the parts and 
have the required records to show that the part is airworthy. If the 
part is not intended to be reinstalled, however, under existing 
regulations and practice there is no record required or routinely made 
when a part is removed from an aircraft. The part may be at the end of 
its life limit and not eligible for installation. Or, the part may not 
have reached the end of its life limit, but is so close that 
reinstallation would not be practicable. In these cases industry 
practices vary. For instance, the part might be put in a bin and later 
sold as scrap metal, it might be used as a training aid, or it might be 
mutilated. This renewal of the OMB control action requires the 
continued information collection.
    Respondents: Industry associations, air carriers, manufacturers, 
repair stations, representatives of employees, a foreign civil air 
authority, and individuals.
    Frequency: As identified in previous rulemaking proposals for an 
annual frequency of information collection requirements is 625,000 
procedures.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes per procedure.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: As identified in previous rule 
making estimates for this information collection the FAA refined its 
NPRM estimate of annual burden, and has determined that there is no 
more than a minimal paperwork burden on any respondent. Both the 
previous proposal and the final rule estimates are based on 625,000 
annual removals subject to the rule. In the NPRM each removal was 
estimated to require record keeping and reporting requirements of five 
minutes duration, at $50 per hour. Thus for the NPRM, the total annual 
estimated burden of Public Law 106-181 was about $2,600,000, borne by a 
total of 5,000 respondents. In the final rule this estimate is 
decreased by an indeterminate amount because the rule is satisfied by 
the--
    (a) Control for safe-disposition of life limited parts through the 
appropriate use of record keeping systems that are known in wide use; 
and
    (b) Physical segregation of life-limited parts that have little or 
no remaining capacity as airworthy parts. Many certificated operators 
and air agencies are known to make use of this method of control.
    While a respondent may find it useful to satisfy the rule by one or 
more of the remaining options, the FAA believes that neither case above 
is likely to result in an additional Paperwork Reduction Act burden.
    Further, the option of mutilation is likely to reduce the NPRM 
estimate. This option may include the sale of the mutilated part as 
scrap metal. Such a sale would offset some of all of any additional 
cost of this option. Because FAA has not attempted to determine the 
preference ranking by respondents of the options permitted under this 
rule, it has no basis by which to estimate the amount the choice of 
these options will decrease the NPRM estimate. Thus, the NPRM estimate 
should be considered to be a ceiling cost.

    Issued in Washington DC on March 5, 2020.
David A. Hoyng,
Aviation Safety Inspector--LLP SME, Air Carrier Branch/Aircraft 
Maintenance Division/Safety Standards/Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05179 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P