Proposed Rule: Air Carrier Certification and Operations: Transport Category Airplanes&#8212 Aging Aircraft Program Widespread Fatigue Damage

Tuesday,
April 18, 2006
Part II
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129

Aging Aircraft Program: Widespread
Fatigue Damage; Proposed Rule
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:31 Apr 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\18APP2.SGM 18APP2
19928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Privacy: We will post all comments on or before the closing date for
we receive, without change, to http:// comments. We will consider comments
Federal Aviation Administration dms.dot.gov, including any personal filed late if it is possible to do so
information you provide. For more without incurring expense or delay. We
14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129 information, see the Privacy Act may change this proposal in light of the
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24281; Notice No. discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY comments we receive.
06–04] INFORMATION section of this document. If you want the FAA to acknowledge
Docket: To read background receipt of your comments on this
RIN 2120–AIO5 documents or comments received, go to proposal, include with your comments
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to a preaddressed, stamped postcard on
Aging Aircraft Program: Widespread which the docket number appears. We
Fatigue Damage Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, will stamp the date on the postcard and
AGENCY: Federal Aviation SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. mail it to you.
Administration (FAA), DOT. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Availability of Rulemaking Documents
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. except Federal holidays.
You can get an electronic copy using
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: This action is intended to the Internet by:
Walter Sippel, FAA, Transport Airplane (1) Searching the Department of
prevent widespread fatigue damage by
Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM– Transportation’s electronic Docket
proposing to require that design
115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Management System (DMS) Web page
approval holders establish operational
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
limits on transport category airplanes.
Design approval holders would also be Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98039–4056; (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s
required to determine if maintenance telephone (425) 227–2774, fax (425) Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/
actions are needed to prevent 227–1232. arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm; or
widespread fatigue damage before an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (3) Accessing the Government
airplane reaches its operational limit. Comments Invited Printing Office’s Web page at http://
Operators of any affected airplane www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/
would be required to incorporate the The FAA invites interested persons to aces140.html.
operational limit and any necessary participate in this rulemaking by You can also get a copy by sending a
service information into their submitting written comments, data, or request to the Federal Aviation
maintenance programs. Operation of an views. We also invite comments relating Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
affected airplane beyond the operational to the economic, environmental, energy, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue,
limit would be prohibited, unless an or federalism impacts that might result SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
operator has incorporated an extended from adopting the proposals in this calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
operational limit and any necessary document. The most helpful comments identify the docket number, notice
service information into its maintenance reference a specific portion of the number, or amendment number of this
program. proposal, explain the reason for any rulemaking.
DATES: Send your comments on or recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send I. Executive Summary
before July 17, 2006.
us two copies of written comments. The rule proposed today would
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
We will file in the docket all establish operational limits for transport
[identified by Docket Number FAA– category airplanes to preclude
comments we receive, as well as a
2006–24281] using any of the following widespread fatigue damage (WFD). It
report summarizing each substantive
methods: would also require actions to prevent
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. WFD in repairs, alterations, and
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
The docket is available for public modifications 1 to these airplanes. This
for sending your comments
inspection before and after the comment proposal should preclude WFD from
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web closing date. If you wish to review the occurring in transport category airplanes
site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov docket in person, go to the address in by providing a more proactive
and follow the instructions for sending the ADDRESSES section of this preamble management of WFD.
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday This proposal would require type
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; through Friday, except Federal holidays. certificate (TC) holders to establish an
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 You may also review the docket using initial operational limit on certain
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, the Internet at the web address in the airplanes. Operation of these airplanes
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– ADDRESSES section. beyond the initial operational limit
0001. Due to the suspension of paper Privacy Act: Using the search function would be prohibited, unless operators
mail delivery to DOT headquarters of our docket Web site, anyone can find have incorporated an extended
facilities, we encourage commenters to and read the comments received into operational limit into their maintenance
send their comments electronically. any of our dockets, including the name programs. Type certificate holders
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. of the individual sending the comment would be required to develop the initial
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on (or signing the comment on behalf of an
1 Throughout this proposal, reference is made to
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, association, business, labor union, etc.).
‘‘alterations’’ and ‘‘modifications.’’ We consider
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, You may review DOT’s complete
these terms to be synonymous. An ‘‘alteration’’ is

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Privacy Act statement in the Federal a design change that is made to an airplane;
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Register published on April 11, 2000 however, various segments of industry have also
For more information on the (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit defined these changes as ‘‘modifications.’’
Therefore, we use both terms in the proposed rule
rulemaking process, see the http://dms.dot.gov. to be all inclusive of any design change and to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Before acting on this proposal, we avoid potential misinterpretation of the intent of
this document. will consider all comments we receive these terms.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 19929
operational limits based on an the gradual deterioration of a material TABLE 1.—EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURES
evaluation of WFD susceptibility, both subjected to repeated loads. Airplane SUSCEPTIBLE TO WIDESPREAD FA-
for existing airplanes and for proposed structure experiences fatigue damage TIGUE DAMAGE—Continued
future certifications. For future type because it is subjected to repeated loads,
certification, all TC applicants for such as the pressurization and Susceptible
depressurization of an airplane that Structure
transport category airplanes would be to
affected. For existing type certificates, occurs with each flight. The fatigue
this proposal would affect only damage could result in cracks occurring Aft pressure dome outer ring MSD/MED
airplanes with maximum takeoff gross in structure over time. and dome web splices.
The likelihood of WFD in airplane Skin splice at aft pressure MSD
weights (MTGW) over 75,000 pounds, bulkhead.
including airplanes that have had the structure increases with use. WFD
Abrupt changes in web or MSD/MED
MTGW increased to greater than 75,000 results from many cracks that are skin thickness (pressurized
pounds. (These airplanes are referred to generally too small to be reliably or unpressurized structure).
in this document as large transport detected using existing inspection Window surround structure .... MSD/MED
category airplanes.) Supplemental type methods. These cracks could grow Overwing fuselage attach- MED
certificate (STC) holders for these together very rapidly, so that failure ments.
airplanes would be required to evaluate could occur before another inspection is Latches and hinges of MSD/MED
their STCs for WFD and the ability of performed to detect them. The nonplug doors.
simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks Skin at runout of large dou- MSD
the airplane to remain free of WFD up bler (MSD), fuselage, wing,
to the initial operational limit that may grow together, with or without
or empennage.
established by the TC holder. other damage in the same structural
Rib to skin attachments ......... MSD/MED
Once the proposed initial operational element, such as a large skin panel, is Typical wing or empennage MSD/MED
limits are developed, then operational known as multiple site damage. The structure.
rules in parts 121 and 129 would simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks Wing and empennage chord- MSD/MED
require operators to incorporate initial in similar adjacent structural elements, wise splices.
operational limits into their such as frames and stringers, is known
maintenance programs. The proposed as multiple element damage. Some B. History of WFD in Transport Category
operational rules would prohibit structural elements can be susceptible to Airplanes
operation beyond the limit established both types of damage, which potentially
could occur at the same time. If In April 1988, an 18-foot section of
for an airplane. However, the proposed the upper fuselage of an Aloha Airlines
design approval holder and operational undetected, either type of damage could
lead to catastrophic failure due to Boeing Model 737 airplane separated
rules would provide means for any from the airplane en route from Hilo to
person to extend the initial operational reduction of the strength capability of
the structure. Honolulu, Hawaii. The National
limit and for operators to operate an Transportation Safety Board determined
airplane under the extended operational The FAA, the European Joint Aviation
Authorities, and representatives of the that, among other things, WFD was a
limit. If an extended operational limit is contributing cause of this accident.
incorporated, the proposed operational Airworthiness Assurance Working
Group, working under the support of the Since then, WFD appears to have played
rules would prohibit operation beyond a role in several safety incidents
the extended operational limit Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC), reviewed available involving large transport airplanes,
established for an airplane. In addition, although there has not been a
the proposed operational rules would service difficulty reports for the
transport airplane fleet. They also catastrophic accident directly
address repairs, alterations, and attributable to WFD. In particular, the
modifications to airplanes operating evaluated the certification and design
practices applied to these previously FAA has issued or is in the process of
with an extended operational limit. issuing Airworthiness Directives (ADs)
The present value benefits of this certificated airplanes, including fatigue
test results. The review revealed that all addressing aft pressure bulkhead cracks,
proposal consist of $726 million of lap splice cracks, and frame cracks.
accident prevention benefits and $83 airplanes in the fleet are susceptible to
million of detection benefits for total multiple site damage or multiple C. Industry Input/Aviation Rulemaking
benefits of $809 million. The detection element damage. Table 1 identifies Advisory Committee
benefits are the benefits resulting from examples of structures susceptible to
multiple site damage (MSD) and The FAA has tasked the ARAC to
averted accidents and a reduction in address several issues related to
unscheduled maintenance and repairs. multiple element damage (MED).
widespread fatigue damage. In 2001, the
The present value cost of this proposal,
estimated over 20 years, is $360 million. TABLE 1.—EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURES ARAC recommended imposing a limit
on the validity of maintenance
The FAA estimates that airplane SUSCEPTIBLE TO WIDESPREAD FA- programs, requiring an evaluation of
manufacturers would incur TIGUE DAMAGE repairs, alterations and modifications,
approximately 10 percent of these costs, and providing a means of extending the
while the remaining 90 percent of these Susceptible
Structure limit of validity of the maintenance
to
costs would be borne by operators. program for large transport category
II. Background Longitudinal skin joints, MSD/MED airplanes. The ARAC also recommended
frames and tear straps. that elements of the existing aging
A. Widespread Fatigue Damage Circumferential joints and MSD/MED airplane program be included or
WFD is the simultaneous presence of stringers. referenced in the Airworthiness

Fuselage frames .................... MED
cracks at multiple structural locations Lap joints with milled, chem.- MSD
Limitations section (ALS) of the
that are of sufficient size and density milled, or bonded radius. Instructions for Continued
such that the structure will no longer Stringer-to-frame attachments MED Airworthiness (ICA). In 2003, the ARAC
meet the residual strength requirements Shear clip end fasteners on MSD/MED recommended imposing a limit on the
of section 25.571(b). Fatigue damage is shear tied fuselage. validity of maintenance programs for all
newly certificated transport category requirement to perform full-scale fatigue inspection, modification, or
airplanes. testing, there is no requirement to limit replacement of certain structure, or a
The ARAC recognized that structural the operation of an airplane once it combination of these approaches. ADs
fatigue characteristics of airplanes are reaches the design service goal. are reactive and address only known
only understood up to a point in time instances of WFD. Additionally, ADs are
2. Instructions for Continued
consistent with the analyses performed directed towards a specific group of
Airworthiness
and the amount of testing accomplished. airplanes. Hence, WFD may go
The maintenance program inspections As part of the current certification undetected in other airplanes with
related to structural fatigue are based on process, TC holders and STC holders similar structures.
the results of these analyses and tests. who applied for a certificate after
Therefore, these inspections may need January 28, 1981 are required by § 21.50 4. Aging Aircraft Program
to be supplemented by further to make available at least one set of
complete ICA to the owner of the In October 1991, Congress enacted the
inspections, modifications, or Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 (49
replacements, if operation beyond a airplane. The ICA must include
inspection and replacement instructions U.S.C. 44717) to address aging aircraft
certain point is planned. The ARAC concerns. In response to the Act, the
recommended that there should be a for airplane structure. Also, any person
who makes a design change to airplane FAA published an interim final rule that
‘‘limit of validity of the maintenance amended §§ 121.368, 121.370a, 129.16,
program’’ to limit the operation of an structure must provide the airplane
owner with a complete set of the ICA for and 129.33 of the air carrier operating
airplane. Once an airplane reached this rules (67 FR 72726, December 6, 2002).
limit, the operator should no longer that change.
In developing the ICA, the applicant Sections 121.368 and 129.33 require
operate the airplane, unless the operator mandatory records reviews and airplane
has incorporated an extended limit of is required to include certain
information, such as a description of the inspections after the airplane has been
validity and any necessary service in service 14 years. In addition,
information into its maintenance airplane and its systems, servicing
information, and maintenance §§ 121.370a and 129.16 require damage-
program. tolerance-based inspections and
instructions (§ 25.1529). The applicant
D. Current Regulations and Programs must include the frequency and extent procedures on airplanes operated under
Related to WFD of the structural inspections necessary 14 CFR parts 121 and 129, respectively.
to provide for the continued In response to the Aloha Airlines
1. Existing Design Criteria
airworthiness of the airplane as well as accident, the FAA formed the
In the design process, a type an FAA-approved ALS listing all Airworthiness Assurance Task Force to
certificate applicant generally mandatory inspections, inspection investigate and propose solutions to the
establishes an expected economic life intervals, replacement times, and problems evidenced as a result of the
for the airplane, known as a design related procedures. The FAA requires accident. The task force was comprised
service goal. Applicants traditionally operators to comply with each ALS of operators, manufacturers, and
defined the design service goal early in established under § 25.1529 for newly regulatory authorities. The task force
the development of a new airplane, certified airplanes or with operation recommended establishment of an
based on economic analyses, past specifications approved under part 121 Aging Airplane Program. Under the
service experience with prior models, or 135. Operators may also incorporate Aging Airplane Program, the FAA has
and in some cases fatigue testing. Design tasks—from a Maintenance Review mandated the following four separate
approval holders have also performed Board document that has been approved programs:
additional fatigue tests, teardown by the FAA 2—into their maintenance
inspections, and analyses to support program. • Supplemental Structural Inspection
changing design service goals to Programs for certain large transport
extended service goals. The regulations 3. Airworthiness Directives category airplanes;
required applicants and design approval The FAA currently issues ADs when • Corrosion Prevention and Control
holders only to show that individual we find that an unsafe condition exists Programs for certain large transport
fatigue cracks would not lead to in a product and the condition is likely category airplanes;
catastrophic structural failure. Since to exist or develop in other products of • Repair Assessment Program to
1978, 14 CFR 25.571 has required the same type design. Because WFD
ensure existing and future repairs to the
applicants for new type certificates for could lead to a catastrophic failure due
fuselage pressure boundary are assessed
transport category airplanes to establish to reduction of the strength capability of
for damage tolerance.
inspections to detect fatigue cracks the structure, we would issue an AD to
before they can grow to the point of address a finding of WFD in a particular • Mandatory Modification Program,
catastrophic failure (43 FR 46242, product. An AD typically addresses an based on the premise that to ensure the
October 5, 1978). These inspections are unsafe condition by requiring structural integrity of older airplanes
documented in the ALS. there should be less reliance on
In 1998, the FAA amended the aircraft 2 The FAA establishes a Maintenance Review repetitive inspections. (The
certification requirements for transport Board comprised of subject matter experts who determination of whether a modification
oversee development of a maintenance program for is required is based on meeting certain
category airplanes (63 FR 15707, March a specific airplane. In conjunction with the work of
31, 1998). As part of the certification the review board, an industry steering committee criteria.)
process, section 25.571 now requires comprised of representatives from the applicant, These four programs or their
operators, and the FAA, analyzes maintenance
full-scale fatigue test evidence to equivalent make up the current
requirements for that specific airplane. The review

demonstrate that WFD will not occur board and the steering committee then produce a structural maintenance program that
before an airplane reaches its design Maintenance Review Board document that contains, operators incorporate into their
service goal. Only a few airplane models among other task, inspections of the airplane maintenance or inspection programs to
structure. These inspections, in conjunction with
are subject to this new requirement, any airworthiness limitation items established
address aging structures. However, none
because the applications for most type under § 25.271, address accidental damage of the programs address widespread
certificates predate 1998. Even with the environmental damage, and fatigue damage. fatigue damage.
5. Advisory Circulars incorporate the latest mandatory Based on the ARAC

We have considered issuing Advisory changes introduced to combat structural recommendations 4 and our own
Circulars (ACs) to give guidance on the degradation due to WFD, creates a risk analysis, we have determined that
changes needed to prevent WFD. of structural failure and related operators, TC holders, and STC holders
Advisory Circulars, however, depend on accidents because the requirements are need to place more emphasis on WFD.
voluntary compliance and are not inadequate to preclude WFD. This proposal is designed to heighten
enforceable. Therefore, use of ACs alone To address WFD, we need a proactive the awareness of the threat of WFD to
would ensure neither consistent results approach, i.e., address conditions airplanes and to change the current
nor achievement of the WFD safety affecting safe flight that we know can approach to maintaining and modifying
objectives for the current and future happen—before they happen. This them. Table 2 summarizes the proposed
fleet.3 approach would require persons to regulatory changes discussed today.
analyze the causes of WFD in relation to
E. Summary of the Proposal the entire airplane and to analyze
Long-term reliance on existing repairs, alterations, and modifications
requirements, even those that installed on the airplane.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES ADDRESSING WFD

14 CFR Description of proposal Applies to Compliance date
§ 25.571 ......................................... Replace ‘‘design service goal’’ Future applicants for new Type Before approval of TC by Aircraft
with ‘‘initial operational limit.’’ Certificates (TC). Certification Office (ACO).
Require an initial operational limit
as part of the Airworthiness
Limitation Section (ALS) of the
Instructions for Continued Air-
worthiness (ICA).
§ 25.1807 ....................................... Require initial operational limits TC holders .................................... December 18, 2007.
for all transport category air- Supplemental TC (STC) holders* December 18, 2007.
planes with a Maximum Take- Applicants for pending TCs and Later of December 18, 2007, or
off Gross Weight (MTGW) STCs.* date of certificate.
greater 75,000 lb. Applicants for new STCs* and Later of December 18, 2007, or
amended TCs.* date of certificate.
Establish WFD guidelines for as- TC holders .................................... December 18, 2009.
sessing repairs, alterations, and Applicants for TCs ........................ Later of December 18, 2009, or
modifications. date of certificate.
§ 25.1809 ....................................... Require WFD assessment of all STC holders (other than those December 18, 2010.
existing, pending, and future covered by § 25.1807). Later of December 18, 2010, or
structural design changes in re- Applicants for pending and future date of certificate.
lationship to initial operational STCs and amended TCs.
limits; require development of
any maintenance actions to
preclude WFD.
§ 25.1811 ....................................... Establish requirements for extend- Any person ................................... Before approval of extension by
ing any operational limits. ACO.
§ 25.1813 ....................................... Establish requirements for evalu- Any person seeking approval for Before approval of repairs, alter-
ating certain repairs, alterations, repairs, alterations, or modifica- ations, or modifications by
and modifications proposed for tions. ACO.
installation on airplanes with an
extended operational limit.
Appendix H to part 25 .................... Require initial operational limits as Applicants for future TCs .............. Before approval of TC by ACO.
part of the ALS of the ICA.
Require guidelines for evaluating
WFD effects of repairs, alter-
ations, and modifications.
§ 121.1115 § 129.115 ..................... Require operators to incorporate U.S. certificate holders and for- June 18, 2008.
operational limits into their eign persons operating U.S.-
maintenance programs. registered transport category
airplanes.
Require operators to incorporate ....................................................... Before operating under extended
any WFD airworthiness limita- operational limit.
tions for airplanes with ex-
tended operational limits.
3 Voluntary safety assessments, such as those 4 ‘‘Structural Fatigue Evaluation for Aging Fatigue Damage in the Commercial Fleet’’ Rev. A
relating to the thrust reverser and cargo door Airplanes’’ (October, 1993); recommendation to add (June, 1999); ‘‘General Structures Harmonization
reviews, have been difficult to complete in a timely an appendix to AC 91–56, ‘‘Supplemental Working Group Report Damage Tolerance and
manner because they lacked enforceability. Structural Inspection Program (SSIP) for Large Fatigue Evaluation of Structures FAR/JAR § 25.571’’
Transport Category Airplanes’’; ‘‘Recommendations
(October, 2003).
for Regulatory Action to Prevent Widespread
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES ADDRESSING WFD—Continued

14 CFR Description of proposal Applies to Compliance date
Establish requirements for identi- ....................................................... Within 90 days after return to

fication and evaluation of cer- service, following repairs, alter-
tain repairs, alterations, and ations, or modifications.
modifications installed on air-
planes operating under an ex-
tended operational limit.
* Where STC increases MTGW to greater than 75,000 lb.
Note. There are also requirements for current holders of design approvals and those with pending design approvals to develop compliance
plans, detailing how they will achieve compliance with the applicable requirements. For future applicants, similar information would be contained
in a certification plan. To simplify the table above, these administrative requirements were omitted.
III. Requirements for Design Approval • Structural Repair Manuals, where Paragraph (d) would be added to make
Holders operators are still awaiting DAH action part 25 applicable to persons seeking
to perform damage tolerance evaluations approval of repairs, alterations, or
A. Ongoing Responsibility of Type
and establish inspections, even though modifications of certain transport
Certificate Holders for Continued
the DAH committed to completing this category airplanes. This latter category
Airworthiness activity by 1993. is included, because repairs, alterations,
Several recent safety regulations In addition, DAHs have committed in and modifications can affect the
necessitated action by air carriers and the past to providing data to the FAA to structural integrity of the airplane.
other operators but did not require support the certification basis of an These changes may have an adverse
design approval holders to develop and airplane. In some instances, the DAH effect on the continued airworthiness of
provide the necessary data and has missed the due date given for this the airplane. Those seeking approval of
documents to facilitate the operators’ commitment by up to 13 years. these changes should be aware of these
compliance. Operators are often We intend to require type-certificate effects and address these issues if
dependent on action by a design holders, manufacturers and others to relevant.
approval holder before they can take actions necessary to support the In order to ensure the effectiveness of
implement new safety rules. Ongoing continued airworthiness of and to this change, we would also amend
difficulty reported by operators in improve the safety of transport category § 25.2(d) (‘‘Special retroactive
attempting to meet these rules has airplanes. Such actions include requirements’’) so as to require
convinced us that corresponding design performing assessments, developing adherence to a new Subpart I which
approval holder (DAH) responsibilities design changes, revising ICAs, and may require design changes and other
may be warranted under certain making available necessary activities by manufacturers when
circumstances to enable operators to documentation to affected persons. We needed. The amended paragraph would
meet regulatory deadlines. When DAHs believe this requirement is necessary to also apply to persons seeking approval
fail to provide the required data in a facilitate compliance by air carriers with of repairs, alterations or modifications
timely manner, operators may be forced operating rules that in effect demand the of transport category airplanes. This
to incur the costs associated with use of new safety features. latter category is included because
To address this problem, we propose repairs, alterations and modifications
obtaining the expertise to develop the
to amend subpart A of part 25 to expand can affect the structural integrity of the
data. Some examples of programs in
its coverage and to add a new subpart airplane. If the repairs, modifications or
which some DAHs did not develop and
I to establish requirements for current alterations are performed incorrectly,
make available the necessary
holders. As discussed in our final rule, they may have an adverse effect on the
information in a timely manner include:
‘‘Fuel Tank Safety Compliance continued airworthiness of the airplane.
• Thrust reversers, where it took 10 Extension and Aging Airplane Program This proposal would establish a new
years to develop some service Update’’ (69 FR 45936, July 30, 2004), subpart I, Continued Airworthiness and
information AD-related items; this and related proposals would add Safety Improvements, where we would
• Class D to Class C Cargo provisions to a new subpart I requiring locate rules imposing ongoing
Conversions, where one TC holder did actions by design approval holders that responsibilities on design approval
not develop the necessary modifications will allow operators to comply with our holders. On July 12, 2005, we issued
in time to support operator compliance rules. policy statement PS–ANM110–7–12–
and where several operators were Part 25 currently sets airworthiness 2005, ‘‘Safety—A Shared
unable to obtain timely technical standards for the issuance of TCs and Responsibility—New Direction for
support and modification parts from changes to those certificates for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for
STC holders; transport category airplanes. It does not Transport Airplanes’’ (70 FR 40166).
• The Reinforced Flight Deck Door list the specific responsibilities of The policy states, in part, ‘‘Based on our
Program, where most operators had manufacturers to ensure continued evaluation of more effective regulatory
substantially less than the one-year airworthiness of these airplanes once approaches for certain types of safety
compliance time originally anticipated the certificate is issued. Therefore, we initiatives and the comments received
because of delays in developing and propose to revise § 25.1 by adding from the Aging Airplane Program
certifying the new designs; paragraph (c) to make clear that part 25 Update (July 30, 2004), the FAA has
• Repair Assessment Rule, where creates such responsibilities for holders concluded that we need to adopt a
some operators were required to of existing type and supplemental type regulatory approach recognizing the
develop their own data for FAA certificates for transport category shared responsibility between design
approval in order to meet the rule’s airplanes and applicants for approval of approval holders (DAHs) and operators.
compliance date; and design changes to those certificates. When we decide that general
rulemaking is needed to address an Aviation Regulations (SFAR). These ‘‘significant,’’ the applicant may be
airworthiness issue, and believe the regulations are difficult to locate allowed to show compliance by
safety objective can only be fully because they are scattered throughout pointing to standards that applied to the
achieved if the DAHs provide operators Title 14. Placing all these types of original TC. (See AC 21.101–1,
with the necessary information in a requirements in a single subpart of part ‘‘Establishing the Certification Basis of
timely manner, we will propose 25 which contains the airworthiness Changed Aeronautical Products,’’ a copy
requirements for the affected DAHs to standards for transport category of which can be downloaded from
provide that information by a certain airplanes would provide ready access to http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl).
date.’’ critical rules. With the adoption of subpart I rules,
We believe that the safety objectives In preliminary discussions with we must ensure that safety
contained in this proposal can only be foreign aviation authorities with whom improvements that result from TC
reliably achieved and acceptable to the we try to harmonize our safety rules, holder compliance with these
FAA if the DAHs provide the operators they have expressed concern about requirements are not undone by later
with the initial operational limits consolidating parallel requirements in modifications. Therefore, even when we
required by the proposed operational their counterparts to part 25. They have determine under § 21.101 that
rules for parts 121 and 129. Our suggested that it may be more applicants need not comply with the
determination that DAH requirements appropriate to place them in part 21 or latest airworthiness standards, they will
are necessary to support the initiatives elsewhere. Therefore, we specifically be required to demonstrate that the
contained in this proposal is based on request comments from the public, change would not degrade the level of
several factors: including foreign authorities, on the safety provided by the TC holder’s
• Developing initial operational appropriate place for these compliance with the subpart I rule. In
limits is complex. Only the airplane airworthiness requirements for type the context of this proposal, for
manufacturer, or DAH, has access to all certificate holders. example, this will mean that an
the necessary type design data needed We reserve additional sections in this applicant for approval of a design
for the timely and efficient development proposed subpart to include other future change would have to perform a WFD
of the required initial operational limit. aging airplane rules, several of which evaluation to determine if any
• FAA-approved operational limits are under development. Some of these maintenance actions are necessary to
need to be available in a timely manner. proposals include similar language preclude WFD.
Due to the complexity of these initial establishing the general airworthiness
operational limits, we need to ensure responsibilities of manufacturers and B. Applicability
that the DAHs submit them for approval thus include some overlapping 1. Holders of Type Certificates and
on schedule. This will allow the FAA provisions. Once any proposal Supplemental Type Certificates
Oversight Office having approval establishing these broad responsibilities
authority to ensure that the initial becomes a final rule, we will delete the This proposal, if adopted, would
operational limits are acceptable, are duplicative requirements from the other impose requirements on TC holders for
available on time, and can be readily proposals and retain only that language all large transport category airplanes.
implemented by the affected operators. pertinent to any specific new safety Under § 25.571, an applicant for a TC
• The proposals in this NPRM affect regulations (such as fuel-tank would have to establish an initial
a large number of different types of flammability reduction). operational limit for the contemplated
transport airplanes. Because the safety However, the ongoing-airworthiness airplane design as part of its
issues addressed by this proposal are requirements in Subpart I would not by application. Likewise, existing TC
common to many airplanes, we need to their terms reach applicants for TCs holders would have to establish an
ensure that technical requirements are with respect to new projects for which initial operational limit for all large
met consistently and the processes of application is made after the effective transport category airplanes under
compliance are consistent. This will date of the proposed rule. This is § 25.1807 if the MTGW of the airplane
ensure that the proposed safety unnecessary, because when we adopt a exceeds 75,000 lb. Type certificate and
enhancements are implemented in a new requirement for TC holders, there STC holders would also have to
standardized manner. will be a corresponding amendment to establish an initial operational limit for
• The safety objectives of this part 25 expressly making the new, or a all large transport category airplanes
proposal need to be maintained for the similar safety standard a condition for under § 25.1807 if the MTGW of the
operational life of the airplane. We need receiving a TC in the future. For airplane was 75,000 pounds or less, and
to ensure that future design changes to example, in this proposal, the new later increased to greater than 75,000
the type design of the airplane do not requirements of § 25.571 regarding WFD pounds by an amended type certificate
degrade the safety enhancements will govern future applications. or supplemental type certificate.
achieved by the incorporation of initial For safety reasons, however, we are This proposal, if adopted, would
operational limits. We need to be aware requiring that any application for a type apply not only to domestic TC and STC
of future changes to the type designs to design change not degrade the level of holders, but also to foreign TC and STC
ensure that these changes do not safety already created by the TC holder’s holders. This rule would be different
invalidate initial operational limits presumed compliance with the subpart from most type certification programs
developed under the requirements of I rule. Currently, when reviewing an for new TCs, where foreign applicants
this proposal. application for such a change, we typically work with their responsible
Based on the above reasons and the employ the governing standards stated certification authority and the FAA
stated safety objectives of FAA policy in part 21, specifically § 21.101. That relies to some degree upon that
PS–ANM110–7–12–2005, we are section generally requires compliance authority’s findings of compliance

proposing to implement DAH with standards in effect on the date of under bilateral airworthiness
requirements applicable to operational application but contains exceptions that agreements. Presently no other
limits. may allow applicants to show certification authority has adopted
In the past, this type of requirement compliance with earlier standards. For requirements addressing WFD for
took the form of a Special Federal example, if a change is not considered existing TCs. Additionally, while some
authorities have indicated an interest in operating under parts 121 and 129 British Aerospace, Aircraft Group and
adopting some type of requirements for today. Of those airplanes, there are Societe Nationale Industrielle
new airplane designs, they may not approximately 430 regional jets that are Aerospatiale Concorde Type 1.
adopt requirements applicable to at least eight years old. These airplanes It is not clear at this time that the
existing TCs. have accumulated an average of 12,000 possible benefits of this rule for those
Accordingly, the FAA will retain the flight cycles. The regional jet with the airplanes would be proportionate to the
authority to make all the necessary greatest number of flight cycles is 11 cost involved. We request comments on
compliance determinations and, where years old and has accumulated about the feasibility and benefits of including
appropriate, may request certain 26,000 flight cycles, well below the or excluding these airplanes. We also
compliance determinations by the existing design service goal for this request comments on the feasibility of
appropriate foreign authorities using airplane of 60,000 flight cycles. including or excluding any other
procedures developed under the The FAA recognizes that using a transport category airplanes with a
bilateral agreements. The compliance cutoff of 75,000 pounds does not align maximum takeoff gross weight greater
planning provisions of this proposed with the FAA’s ‘‘One Level of Safety’’ than 75,000 pounds from the
rule are equally important for domestic initiative (that is, the same level for all requirements of this provision, whether
and foreign TC and STC holders and airplanes used in air carrier service). or not they are operated under parts 121
applicants, and we will work with the However, we determined a cutoff of and 129.
foreign authorities to ensure that their 75,000 pounds to be appropriate at this
TC and STC holders and applicants time for the following reasons: C. Initial Operational Limit (§ 25.571,
perform the planning necessary to • This is the same cutoff used for the § 25.1807)
comply with those requirements. four aging airplane programs mentioned Under this proposal, design approval
above, and the affected type certificate holders would be required to establish
2. Airplanes
holders are able to address these an initial operational limit 5 for all
If adopted, this rule would apply, problems now. transport airplanes if certificated under
with some exceptions discussed below, • Some airplanes over 75,000 pounds a new TC and for those transport
to large transport category airplane are at a greater risk due to higher total airplanes over 75,000 pounds if
designs (MTGW greater than 75,000 cycles and age. certificated under an existing TC.
pounds) by virtue of either the original • Most air carrier airplanes are of this Demonstration that WFD will not occur
certification of the airplane or a later size, and many of them are near or over prior to the initial operational limit
increase in its MTGW. All transport their design service goal. typically would involve an evaluation of
category airplanes certificated under a • The regional jets not affected are the airplane model using fatigue test
TC that was applied for after the relatively young and, therefore, at low evidence, analyses, and airplane service
effective date of the final rule would risk relative to WFD. information. Initial operational limits
also be subject to the requirements • The high-cycle regional jet will be
may also include specified maintenance
proposed today. This combined in service for an additional 14 years
actions necessary to preclude WFD,
approach would result in the coverage before reaching its design service goal.
which would be addressed through the
of airplanes where the safety benefits The FAA may determine that we need
airworthiness directive process.6
and the public interest are the greatest. to expand the scope of this rule at a later
Airplane owners or operators may
The ARAC working group that time, based on evaluations of the
need to take certain maintenance
developed this recommendation did not potential for WFD in regional jets. All of
actions to support the operational
include design approval holders for these regional jets are manufactured in
limits. These actions may include
airplanes of less than 75,000 pounds other countries, and any efforts to
additional inspections, structural
MTGW, in part because they were not address WFD should be developed in
modifications, or replacements. The
asked to do so. However, in addition to coordination with those countries. Until
inspections would include an
its WFD recommendations, this working that time, if WFD problems are
inspection start point and repetitive
group developed recommendations on identified in these airplanes, we will
inspection intervals, along with
other aging airplane issues, including address them through airworthiness
inspection methods. Because
the Supplemental Structural Inspection directives. No WFD problems have yet
inspections may not be reliable in
Program, the Corrosion Prevention and been identified for regional jets. The
detecting MSD or MED, structural
Control Program, the Repair Assessment FAA requests comments on this aspect
modification points, which may include
Program, and the Mandatory of the proposed rule.
While the ARAC recommendations modifications or replacements, may
Modification Program. Because of these eventually be required. Means of
efforts, design approval holders for large applied to all transport category
airplanes over 75,000 pounds, the group compliance with the requirements for
transport category airplanes have performing a WFD evaluation and
already developed the technology and of airplanes of most concern is that
group operating under parts 121 and establishing an inspection start point
the internal organizational capability to and structural modification points will
address WFD. Therefore, the 75,000 129. Because carriers in scheduled
operations fly airplanes operated under be further described in a proposed AC.
pound MTGW is a logical reference To establish an initial operational
point for developing programs for those parts, they are flown more often
than other airplanes of comparable size limit, the FAA recognizes that the
addressing WFD. structural configuration of the airplane
We considered applying this proposal and are accordingly more likely to
to all existing part 25 airplanes. develop WFD. Thus, this proposal 5 The most direct method for limiting the
However, we have determined that would exclude airplanes over 75,000
operation of an airplane is to prohibit operation

smaller regional jets do not currently pounds that are not operated under beyond a certain point. For the purpose of this rule,
present a risk of WFD sufficient to parts 121 or 129. For this reason, we we are using the term ‘‘operational limit of an
have tentatively decided that this airplane’’ rather than ‘‘limit of valdity of the
justify the cost associated with meeting maintenance program’’ as recommended by ARAC.
this proposal. proposal, if adopted, should exclude the 6 We intend to use the AD process, so that
The 75,000-pound cutoff excludes Bombardier BD–700, the Gulfstream G– operators will have an opportunity to comment on
about 1,600 regional jets that are V, the Gulfstream G–VSP, and the the contemplated maintenance actions.
needs to be identified. Thus, § 25.1807 establishing initial operational limits. The WFD evaluation would consist of
would specify the airplane structural Service information may be available for identifying structure susceptible to
configurations that must be evaluated. design approval holders to make those multiple site damage or multiple
As a minimum, the structural initial operational limits higher. In fact, element damage based on the
configuration would consist of all model the FAA is aware that design approval configurations discussed above. Once
variations and derivatives approved holders may have service information, the structure has been identified,
under the type certificate and all such as service bulletins or all operator affected design approval holders would
structural modifications and letters that could have an impact on determine when WFD is likely to occur.
replacements mandated by ADs as of the proposed initial operational limits, but This WFD evaluation would be based on
effective date of the rule. These ADs have not been mandated by AD. We are consideration of the following:
would only be those issued against any also aware that these persons may be in • Service history: reported findings of
configurations developed by TC holders. the process of developing service multiple site damage or multiple
They would not be for any ADs issued information that could have an impact element damage.
against modifications defined by an STC on proposed initial operational limits. • Test data: WFD information from
installed on affected airplanes. The They may choose to specify additional past component or full-scale test results.
result would be an airplane structural maintenance actions resulting from such This could include information on
configuration that is clearly understood service information that could result in susceptibility of structure to WFD, crack
by both industry and the FAA. higher initial operational limits. initiation life, crack growth life, and
The initial operational limit would be Accordingly, the proposed rule residual strength.
stated as a number of total accumulated includes an option for design approval • Fatigue analyses: predictions of
flight cycles or flight hours. An initial holders to use existing maintenance times when multiple site damage or
operational limit based on flight hours actions for which service information multiple element damage cracking
may be required for structure, such as has not been mandated by AD. These would occur.
the wings, that typically accumulates maintenance actions would be in • Damage tolerance analyses:
fatigue damage due to the repeated addition to the airplane structural predictions of multiple site damage or
flight loads that occur on an airplane configurations that design approval multiple element crack growth life and
over time. An initial operational limit holders would evaluate under the residual strength.
based on flight cycles may be required proposed regulation. To use this option, • Teardown inspections of high-usage
for structure, such as the fuselage, that the affected design approval holders airplanes.
typically accumulates fatigue damage would be required to submit a list
due to the pressurization and Certain design approval holders have
identifying the existing maintenance revealed to the FAA their plans to
depressurization of an airplane. There is actions to the FAA oversight office. The
no way to correlate between the two establish initial operational limits that
affected design approval holders would would be 130 to 150 percent of the DSG
limits without knowing the applicable then establish initial operational limits
design and operational variables, such or ESG for their airplanes. They have
based on WFD evaluations that take also started to identify the necessary
as average flight length. Accordingly, credit for existing maintenance actions.
design approval holders may need to maintenance actions, including the
establish both a flight hour limit and a The proposed rule also includes an inspection and modification start
flight cycle limit. option for affected design approval points, to preclude WFD up to the
The initial evaluation of the airplane holders to use maintenance actions for established initial operational limits for
structural configuration should identify which service information has not been these airplanes. Many inspection and
a projected airplane usage beyond its issued. Those maintenance actions modification start points would be
design service goal (DSG). This would be in addition to the airplane approximately at the design service goal
projected airplane usage is also known structural configurations that must be or, in some cases, at 125 percent of the
as the ‘‘proposed extended service goal’’ evaluated. To use this option, the design service goal. This would support
(ESG). Typically, an evaluation through affected persons would be required to an initial operational limit that could be
at least an additional twenty-five submit a list identifying each of those substantially higher than the DSG or
percent of the DSG would provide a maintenance actions and a binding ESG for a particular airplane. Other
realistic ESG. The ESG would be based schedule for providing in a timely design approval holders have indicated
on an additional evaluation of the manner the necessary service that the initial operational limits for
airplane structural configuration and information for those actions to the FAA their airplanes would be at DSG or ESG.
depends on the following: oversight office. The binding schedule is This is because relatively few of their
• The projected useful life of the necessary to ensure the applicable airplanes are in operation today or all of
airplane at the time of the initial service information is provided to the their airplanes are many years away
evaluation; FAA in sufficient time for the agency to from accumulating the number of flight
• Current inspection techniques and issue ADs mandating these actions, and cycles shown in Table 3.
procedures; and operators to comply with them before Table 3 provides estimates of DSGs
• Airline advance planning WFD occurs. The design approval and ESGs of various airplanes that
requirements for introduction of new holders would then establish initial would be affected by this proposal.
maintenance actions, to support the operational limits based on WFD These DSGs and ESGs are based on
ESG. evaluations that take credit for information provided by type certificate
Design approval holders may select maintenance actions for which service holders or on a conservative estimate by
DSGs or ESGs as starting points for information has not been issued. the FAA.
TABLE 3.—DESIGN AND EXTENDED SERVICE GOALS

Service goals
Type
Airplane type (in flight
certificate cycles)
Airbus:
A300 B2–1A, B2–1C and B2K–3C ........................................................................................................... A35EU ................... 48,000
A300 B4–2C and B4–103 ......................................................................................................................... A35EU ................... 40,000
A300 Model B4–203 ................................................................................................................................. A35EU ................... 34,000
A300 B4–600 Series, B4–600R Series and F4–600R Series .................................................................. A35EU ................... 30,000
A310–200 Series ....................................................................................................................................... A35EU ................... 40,000
A310–300 Series ....................................................................................................................................... A35EU ................... 35,000
A319 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A28NM .................. 48,000
A320 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A28NM .................. 48,000
A321 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A28NM .................. 48,000
A330 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A46NM .................. 40,000
A340 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A43NM .................. 20,000
Boeing:
Boeing 707 (–100 series and –200 series) .............................................................................................. 4A21 ...................... 20,000
Boeing 707 (–300 series and –400 series) .............................................................................................. 4A26 ...................... 20,000
Boeing 717 (all models) ............................................................................................................................ A6WE .................... 60,000
Boeing 720 ................................................................................................................................................ 4A28 ...................... 30,000
Boeing 727 ................................................................................................................................................ A3WE .................... 60,000
Boeing 737 ................................................................................................................................................ A16WE .................. 75,000
Boeing 747 ................................................................................................................................................ A20WE .................. 20,000
Boeing 757 ................................................................................................................................................ A2NM .................... 50,000
Boeing 767 ................................................................................................................................................ A1NM .................... 50,000
Boeing 777 ................................................................................................................................................ T00001SE ............. 44,000
Bombardier Aerospace Model:

CL–44D4 and CL–44J .............................................................................................................................. 1A20 ...................... 20,000
British Aerospace Airbus, Ltd.:

BAC 1–11 (all models) .............................................................................................................................. A5EU ..................... 85,000
British Aerospace (Commercial Aircraft) Ltd.:
Armstrong Whitworth Argosy A.W. 650 Series 101 ................................................................................. 7A9 ........................ 20,000
BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.:

BAE 46 (all models) and Avro 146 ........................................................................................................... A49EU ................... 50,000
RJ70A, RJ85A and RJ100A (all models) .................................................................................................
Fokker:
F28/F70/F100 (all models) ........................................................................................................................ A20EU ................... 90,000
Lockheed:
300–50A01 (USAF C 141A) ..................................................................................................................... A2SO .................... 20,000
L–1011 (all models) .................................................................................................................................. A23WE .................. 36,000
L188 (all models) ...................................................................................................................................... A1SO .................... 26,600
382 (all models) ........................................................................................................................................ 4A22 ...................... 20,000
1649A–98 .................................................................................................................................................. 4A17 ...................... 20,000
1049–54, 1049B–55, 1049C–55, 1049D–55, 1049E–55, 1049F–55, 1049G–82 .................................... 6A5 ........................ 20,000
49–46, 149–46, 649–79, 649A–79, 749–79, 749A–79 ............................................................................. A–763 .................... 20,000
McDonnell Douglas:
DC–6 ......................................................................................................................................................... A–781 .................... 20,000
DC–6A (all models) ................................................................................................................................... 6A3 ........................ 20,000
DC–6B (all models) ................................................................................................................................... 6A4 ........................ 20,000
DC–7 (all models) ..................................................................................................................................... 4A10 ...................... 20,000
DC–8 (all models) ..................................................................................................................................... 4A25 ...................... 50,000
DC–9 (all models) ..................................................................................................................................... A6WE .................... 100,000
DC–10–10 ................................................................................................................................................. A22WE .................. 42,000
DC–10–30, –40 ......................................................................................................................................... A22WE .................. 30,000
MD–10–10F ............................................................................................................................................... A22WE .................. 42,000
MD–10–30F ............................................................................................................................................... A22WE .................. 30,000
MD–11 (all models) ................................................................................................................................... A22WE .................. 20,000
MD–80 (all models) ................................................................................................................................... A6WE .................... 50,000
MD–90–30 ................................................................................................................................................. A6WE .................... 60,000
D. Instructions for Continued 2007, or the date a certificate is issued, before the initial operational limit, then
Airworthiness (§ 25.571, § 25.1807, whichever occurs later. Holders or service information for maintenance
§ 25.1811, Appendix H) applicants for STCs, or amendments to actions must be developed and
We propose to require inclusion of the TCs, that increase the maximum takeoff submitted to the FAA oversight office
initial operational limit in the ALS of gross weight to greater than 75,000 for approval. Once approved, we would
the ICA. This limit would be stated as pounds would be required to comply by issue ADs that would require operators
a number of total accumulated flight December 18, 2007, or, in the case of to perform the maintenance actions.
cycles or flight hours. We will publish applicants, the date a certificate is
Because TC holders are the only
issued, whichever occurs later.
a notice in the Federal Register persons with sufficient knowledge of
In determining the compliance
informing the public that the initial the airplane to be able to develop the
schedules for the proposed
operational limits are available on an requirements, we balanced the safety- guidelines, they would also be required
FAA website when this information is related reasons for the rule against the to develop and submit WFD guidelines
received from the design approval need to give industry sufficient time to for evaluating repairs, alterations, and
holders. comply. Therefore, before setting the modifications susceptible to WFD other
• For those persons that applied for a proposed compliance dates for analysis than those for which they are
TC after the effective date of the rule, completion, we considered the responsible. The guidelines would use
the ICA, which includes the ALS, would following: criteria similar to those used to evaluate
be provided with an airplane upon • Alignment with current or planned the full airplane structural
delivery. This ICA would also include compliance dates of several aging- configurations discussed above and
guidelines to assist in addressing future related rulemakings, such as the Aging could include service history, fatigue
repairs, alterations, and modifications Airplane Safety rule (FR cite), Fuel Tank analysis, test data, or damage tolerance
so that they do not compromise this System safety initiatives (69 FR 45936, analysis. The guidelines would provide
initial operational limit. 66 FR 23086), and Enhanced a means to identify repairs, alterations,
• For those TC holders that currently Airworthiness Program for Airplane or modifications that may be susceptible
have an ALS, the ALS would be revised Systems/Fuel Tank Safety (69 FR 58508, to WFD. As discussed earlier, we have
to include the initial operational limit. October 6, 2005). tasked ARAC to provide
For those TC holders with airplanes that • Safety improvements that will recommendations for methods to
currently do not have an ALS, the ALS result from compliance with this rule. develop this type of guidance. We will
would be established to include the • Industry’s current efforts to provide guidance for development of
initial operational limit. incorporate some of these safety
• For any person who applies for an these guidelines in a proposed AC.
initiatives.
extended operational limit, we propose However, the rulemaking process took We anticipate the guidelines would
to require inclusion of that limit in a longer than originally anticipated. have the necessary data to allow others
supplement to the ALS. This extended Consequently, given the specific to identify and perform an evaluation of
operational limit may include service compliance dates in the proposed repairs, alterations, and modifications.
information documented as rulemaking and the likelihood that Also, these guidelines would support
airworthiness limitation items that must finalization of the rules will be later identification and evaluations of STCs
be accomplished to support the than expected, there may not be as and repairs, alterations, and
extended operational limit. much time allowed for compliance as modifications to those STCs. They could
The ALS is required by current part originally planned. We recognize that be used to develop extended operational
25 and includes those items that have compliance intervals may need to be limits and evaluate repairs, alterations,
mandatory inspection or replacement adjusted and will consider your and modifications for those airplanes
times related to structure. However, the comments on this condition. with extended operational limits. These
current part 25 ALS and ICA guidelines would contain data for
requirements apply only to airplanes E. Service Information and Guidelines
for Repairs, Alterations and development of service information that
certified after amendment 25–54 became would include possible maintenance
effective in 1980. As a result, they are Modifications (§ 25.1807(g), Appendix
H) actions that, as stated earlier, may
not applicable to many current include inspection start points,
airplanes. The proposal would require affected structural modification points, and
For those TC holders with airplanes persons to submit for FAA approval inspection intervals and methods.
that currently do not have an ALS, the WFD service information and guidelines
ALS would address only initial for addressing repairs, alterations, and We propose a compliance date of
operational limits. This proposal would modifications. Operators often use December 18, 2009, or the date the
not require that the ALS for these manufacturers’ data, such as structural certificate is issued, whichever occurs
airplanes include the other repair manuals and service bulletins, to later, for affected persons to submit
requirements for an ALS established repair or modify their airplanes. Such service information and guidelines for
under amendment 25–54 to part 25, or repairs or modifications could be made approval by the FAA oversight office.
a later amendment. at any time during the service life of the We consider development of initial
Assuming the final rule for this airplane. This proposal would require operational limits to be the most
proposal is effective December 18, 2006, TC holders to evaluate repairs and pressing concern. Accordingly, we
this proposal would set a 12-month modifications identified in their would provide TC holders and
timeframe for development of the ALS, structural repair manuals, service applicants with additional time to
unless previously accomplished, to bulletins, and other service information address repairs, alterations, and
include initial operational limits. TC and design approvals. The evaluation of modifications after the development of
holders would be required to comply by these repairs and modifications is initial operational limits. This will
December 18, 2007. Persons who have necessary to determine if and when enable TC holders and applicants to use
pending applications for TCs would be WFD is likely to occur. If the evaluation the results of the ARAC tasking
required to comply by December 18, concludes that WFD is likely to occur discussed earlier.
F. Changes to Type Certificates (STCs the FAA oversight office. Affected operational limits would be established
and Amended TCs) (§ 25.1809) persons would be required to use one of in an ALS using the requirements of
STC holders, or applicants for design the approved procedures for screening § 25.1529, along with corresponding
changes, would be required to perform design changes for standardization ALIs. This proposed requirement does
a WFD evaluation to determine if the purposes. The proposed requirements not specify a compliance plan since the
design change, or structure affected by would impose the same level of normal process for obtaining approvals
the design change, requires maintenance evaluation as proposed for TC holders under the provisions of subparts D and
actions prior to the initial operational in determining an initial operational E of part 21 already contemplates such
limit.7 Affected structure can be new limit. a plan.
The guidelines would provide To establish an extended operational
structure installed by a design change or
affected persons with a means to limit, the structural configuration of
existing structure modified by a design
identify whether affected structure is each affected airplane needs to be
change. Structure may be affected if it
susceptible to WFD. It would also identified as follows:
is physically changed or there is a • All model variations and
provide a standardized WFD
change or redistribution of internal methodology for evaluating any design derivatives approved under the type
loads. The following types of repairs, changes and determining their impact certificate for which extension is sought.
alterations or modifications are likely to on surrounding structure. The • Any maintenance actions identified
have WFD implications: guidelines would specify criteria to by the TC or STC holder as necessary to
• Passenger-to-freighter conversions support the initial operational limit
determine if additional maintenance
(including addition of main deck cargo actions are required. If an affected established under § 25. 571 or § 25.1807.
doors). person determines that the design • All structural repairs, alterations,
• Gross weight increases (increased and modifications installed on each
change does not cause a WFD concern,
operating weights, increased zero fuel affected airplane, whether or not
then no further action is required.
weights, increased landing weights, and For future design changes, the ALS required by AD, up to the date of
increased maximum takeoff weights). developed with the ICA would include approval of the extended operational
• Installation of fuselage cutouts any associated service information that limit.
(passenger entry doors, emergency exit is necessary to enable the airplane to Unlike the proposed requirements for
doors or crew escape hatches, fuselage reach the initial operational limit. This initial operational limits, applicants
access doors, and cabin window service information would be might have to conduct separate
relocations). documented as airworthiness limitation evaluations on each affected airplane
• Complete re-engine or pylon because of configuration differences
items (ALIs). Under § 91.403(c),
modifications. rather than relying on a single
compliance with airworthiness
• Engine hush-kits and nacelle evaluation for a group of airplanes. The
limitations is mandatory, so the effect of
alterations. configuration for any one airplane may
documenting these actions as ALIs is
• Wing modifications such as consist of repairs, alterations, or
that operators using the design change
installing winglets or changes in flight modifications that are unique to that
would be required to do them.
control settings (flap droop), and airplane. Applicants might also need to
The following compliance dates for
alteration of wing trailing edge consider additional fatigue testing
evaluating design changes and
structure. because the fatigue testing that
developing service information for
• Modified, repaired, or replaced skin supported the initial operational limit
maintenance actions that must be
splices. may not be sufficient to support the
performed to preclude WFD would need
• Any modification, repair, or proposed extended operational limit.
to be met:
alteration that affects several stringer or
• Holders of STCs: no later than The service information for any
frame bays. necessary maintenance actions would
December 18, 2010.
• A modification that covers structure • Applicants for STCs and for be documented as an ALI.
requiring periodic inspection by the amendments to STCs: no later than Extending the operational limit of an
operator’s maintenance program. December 18, 2010, or the date the airplane raises implications for the
• A modification that results in validity of any subsequent repairs,
certificate is issued, whichever occurs
operational mission change that alterations or modifications.
later.
significantly changes the manufacturer’s Accordingly, any person seeking
load or stress spectrum, e.g., passenger- G. Extended Operational Limit approval for installation of any repair,
to-freighter conversion. (§ 25.1811, § 25.1813) alteration, or modification would be
• A modification that changes areas This proposal, if adopted, would required to perform an evaluation of
of the fuselage that prevents external permit operation of an airplane past its that repaired, altered, or modified
visual inspection, e.g., installation of a existing (initial or extended) operational structure. Persons seeking approval of
large external fuselage doubler that limit if a person were able to any repair, alteration, or modification
results in hiding details beneath it. demonstrate that WFD will not occur in would be required to use the guidelines
This proposal would require the airplane up to the proposed specified in § 25.1807, or other
evaluation of affected structure and any extended operational limit. Any person guidelines approved by the FAA
additional service information to wanting to operate beyond an existing oversight office. The guidelines would
determine if the structure is susceptible operational limit would be required to provide a standardized WFD
to multiple site damage or multiple perform an evaluation to that end as methodology for evaluating any repair,
element damage. This evaluation would part of the amended TC (subpart D of alteration, or modification.
be performed using manufacturers’ part 21) or STC (subpart E of part 21) The evaluation might conclude that a
guidelines or guidelines approved by process. The extended operational limit proposed repair, alteration, or
7 Those design changes that increase the
may also include specified maintenance modification is not susceptible to WFD
maximum takeoff gross weight from 75,000 pounds
actions necessary to preclude WFD, or that WFD is not likely to occur before
or less, to greater than 75,000 pounds would be which would be part of the extended the subject airplane reaches the
excluded, because they are covered in § 25.1807. operational limit approval. Extended extended operational limit. As a result,
the person seeking approval would not type certification programs, which is constitute a violation of the
be required to take any further actions available at http://www.faa.gov/ requirements and may subject the
for that proposed repair, alteration, or certification/aircraft. violator to certificate action to amend,
modification. Conversely, the evaluation This guide recognizes the importance suspend, or revoke the affected
might conclude that WFD is likely to of ongoing communication and certificate (49 U.S.C. 44709). It may also
occur before the affected airplane cooperation between applicants and the subject the violator to a civil penalty of
reaches the extended operational limit. FAA. This proposal, while regulatory in not more than $25,000 per day per
Such an evaluation would require nature, is intended to encourage the certificate until the violator complies
persons seeking approval to show that establishment of the same type of with § 25.1807 (49 U.S.C. 46301).
WFD is not likely to occur up to that relationship in the process of complying This proposal, if adopted, would
limit either by modifying the proposed with this section. require a compliance date of March 18,
repair, alteration, or modification or by One of the items required in the plan 2007, for affected persons to submit a
developing maintenance actions to be is, ‘‘If the proposed means of compliance plan to the FAA oversight
performed by the affected operator at compliance differs from that described office for approval. For those persons
identified times. in FAA advisory material, a detailed applying after the effective date of the
explanation of how the proposed means rule for STCs or amendments to TCs
H. Compliance Plan (section 1807, will comply with this section.’’ We will
section 1809) that increase maximum takeoff gross
issue an AC to include guidance on the weights from 75,000 pounds or less, to
The FAA intends to establish the aspects of a compliance plan. FAA greater than 75,000 pounds, a plan for
requirements for a compliance plan to advisory material is never mandatory WFD compliance would be part of the
ensure that affected persons and the because it describes one means, but not overall compliance plan for those STCs
FAA have a common understanding and the only means of compliance. In the or amendments to TCs. The affected
agreement of what is necessary to area of type certification, applicants persons would not have to address WFD
achieve compliance with these sections. frequently propose acceptable until a compliance plan defining the
The plan will also ensure that the alternatives to the means described in certification basis for the overall STC or
affected persons produce the ALS and advisory circulars. When an applicant amended TC is needed. Those persons
service information and guidelines in a chooses to comply by an alternative
would have to comply by March 18,
timely manner that are acceptable in means, it is important to identify this as
2007, or within 90 days after the date of
content and format. Integral to the early as possible in the certification
application, whichever occurs later.
compliance plan will be the inclusion of process to provide an opportunity to
resolve any issues that may arise that The proposal also specifies
procedures to allow the FAA to monitor compliance dates for submitting
progress toward compliance. These could lead to delays in the certification
schedule. compliance plans for evaluating design
aspects of the plan will help ensure that changes and developing service
the expected outcomes will be The same is true of the requirement
for design approval holders. As information for maintenance actions
acceptable and on time for that must be performed to preclude
incorporation by the affected operators discussed earlier, compliance with this
section on time by design approval WFD. The compliance dates for the
into their maintenance programs in affected persons are as follows:
accordance with the operational rules holders is necessary to enable operators
to comply with the operational • Holders of STCs: no later than
contained in this proposal. March 18, 2008.
The affected design approval holders requirements of this NPRM. Therefore,
this item in the plan would enable the • Applicants for STCs and
would be required to submit a
FAA oversight office to identify and amendments to TCs, if the certificate
compliance plan that addresses the
resolve any issues that may arise with was not issued before the effective date
following:
the proposal of the design approval of the final rule: no later than March 18,
• The proposed schedule for meeting
holder without jeopardizing the ability 2008, or within 90 days after the date of
the compliance dates, including all
of the design approval holder to comply application, whichever occurs later.
major milestones.
• A proposed means of compliance by the compliance time. IV. Proposed Operational Rules
with the initial operational limit This proposal, if adopted, would
requirement. require TC holders and applicants to In recent years, the FAA has
• Any planned deviations from correct a deficient plan, or deficiencies identified a number of fleet-wide
guidance provided in FAA advisory in implementing the plan, in a manner continued airworthiness issues that are
material. identified by the FAA oversight office. not limited to particular type designs.
• A draft of all required compliance Before the FAA formally notifies a TC Historically, we have issued ADs to
items not less than 60 days before the holder or applicant of deficiencies, we require airplane operators to take
stated compliance dates. will communicate with them to try to corrective action to address these
• Repairs, alterations, and achieve a complete mutual airworthiness issues. ADs are described
modifications. understanding of the deficiencies and in part 39. They address unsafe
• Continuous assessment of the means of correcting them. Therefore, the conditions that we determine are likely
affected large transport category notification referred to in this paragraph to exist or develop on other products of
airplane fleet relative to the potential for should document the agreed the same type design. Although ADs
WFD prior to the initial operational corrections. may be used to address fleet-wide
limit. The ability of an operator to comply issues, they are often more effective in
• Distribution of approved initial with the proposed operating rules will addressing individual airplane issues.
operational limits. be dependent on TC holders, certain Accordingly, we believe that general

The compliance plan is based STC holders, and applicants complying rulemaking may be a more efficient and
substantially on ‘‘The FAA and Industry with § 25.1807. The FAA will carefully appropriate way to address fleet-wide
Guide to Product Certification,’’ which monitor compliance and take safety problems. These new subparts
describes a process for developing appropriate action if necessary. Failure provide locations for these types of
project-specific certification plans for to comply by the specified dates would requirements.
Earlier in this document, we of full-scale fatigue testing, the ALS The fatigue life on those repairs
described the proposed creation of a must include a number equal to 1⁄2 the would generally be greater than the
new subpart I in part 25. That subpart number of cycles accumulated on the period of time the airplane has to go
would provide a common location for fatigue test article. As additional cycles from its initial operational limit to its
similar regulatory requirements. We are on the test article are accumulated, the extended operational limit. For
also proposing new subparts in parts number may be adjusted accordingly. example, if a repair that has been
121 and 129. These new subparts would This number is an Airworthiness identified in the TC holders structural
contain rules from this proposal and Limitation and no airplane may be repair manual has been evaluated to
other existing and future rules that operated beyond the number stated in support an initial operational limit
pertain to continued airworthiness, in the ALS until the fatigue testing is stated as 60,000 flight cycles, then that
particular rules that address aging completed and the initial operational repair would generally be valid up to
airplane issues. The FAA believes that limit is established. 60,000 flight cycles. If that repair is
the new subparts will enhance the Further operation would be installed after an airplane is approved
reader’s ability to readily identify rules prohibited unless an extended for an extended operational limit, the
pertinent to continued airworthiness. operational limit is incorporated into repair would generally be valid up to
Unless we say otherwise, our purpose in the operator’s maintenance program, as 60,000 flight cycles after installation. If
moving requirements to the new discussed below. we assume an extended operational
subparts is to ensure easy visibility of To use an extended operational limit, limit of 75,000 total accumulated flight
those requirements applicable to the the proposal would require operators to cycles for this example, and the airplane
continued airworthiness of the airplane. revise their maintenance programs to do had 61,000 total accumulated flight
We do not intend to change their legal the following: cycles, the subject repair would
effect in any other way. • Incorporate the ALS containing the generally be valid for the 14,000 flight
A new subpart AA would be added to extended operational limit and any cycles remaining under the extended
part 121 dealing with domestic air WFD ALI approved under § 25.1811. operational limit.
carriers and a new subpart B would be • Incorporate the applicable The applicable guidelines would also
added to part 129 foreign air carriers guidelines for identifying and provide a methodology for developing
and foreign persons operating U.S.- evaluating repairs, alterations, and service information to support the
registered airplanes. This proposal, if modifications, that have been developed extended operational limit. This service
adopted, would require persons holding under § 25.1807, or other guidelines information would consist of
an air carrier or operating certificate approved by the FAA oversight office. maintenance actions that may include
under part 119 to support the continued • Make the extended operational inspection, modification, or
airworthiness of their airplanes. While limit, WFD ALIs, and applicable replacement of the repair, alteration, or
most of the requirements of these guidelines clearly distinguishable. modification. Operators would be
subparts would address the need for The extended operational limit might required to perform a WFD evaluation of
improved maintenance, these subparts also have WFD ALIs because the these repairs, alterations, or
may also include requirements to evaluation performed under § 25.1811 modifications using the applicable
modify airplanes or take other actions concluded that WFD may occur on guidelines. If the evaluation concludes
that we consider necessary for certain structure before the extended that WFD is likely to occur before the
continued airworthiness. operational limit is reached. These WFD extended operational limit, the operator
After June 18, 2008, an affected ALIs may include inspection start would need to develop any necessary
operator could not operate an airplane points, structural modification points, maintenance actions according to
unless the operator has incorporated an and inspection intervals and methods. § 25.1813.
ALS approved under appendix H to part WFD ALIs may take the form of The evaluation and proposed
25 or § 25.1807 into its maintenance inspections, modifications, or maintenance action would be submitted
program. This ALS would contain the replacements of WFD-susceptible to the FAA oversight office through the
operational limit stated as a number of structure. The WFD ALI maintenance operator’s PMI for approval. This
total accumulated flight cycles or flight actions would be performed on airplane submittal process keeps PMIs informed
hours approved under § 25.571 or structure, including structure that has and gives them the opportunity to
§ 25.1807. Furthermore, the ALS must been repaired, altered or modified to provide comments on the repair,
be clearly distinguishable within the support the extended operational limit. alteration, or modification to the
certificate holder’s maintenance Any future proposed revisions to any of operator and FAA oversight office.
program. This means the ALS must be these ALIs would need to be submitted Operators would be required to
designated as a stand-alone portion of to the FAA oversight office through the evaluate any repair, alteration, or
the program. Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) modification installed on the airplane
Under both current and proposed for approval. after approval of an extended
§ 25.571, the FAA may issue a type The applicable incorporated operational limit. The operator would
certificate for an airplane model prior to guidelines would provide a means for use the guidelines developed according
completion of full-scale fatigue testing. operators to identify and evaluate to the proposed § 25.1807 and
Under this proposal, the type certificate repairs, alterations, and modifications incorporated under the proposed
holder would establish the initial susceptible to WFD that have been operating rule. Operators would be
operational limit upon completion of installed on transport category airplanes required to complete the evaluation and
this testing. As under current § 25.571, operating under an extended identify any necessary additional
the FAA intends for operators to be able operational limit. The only repairs, maintenance actions, if applicable,
to operate these airplanes while the alterations or modifications needing a within 90 days after returning an
design approval holder is performing WFD evaluation would be those airplane to service. The operator would
the fatigue testing. Therefore, this identified in the applicable guidelines have 90 days after approval by the FAA
proposal would not change the current and would not include TC holder’s oversight office to revise its
provisions of § 25.571 that, if a type repairs identified according to maintenance program to incorporate any
certificate is issued prior to completion § 25.1807(g)(1). approved ALIs. This time period allows
for completion of the WFD evaluation new AC to include guidelines for the Office, defined in proposed
and incorporation of any necessary development of operational limits; § 25.1801(b). The FAA Oversight Office
maintenance actions into an operator’s service information for maintenance is the aircraft certification office or
maintenance program. The airplane actions; and service information and office within the Transport Airplane
should not be at risk of structural failure guidelines for identifying and Directorate having oversight
due to WFD within the prescribed time evaluating repairs, alterations, and responsibility for the relevant TC or
period because WFD is a long-term modifications. STC, as delegated by the Administrator.
fatigue problem. We incorporated, in part, the ARAC In other contexts, we have described the
As with other maintenance actions, recommendation to revise AC 25.571– FAA office performing these functions
before returning an airplane to service, 1C by including a definition for an as the ‘‘cognizant FAA office.’’
operators would be required under initial operational limit; guidance for Table 4 lists the FAA offices that
existing regulations to ensure that the incorporation of the initial operational currently oversee issuance of TCs and
repair, alteration, or modification meets limit into the Airworthiness Limitations amended TCs for manufacturers of
immediate and short-term strength section; and guidance for providing transport category airplanes.
requirements, such as the ultimate static evidence for demonstrating through full-
strength requirements specified in part scale fatigue testing that WFD will not TABLE 4.—FAA OFFICES THAT
25. There may be other actions and occur before the initial operational OVERSEE TYPE CERTIFICATES
approvals associated with returning the limit.
affected airplane to service. Those We also incorporated, in part, the Airplane
actions and approvals would still apply ARAC recommendations to revise AC FAA oversight office
manufacturer
as before. 91–56, ‘‘Continuing Structural Integrity
Required maintenance program Program for Large Transport Category Aerospatiale ......... Transport Airplane Direc-
revisions would need to be submitted to Airplanes.’’ AC 91–56A, which was torate, International
the operator’s PMI for review and issued on April 29, 1998, added Branch, ANM–116.
Appendix 2, ‘‘Guidelines for the Airbus ................... Transport Airplane Direc-
approval. We are in the process of torate, International
developing guidance for PMIs to ensure Development of a Program to Predict Branch, ANM–116.
that their reviews are consistent and and Eliminate Widespread Fatigue BAE ...................... Transport Airplane Direc-
focused on the key implementation Damage.’’ torate, International
issues. We are developing a new AC based, Branch, ANM–116.
in part, on the ARAC recommendation Boeing .................. Seattle Aircraft Certifi-
V. Additional Provisions to provide guidance for type certificate cation Office.
A. Relationship of This Proposal to holders and others to perform WFD Bombardier .......... New York Aircraft Certifi-
Aging Airplane Regulatory Initiatives evaluations. The proposed AC includes: cation Office.
• Guidelines for conducting a deHaviland ........... New York Aircraft Certifi-
As part of our broader review of structural WFD evaluation. cation Office.
several important initiatives comprising • Illustrations of the structure Embraer ............... Transport Airplane Direc-
the Aging Airplane Program, we have torate, International
susceptible to MSD and MED. These Branch, ANM–116.
revised certain compliance dates in illustrations are by no means exhaustive
existing rules and pending proposals so Fokker .................. Transport Airplane Direc-
and are included to stimulate the review torate, International
that operators can make required of all possible affected structure. Branch, ANM–116.
modifications during scheduled • Guidance on developing a WFD Gulfstream ........... Atlanta Aircraft Certifi-
maintenance. Changing compliance prediction and verification technique. cation Office.
dates affects our ability to expedite • Evaluation of maintenance actions. Lockheed ............. Atlanta Aircraft Certifi-
some aspects of this program but • Details of the documentation cation Office.
reduces the costs of the rules and required by the FAA. McDonnell-Doug- Los Angeles Aircraft Cer-
proposals in place to deal with aging • Examples of structural repairs, las. tification Office.
airplanes. Notice of these changes and a alterations, and modifications.
description of our Aging Airplane This AC would also provide guidance D. Need for Training
Program review appeared in the Federal for operators of affected airplanes on
Register on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45936). The FAA recognizes that
how to incorporate an FAA-approved
In addition to this Widespread Fatigue implementation of the proposed rule
ALS with an initial operational limit
Damage proposal, the actions affected will be more complex than any other
into their FAA-approved maintenance
by these revisions include: aging airplane program. We consider it
program; incorporate an extended
• Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction essential that affected persons receive
operational limit and any applicable
(proposal), training to carry out the required
ALI to preclude WFD; and incorporate
• Aging Airplane Safety (interim final actions. These persons include FAA PIs,
any new ALI developed as a result of
rule), and Aviation Safety Inspectors, and ACO
evaluations to address repairs,
• Enhanced Airworthiness Program engineers, designees, operators, and
alterations, and modifications installed
for Airplane Systems/Fuel Tank Safety maintenance personnel. We are
after incorporation of an extended
(proposal). developing training material based, in
operational limit.
We invite public comments on the part, on the ARAC recommendations
B. FAA Advisory Material incorporated into this proposal and
proposed ACs by separate notice, which
To help those persons affected by this will be published in the Federal other considerations.
proposed rule better understand what is Register. This training would include, but is
necessary to show compliance with not limited to public meetings, FAA-
these proposed requirements, we are C. FAA Oversight Office only seminars, formal FAA and industry
developing guidance material to We are also requiring affected persons training sessions, and industry
supplement the proposed rule. We are to submit various compliance materials workshops to enhance communication
revising AC 25.571–1C and proposing a related to WFD to the FAA Oversight among industry, operators, and the
FAA. The FAA requests comments on widespread fatigue damage in transport to address repairs and modifications
this aspect of the proposed rule. category airplanes. Some of these that would be susceptible to WFD before
changes would require new information the airplane reaches the initial
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
collection. The proposed new operational limit. Because this
Authority for This Rulemaking information requirements and the susceptibility is an unsafe condition,
The FAA’s authority to issue rules persons who would be required to this service information would be
regarding aviation safety is found in provide that information are described mandated by airworthiness directive
Title 49 of the United States Code. below. (AD) to support a proposed initial
(1) Proposed subpart I would require operational limit.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
that existing design approval holders (5) Anyone operating an airplane
authority of the FAA Administrator.
establish initial operational limits for under parts 121 and 129 would be
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
transport category airplanes. Those required to revise their maintenance
describes in more detail the scope of the
persons would also be required to revise program to incorporate an ALS that
agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated the Airworthiness Limitation section of includes an initial operational limit.
the Instructions for Continued Operators would be prohibited from
under the authority described in
Airworthiness (ICA) to include an initial operating an airplane past the initial
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
operational limit. This requirement operational limit.
44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under
would be necessary to ensure that the
that section, the FAA is charged with (6) As an option, any person may
affected airplanes are evaluated for WFD
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in apply for an extended operational limit
and that an initial operational limit is
air commerce by prescribing for affected airplanes. This option
• Minimum standards required in the established beyond which an airplane
cannot be operated. By establishing this would have requirements similar to
interest of safety for the design and those imposed on TC holders for
limit it would be assured that WFD,
performance of aircraft; establishing an initial operational limit.
• Regulations and minimum which would adversely affect safety,
would be precluded in the airplane. In addition, repairs, alterations, or
standards in the interest of safety for modifications installed on an airplane
(2) Proposed subpart I would also
inspecting, servicing, and overhauling with an extended operational limit
require that design approval holders
aircraft; and would require identification and
• Regulations for other practices, submit to the FAA a plan detailing how
they intend to comply with the new evaluation under § 25.1807(g). There
methods, and procedures the may be service information developed
Administrator finds necessary for safety requirements. The FAA would use this
information to assist the design that would support the extended limit
in air commerce. and would be documented as
• This regulation is within the scope approval holder in complying with the
new requirements. The compliance plan airworthiness limitation items (ALIs).
of that authority because it prescribes— To operate beyond the initial
• New safety standards for the design would be necessary to ensure that the
design approval holders fully operational limit, an operator would
of transport category airplanes, and
• New requirements necessary for understand the requirements, correct have to incorporate the extended limit
safety for the design, production, any deficiencies in planning in a timely and any WFD ALI into its maintenance
operation, and maintenance of those manner, and are able to provide the program.
airplanes, and for other practices, information needed by the operators for Use of: This proposal would support
methods and procedures relating to timely compliance with the rule. the information needs of the FAA in
those airplanes. (3) TC holders would be required to approving design approval holder and
develop guidelines for addressing operator compliance with the proposed
Paperwork Reduction Act repairs, alterations, and modifications rule.
This proposal contains the following susceptible to MSD or MED. These Average Annual Burden Estimate:
new information collection guidelines would be used to identify The burden would consist of the work
requirements. As required by the and evaluate repairs, alterations, and necessary to:
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 modifications that may be installed on • Develop the revision to the existing
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of an affected airplane. This requirement is ICA information
Transportation has sent the information needed because TC holders have the
data necessary to inform others of areas • Develop the compliance plan
requirements associated with this
proposal to the Office of Management of the airplane that may be susceptible • Incorporate the new information
and Budget for its review. to WFD when repaired, altered, or into the existing maintenance program
Title: Widespread Fatigue Damage. modified. This proposed rulemaking would
Summary: This proposal consists of (4) TC and STC holders would be result in an annual recordkeeping and
regulatory changes pertaining to required to develop service information reporting burden as follows:
Present value
Average an-
Documents required to show compliance with the proposed rule discounted
nual hours cost ($2,000)
FAA-approved revised or new ALS ......................................................................................................................... 132 8,606

FAA-approved WFD compliance plan ..................................................................................................................... 436 16,759
FAA-approved guidelines for repairs, alterations, and modifications ...................................................................... 894 63,542
FAA-approved service information for repairs and modifications relative to initial operational limit ...................... 276 16,288
FAA-approved maintenance program revision for operators .................................................................................. 29 4,340
FAA-approved program for extended operational limit (if applicable) .................................................................... 132 8,606
Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,899 $118,141
The FAA computed the annual suggest readers seeking greater detail latest data and information obtained
recordkeeping (total hours) burden by read the full regulatory evaluation, a from the NPRM, for the final rule. The
analyzing the necessary paperwork copy of which we have placed in the costs of this proposal are the costs of the
requirements needed to satisfy each docket for this rulemaking. development of Widespread Fatigue
process of the proposed rulemaking. Changes to Federal regulations must Damage (WFD) programs by the airplane
The average cost per hour varies due to undergo several economic analyses. manufacturers and the incorporation of
the number of affected airplanes in each First, Executive Order 12866 directs that the WFD programs into the maintenance
group, the amount of engineering time each Federal agency shall propose or procedures of the airplane operators
required to develop programs, and the adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned plus the inspection and structural
amount of time required for each determination that the benefits of the modifications that may be required of
inspection. intended regulation justify its costs. the airplane operators. It is estimated
The agency is seeking comments to— Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the total 20-year present value cost
• Evaluate whether the proposed of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the of this proposal is about $360 million.
information requirement is necessary for economic impact of regulatory changes The benefits of this proposal consist of
the proper performance of the roles of on small entities. Third, the Trade accident prevention and the prevention
the agency, including whether the Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) of unscheduled maintenance/downtime
information will have practical utility; prohibits agencies from setting of fleets of aircraft. The present value
• Evaluate the accuracy of the standards that create unnecessary benefits of this proposal, over 20 years,
agency’s estimate of the burden; obstacles to the foreign commerce of the are estimated to be about $809 million.
• Improve the quality, utility, and United States. In developing U.S.
clarity of the information to be standards, this Trade Act requires Who Is Potentially Affected by This
collected; and agencies to consider international Rulemaking?
• Minimize the burden of the standards and, where appropriate, to be • Manufacturers of large transport
collection of information on those who the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the category part 25 airplanes (airplanes
are to respond using appropriate Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 with a maximum gross takeoff weight
automated, electronic, mechanical, or (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to greater than 75,000 pounds).
other technological collection prepare a written assessment of the • Applicants for type certificates or
techniques or other forms of information costs, benefits, and other effects of supplemental type certificates after the
technology. proposed or final rules that include a effective date of the rule for all transport
Individuals and organizations may Federal mandate likely to result in the category part 25 airplanes.
submit comments to the FAA on the expenditure by State, local, or tribal • Supplemental type certificate
information collection requirement by governments, in the aggregate, or by the holders and applicants for amended part
July 17, 2006. You should send your private sector, of $100 million or more 25 type certificates.
comments to the address listed in the annually (adjusted for inflation). • U.S. certificate holders and foreign
ADDRESSES section of this document. In conducting these analyses, the FAA air carriers and foreign persons
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act has determined this proposed rule: (1) operating U.S.-registered large transport
of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an Has benefits that justify its costs, is a category part 25 airplanes under 14 CFR
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as parts 121 or 129.
a person is not required to respond to, defined in section 3(f) of Executive
a collection of information unless it Order 12866, and is ‘‘significant’’ as Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of
displays a currently valid OMB control defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies Information
number. The OMB control number for and Procedures; (2) will have a • Discount rate—7%
this information collection will be significant economic impact on a • Period of analysis—20 years, 2001
published in the Federal Register, after substantial number of small entities; (3) through 2020
the Office of Management and Budget will not reduce barriers to international • Value of fatality averted—$3.0
approves it. trade; and does not impose an unfunded million (Source: U.S. Department of
mandate on state, local, or tribal Transportation, Treatment of Value of
International Compatibility governments, or on the private sector. Life and Injuries in Preparing Economic
In keeping with U.S. obligations These analyses, available in the docket, Evaluations, January 19, 2002)
under the Convention on International are summarized below. • Aircraft Values = Aviation
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to Specialists Group (ASG)
Total Costs and Benefits of This
comply with International Civil • Aircraft Operational Data = Aircraft
Rulemaking
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards Analytical System (ACAS) Database
and Recommended Practices to the The proposed rule is based, in part, • Aircraft Accident Data = NTSB
maximum extent practicable. The FAA on recommendations from the Aviation Database
determined there are no ICAO Rulemaking Advisory Committee • Aircraft Forecasts = Boeing
Standards and Recommended Practices (ARAC). Early in 2001, the FAA • Unit Cost of WFD Inspections =
that correspond to these proposed performed an extensive cost-benefit Airworthiness Assurance Working
regulations. analysis of the ARAC proposal based on Group (AAWG)
the data then available. Since then the In the design and certification process
VII. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory proposed rule has been modified and of an airplane, a type certificate
Flexibility Determination, International more recent data has become available. applicant generally establishes an
Trade Impact Assessment, and The FAA updated the 2001 analysis to expected economic life for the airplane,
Unfunded Mandates Assessment reflect changes in the proposed rule known as a design service goal (DSG).
This portion of the preamble relative to the ARAC proposal. The FAA For certain airplanes, design approval
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the believes the analysis, as updated, holders have performed additional
economic impacts of this NPRM. It also properly reflects the cost and benefit fatigue tests, teardown inspections, and
includes summaries of the initial determination. The FAA will further analyses to support changing DSG to
regulatory flexibility determination. We update the analysis, incorporating the extended service goals (ESG).
For purposes of the cost/benefit addressing issues with aging airplane airplane is at the service goal for that
analysis in this evaluation, we used the programs for airplanes with maximum airplane.
existing service goal for an airplane takeoff gross weights greater than 75,000 • We request comment on the number
(whether the service goal is a (DSG or pounds. Because of this, the FAA of components, by airplane model,
ESG) as an analytical starting point for decided to restrict compliance to likely to be affected by WFD-related
the initial operational limits (IOLs). The operators of those airplanes. problems. The greatest uncertainty with
existing service goals are listed in Table The FAA considered mandating the respect to the costs of compliance with
3. We have assumed that additional retirement of airplanes at an initial the rule relates to the number of
costs of compliance will be incurred at operating limit equivalent to the components for a fuselage type likely to
100% and potentially again at 125% of manufacturer’s current service goal be affected by WFD-related problems at
this service goal. We note that Boeing (DSG or ESG). This alternative would or above 100% DSG or ESG.
plans to establish IOLs that would be not allow a DAH to establish a higher
130 to 150 percent of the DSG or ESG initial operation limit based on Benefits of This Rulemaking
for their airplanes. Since this action identifying additional maintenance The present value benefits of this
would support an IOL that could be actions (inspections, modifications, or proposal consist of $726 million of
substantially higher than the estimates replacements) that would preclude WFD accident prevention benefits and $83
used for a particular airplane, the costs up to this higher limit. million of detection benefits for total
of inspection and modification could Such a requirement would result in present value benefits of $809 million.
exceed our estimates, while the costs of the removal of about 600 U.S. transport The detection benefits are the benefits
early retirement of useful airplanes category airplanes at a cost of $7.6 resulting from averted accidents and a
could be less. Manufacturers of aircraft billion or a present value of $3.4 billion. reduction in unscheduled maintenance
no longer in production, and with only The FAA believes this alternative would and repairs that would result from this
a few airplanes in operation, are likely present a substantial burden on industry proposal.
not to extend the current service goal. and adversely affected the wide body
The FAA seeks comments on these cargo market. The Sensitivity Studies Costs of This Rulemaking
assumptions, and future plans to extend section of the full regulatory evaluation The costs of this proposal are those
DSG or ESG and the establishment of explores this option in more detail. costs incurred by the airplane
initial operational limits. The FAA concludes the current manufacturers for developing WFD
proposal is the preferred alternative programs, the airplane operators who
Alternatives We Considered because it has benefits exceeding incur the costs of inspection, aircraft
The FAA considered five alternatives compliance costs and allows for retirement, and modifications to the
to the proposed rule. These were: continued operation of airplanes up to airplanes, plus the costs incurred by the
1. Exclude small entities. the point where maintenance actions FAA.
2. Extend the compliance deadline for can no longer ensure that the airplanes
small entities. The attributable costs of the rule do
are free from widespread fatigue not include the expense of making
3. Establish lesser technical damage.
requirements for small entities. repairs to structure that has been found
4. Expand the requirements to cover Comments Requested to be cracked during any inspections
more airplanes. We requested industry comment, with resulting from the proposed rule. When
5. Retire airplanes at the quantifiable support, for important any inspection procedure identifies a
manufacturer’s design or extended assumptions made in the regulatory condition that renders the aircraft
service goal. analysis. These comments are unairworthy, current FAA regulations 8
The FAA concluded that Alternative summarized below. mandate actions to restore the aircraft to
1, the option to exclude small entities • We request manufacturers to an airworthy condition.
from all the requirements of the identify, by airplane model, anticipated To the extent that the repairs would
proposed rule, was not justified. The initial operational limits and if they already be required and already be
purpose of the proposed rule is to plan to establish an initial operational performed under existing regulations,
maintain the airworthy operating limit for an airplane model that is because of an operator’s continuing
condition of airplanes regardless of higher than the existing service goal responsibility to maintain the
secondary considerations. shown in Appendix 2 of this document. airworthiness of the aircraft, this
The FAA also considered options that • We request that operators identify assumption may overstate the net
would lengthen the compliance period airplane models that they desire to additional benefits from this
for small operators (Alternative 2). The operate beyond the service goal rulemaking. This rulemaking is
FAA believes time extensions only identified in Appendix 2 of this intended to ensure that problems are
provide modest cost savings and leave document. identified more rapidly, but the FAA
the system safety at risk. • We request comment on the future assumes that all WFD problems will
The FAA considered establishing operational costs that this proposal will ultimately be discovered. The FAA and
lesser technical requirements for small add for newly type certificated operators might identify WFD issues
entities (Alternative 3). However, the airplanes. through other inspections or because of
FAA believes the risks are similarly • We request comment from industry an accident in a similar aircraft, and
unreasonable for small entities on any new technological WFD therefore operators will have to make
operating airplanes susceptible to WFD, inspection methods, including costs per the repairs at some point. Accordingly,
and that the benefits of including small individual airplane models. we request commenters to address the
entities justify the cost. • We request comments on operators’ appropriate allocation of additional
The FAA considered requiring all practice of retiring airplanes beyond the benefits, including, specifically, the
operators of existing transport category service goal identified in Appendix 2 nature and timing of repairs that would
airplanes to comply with the proposed and the costs to operators of retiring and
rule (Alternative 4). Over the past replacing airplanes at the service goal if 8 Sections 43.13, 91.7(a), 121.153(a)(2), and
several years, TC holders have been the initial operational limit for the 129.14.
be undertaken as a result of this one with 1,500 or fewer employees.9 As aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore,
rulemaking. there are operators that met those specifically requests comments on
The present value cost of this criteria for a small business, the FAA whether there is justification for
proposal, estimated over the 20-year conducted a small business economic applying the proposed rule differently
study period, is about $360 million. impact assessment to determine if the to intrastate operations in Alaska.
rule would have a significant impact on
Under the proposal endorsed by the Plain English
a substantial number of these operators.
ARAC in 2001, the responsibility for As a result of the small business Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
developing inspection and modification economic impact assessment the FAA October 4, 1993) requires each agency to
procedures and for putting them into believes that this proposal would result write regulations that are simple and
practice was to be borne by airplane in a significant economic impact on a easy to understand. We invite your
operators. The costs of the rule were substantial number of small entities. A comments on how to make these
estimated under that assumption. We complete discussion is contained in the proposed regulations easier to
now estimate that the airplane full regulatory evaluation filed understand, including answers to
manufacturers would incur separately in the docket. questions such as the following:
approximately 10 percent and operators
Unfunded Mandates Assessment • Are the requirements in the
would incur approximately 90 percent proposed regulations clearly stated?
of these costs. The total costs remain Title II of the Act requires each
unchanged, however. We believe it is Federal agency to prepare a written • Do the proposed regulations contain
possible that the manufacturers’ statement assessing the effects of any unnecessary technical language or
assumption of responsibility for testing Federal mandate in a proposed or final jargon that interferes with their clarity?
and development would discover areas agency rule that may result in an • Would the regulations be easier to
where WFD is likely to emerge and may expenditure of $100 million or more understand if they were divided into
reduce the need for preventive (adjusted annually for inflation) in any more (but shorter) sections?
inspection and maintenance in other one year by State, local, and tribal • Is the description in the preamble
areas. The FAA is working with governments, in the aggregate, or by the helpful in understanding the proposed
industry to develop compliance private sector; such a mandate is regulations?
deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory
procedures and welcomes any Please send your comments to the
action.’’ The FAA currently uses an
additional information on the address specified in the ADDRESSES
inflation-adjusted value of $120.7
assumptions we made in these cost section.
million in lieu of $100 million. This
estimates.
proposed rule does not contain such a Environmental Analysis
Regulatory Flexibility Determination mandate. The requirements of Title II of
the Act therefore do not apply. FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 actions that are categorically excluded
(RFA) establishes ‘‘* * * as a principle Executive Order 13132, Federalism from preparation of an environmental
of regulatory issuance that agencies The FAA has analyzed this proposed assessment or environmental impact
shall endeavor, consistent with the rule under the principles and criteria of statement under the National
objective of the rule and of applicable Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the
statutes, to fit regulatory and determined that this action would not absence of extraordinary circumstances.
informational requirements to the scale have a substantial direct effect on the The FAA has determined this proposed
of the business, organizations, and States, on the relationship between the rulemaking action qualifies for the
governmental jurisdictions subject to national Government and the States, or categorical exclusion identified in
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, on the distribution of power and paragraph 312f and involves no
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and responsibilities among the various extraordinary circumstances.
consider flexible regulatory proposals levels of government. We therefore
Regulations That Significantly Affect
and to explain the rationale for their determined that this proposed rule
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of would not have federalism implications.
small entities, including small Regulations Affecting Intrastate The FAA has analyzed this NPRM
businesses, not-for-profit organizations, Aviation in Alaska under Executive Order 13211, Actions
and small governmental jurisdictions. Concerning Regulations that
Section 1205 of the FAA Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Agencies must perform a review to Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
determine whether a proposed or final Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
3213) requires the Administrator, when have determined that it is not a
rule will have a ‘‘significant economic modifying regulations in Title 14 of the
impact on a substantial number of small ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
CFR in a manner affecting intrastate executive order because it is not a
entities.’’ If the determination is that it aviation in Alaska, to consider the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
will, the agency must prepare a extent to which Alaska is not served by Executive Order 12866, and it is not
regulatory flexibility analysis, as transportation modes other than likely to have a significant adverse effect
described in the RFA. aviation, and to establish such on the supply, distribution, or use of
The FAA conducted a complete regulatory distinctions as he or she energy.
regulatory flexibility analysis to assess considers appropriate. Because this
the impact on small entities and proposed rule would apply to airplanes VIII. The Proposed Amendments
discussed in detail following this initial operated under parts 121 and 129, it
In consideration of the foregoing, the
regulatory evaluation. This rule would could, if adopted, affect intrastate
Federal Aviation Administration
affect operators of airplanes, in the proposes to amend Chapter 1 of Title 14,
9 13 CFR Part 121.201, Size Strandards Used to
specified parts of the CFR. For Define Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49 Code of Federal Regulations, parts 25,
operators, a small entity is defined as Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation. 121, and 129, as follows:
List of Subjects of the Instructions for Continued Subpart I—Continued Airworthiness

Airworthiness required by § 25.1529. and Safety Improvements
14 CFR Part 25
The initial operational limit, stated as a
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting number of total accumulated flight Sec.
and recordkeeping requirements. cycles or flight hours, established by General
14 CFR Part 121 this section must also be included in the 25.1801 Purpose and definition.
ALS of the Instructions for Continued 25.1803 [Reserved]
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation Safety,
Airworthiness required by § 25.1529. 25.1805 [Reserved]
Reporting and recordkeeping
Inspection thresholds for the following Widespread Fatigue Damage
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
types of structure must be established
25.1807 Initial operational limit:
14 CFR Part 129 based on crack growth analyses and/or Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD).
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation Safety, tests, assuming the structure contains an 25.1809 Changes to type certificates:
Reporting and recordkeeping initial flaw of the maximum probable Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD).
requirements. size that could exist as a result of 25.1811 Extended operational limit:
manufacturing or service-induced Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD).
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS damage: 25.1813 Repairs, alterations, and
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT modifications: Widespread Fatigue
* * * * * Damage (WFD).
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
(b) Damage-tolerance and widespread
1. The authority citation for part 25 fatigue damage evaluation. The Subpart I—Continued Airworthiness
continues to read as follows: evaluation must include a and Safety Improvements
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– determination of the probable locations General
44702, 44704. and modes of damage due to fatigue,
corrosion, or accidental damage. § 25.1801 Purpose and definition.
2. Amend § 25.1 by adding new
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: Repeated load and static analyses (a) This subpart establishes
supported by test evidence and (if requirements for support of the
§ 25.1 Applicability. available) service experience must also continued airworthiness of transport
* * * * * be incorporated in the evaluation. category airplanes. These requirements
(c) This part also establishes Special consideration for widespread may include performing assessments,
requirements for holders of type fatigue damage must be included where developing design changes, developing
certificates and changes to those the design is such that this type of revisions to Instructions for Continued
certificates to take actions necessary to damage could occur. An initial Airworthiness, and making necessary
support the continued airworthiness of operational limit must be established documentation available to affected
transport category airplanes. that corresponds to the period of time, persons. This subpart applies to the
(d) This part also establishes stated as a number of total accumulated following persons, as specified in each
requirements for persons seeking flight cycles or flight hours, during section of this subpart:
approval for airplane repairs, which it is demonstrated that (1) Holders of type certificates and
alterations, or modifications. widespread fatigue damage will not supplemental type certificates.
3. Amend § 25.2 by adding a new occur in the airplane structure. This (2) Applicants for type certificates and
paragraph (d) to read as follows: demonstration must be by full-scale changes to type certificates (including
fatigue test evidence. The type service bulletins describing design
§ 25.2 Special retroactive requirements. changes). Applicants for changes to type
certificate may be issued prior to
* * * * * certificates must comply with the
(d) In addition to the requirements of completion of full-scale fatigue testing,
provided the Administrator has requirements of this subpart in addition
this section, subpart I of this part to the airworthiness requirements
contains requirements that apply to— approved a plan for completing the
determined applicable under § 21.101 of
(1) Holders of type certificates and required tests, and the Airworthiness
this subchapter.
supplemental type certificates; Limitations section of the Instructions
(3) Persons seeking approval for
(2) Applicants for type certificates, for Continued Airworthiness required
airplane repairs, alterations, or
amendments to type certificates by § 25.1529 of this part specifies that
modifications that may affect
(including service bulletins describing no airplane may be operated beyond a
airworthiness.
design changes), and supplemental type number of cycles equal to 1⁄2 the number (b) For purposes of this subpart, the
certificates; and of cycles accumulated on the fatigue test ‘‘FAA Oversight Office’’ is the aircraft
(3) Persons seeking approval for article, until such testing is completed. certification office or office of the
airplane repairs, alterations, or The extent of damage for residual Transport Airplane Directorate with
modifications. strength evaluation at any time within oversight responsibility for the relevant
4. Amend § 25.571 by revising the operational life of the airplane must type certificate or supplemental type
paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text and be consistent with the initial certificate, as determined by the
(b) introductory text to read as follows: detectability and subsequent growth Administrator.
under repeated loads. The residual
§ 25.571 Damage-tolerance and fatigue strength evaluation must show that the § 25.1803 [Reserved]
evaluation of structure.
remaining structure is able to withstand
(a) * * * § 25.1805 [Reserved]
loads (considered as static ultimate

(3) Based on the evaluations required loads) corresponding to the following Widespread Fatigue Damage
by this section, inspections or other conditions:
procedures must be established, as § 25.1807 Initial operational limit:
necessary, to prevent catastrophic * * * * * Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD).
failure, and must be included in the 5. Amend part 25 by adding a new (a) Applicability. Except as provided
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) subpart I to read as follows: in paragraph (i) of this section, this
section applies to transport category structural configuration evaluated under FAA Oversight Office by the specified
airplanes with maximum takeoff gross paragraph (b)(1) and submit it to the date.
weights greater than 75,000 pounds as FAA Oversight Office for approval. The (1) Holders of type certificates (TC):
approved during the original type ALS must include a section titled no later than March 18, 2007.
certification of the airplane. It also Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) that (2) Applicants for TCs, if the date of
applies to those airplanes certified with incorporates the applicable initial application was before [effective date of
maximum takeoff gross weights of operational limit established under the final rule]: no later than March 18,
75,000 pounds or less, and later paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 2007.
increased to greater than 75,000 pounds (c) Compliance dates for establishing (3) Holders of either supplemental
by an amended type certificate or the initial operational limit. The type certificates (STC) or amendments
supplemental type certificate. These following persons must comply with the to TCs that increase maximum takeoff
airplanes are referred to in this section requirements of paragraph (b) of this gross weights from 75,000 pounds or
as large transport category airplanes. section by the specified date. less, to greater than 75,000 pounds: no
(b) Initial operational limit. To (1) Holders of type certificates (TC): later than March 18, 2007.
preclude WFD from occurring in the no later than December 18, 2007. (4) Applicants for either STCs or
large transport category airplane fleet, (2) Applicants for TCs, if the date of amendments to TCs that increase
each person identified in paragraph (c) application was before [effective date of maximum takeoff gross weights from
of this section must comply with the the final rule]: no later than December 75,000 pounds or less, to greater than
following requirements: 18, 2007, or the date the certificate is 75,000 pounds, if the date of application
(1) Perform an evaluation of airplane issued, whichever occurs later. was before [effective date of the final
structural configurations to determine (3) Holders of either supplemental rule]: no later than March 18, 2007.
when WFD is likely to occur for type certificates (STCs) or amendments (5) Applicants for either STCs or
structure susceptible to multiple site to TCs that increase maximum takeoff amendments to TCs that increase
damage (MSD) or multiple element gross weights from 75,000 pounds or maximum takeoff gross weights from
damage (MED). The airplane structural less, to greater than 75,000 pounds: no 75,000 pounds or less, to greater than
configurations to be evaluated consist later than December 18, 2007. 75,000 pounds, if the date of application
of— (4) Applicants for either STCs or was after [effective date of the final
(i) All model variations and amendments to TCs that increase rule]: no later than March 18, 2007, or
derivatives approved under the type maximum takeoff gross weights from within 90 days after the date of
certificate; and 75,000 pounds or less, to greater than application, whichever occurs later.
(ii) All structural modifications and 75,000 pounds: no later than December (f) Compliance plan deficiencies. Each
replacements, to the airplane structural 18, 2007, or the date the certificate is affected person must implement the
configurations specified in paragraph issued, whichever occurs later. compliance plan as approved in
(b)(1)(i), mandated by airworthiness (d) Compliance plan. Each person compliance with paragraph (d) of this
directives as of [effective date of the identified in paragraph (e) of this section. If either paragraph (f)(1) or (2)
final rule]. section must submit a compliance plan of this section applies, the affected
(2) Using the results from the consisting of the following: person must submit a corrected plan to
evaluation performed in paragraph (1) A proposed project schedule, the FAA Oversight Office and
(b)(1) of this section, establish an initial identifying all major milestones, for implement the corrected plan within 30
operational limit, stated as a total meeting the compliance dates specified days after such notification.
number of accumulated flight cycles or in paragraphs (c) and (h) of this section. (1) The FAA Oversight Office notifies
flight hours. (2) A proposed means of compliance the affected person of deficiencies in the
(3) If the initial operational limit with paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of proposed compliance plan and how to
depends on performance of this section. correct them.
maintenance actions for which service (3) If the proposed means of (2) The FAA Oversight Office notifies
information has not been mandated by compliance differs from that described the affected person of deficiencies in the
airworthiness directive as of [effective in FAA advisory material, a detailed person’s implementation of the plan and
date of the final rule], submit the explanation of how the proposed means how to correct them.
following to the FAA Oversight Office: will be shown to comply with this (g) Widespread fatigue damage service
(i) For those maintenance actions for section. information and guidelines. Each person
which service information has been (4) A proposal for submitting a draft identified in paragraph (h) of this
issued as of the applicable compliance of all compliance items required by section must submit the following to the
date specified in paragraph (c) of this paragraphs (b) and (g) of this section for FAA Oversight Office for approval—
section, a list identifying each of those review by the FAA Oversight Office not (1) An identification of repairs and
actions. less than 60 days before the compliance modifications described in structural
(ii) For those maintenance actions for date specified in paragraph (c) or (h) of repair manuals, service bulletins, and
which service information has not been this section, as applicable. other service information and design
issued as of the applicable compliance (5) A proposal for addressing repairs, approvals developed by the person, that
date specified in paragraph (c) of this alterations, and modifications as may be susceptible to WFD along with
section, a list identifying each of those required by paragraph (g) of this section. an evaluation to determine when WFD
actions and a binding schedule for (6) A proposed process for is likely to occur in affected structure
providing in a timely manner the continuously assessing service susceptible to multiple site damage or
necessary service information for those information related to WFD. multiple element damage;
actions. Once the FAA Oversight Office (7) A proposal for how the initial (2) Service information for
approves this schedule, you must operational limit will be distributed. maintenance actions that must be
comply with that schedule. (e) Compliance dates for compliance performed to preclude WFD from
(4) Unless previously accomplished, plans. The following persons must occurring before the airplane reaches
establish an Airworthiness Limitations submit the compliance plan described the established initial operational limit,
section (ALS) for each airplane in paragraph (d) of this section to the if the evaluation required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this section concludes that (b) This section does not apply to paragraph (b) of this section, as
WFD is likely to occur before the initial STCs or ATCs covered by applicable, for review by the FAA
operational limit established under § 25.1807(c)(3) or (4) of this subpart. Oversight Office not less than 60 days
paragraph (b) of this section; and (c) WFD Evaluation. Each person before the compliance dates specified in
(3) Guidelines for— identified in paragraph (d) of this paragraph (d) of this section, as
(i) Identifying repairs, alterations, and section must do the following: applicable.
modifications, other than those (1) Perform an evaluation to (5) A proposed process for
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this determine if any new structure or any continuously assessing service
section, that may be susceptible to WFD; structure affected by the change is information related to WFD.
(ii) Evaluating repairs, alterations, and susceptible to WFD and, if so, when (6) A proposal for how the approved
modifications identified in paragraph WFD is likely to occur. This evaluation service information will be distributed.
(g)(3)(i) of this section to determine must be performed using: (f) Compliance dates for compliance
when WFD is likely to occur in affected (i) Guidelines specified in plans. The following persons must
structure; and § 25.1807(g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this subpart; submit the compliance plan described
(iii) Developing service information or in paragraph (e) of this section to the
for maintenance actions that must be (ii) Guidelines approved by the FAA FAA Oversight Office by the specified
performed to preclude WFD for those Oversight Office. dates.
repairs, alterations, and modifications (2) If the evaluation required by (1) Holders of STCs: no later than
identified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this paragraph (c)(1) of this section March 18, 2008.
section. concludes that WFD is likely to occur (2) Applicants for STCs or
(4) Once approved by the FAA before the initial operational limit, amendments to TCs: No later than
Oversight Office, the documents develop the maintenance actions that March 18, 2008, or within 90 days after
required by this paragraph must be must be performed to preclude WFD the date of application, whichever
made available to owners and operators from occurring before the airplane occurs later.
reaches the established initial (g) Compliance plan deficiencies.
of affected airplanes subject to this
operational limit. These maintenance Each affected person must implement
section and to affected persons subject
actions must be developed using: the compliance plan as approved in
to § 25.1809 of this subpart.
(i) Guidelines specified in compliance with paragraph (e) of this
(h) Compliance dates for establishing
§ 25.1807(g)(3)(iii) of this subpart; or section. If either paragraph (g)(1) or (2)
the service information and guidelines. (ii) Guidelines approved by the FAA of this section applies, the affected
The following persons must comply Oversight Office. person must submit a corrected plan to
with the requirements of paragraph (g) (3) Submit to the FAA Oversight the FAA Oversight Office and
of this section by the specified date. Office for approval the maintenance implement the corrected plan within 30
(1) Holders of type certificates (TC): actions required by paragraph (c)(2) of days after such notification.
no later than December 18, 2009. this section. Once approved, service (1) The FAA Oversight Office notifies
(2) Applicants for TCs, if the date of information for those actions must be the affected person of deficiencies in the
application was before [effective date of made available to owners and operators proposed compliance plan and how to
the final rule]: no later than December of affected airplanes subject to this correct them.
18, 2009, or the date the certificate is section. (2) The FAA Oversight Office notifies
issued, whichever occurs later. (d) Compliance dates for evaluating the affected person of deficiencies in the
(3) Applicants for amendments to TCs changes to type certificates. The person’s implementation of the plan and
that increase maximum takeoff gross following persons must comply with the how to correct them.
weights from 75,000 pounds or less, to requirements of paragraph (c) of this
greater than 75,000 pounds: no later section by the dates specified. § 25.1811 Extended operational limit:
than December 18, 2009, or the date the (1) Holders of STCs: No later than Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD).
certificate is issued, whichever occurs December 18, 2010. (a) Applicability. Any person may
later. (2) Applicants for STCs or for apply to extend an operational limit
(i) This section does not apply to the amendments to TCs: no later than approved under § 25.571 of subpart C,
following airplane models: December 18, 2010, or the date the § 25.1807 of this subpart, or this section.
(1) Bombardier BD–700 certificate is issued, whichever occurs Extending the operational limit is a
(2) Gulfstream G–V later. major change. The applicant must
(3) Gulfstream G–VSP (e) Compliance plan. Each person comply with the relevant provisions of
(4) British Aerospace, Aircraft Group identified in paragraph (f) of this section subparts D or E of part 21 of this
and Societe Nationale Industrielle must submit a compliance plan subchapter and paragraph (b) of this
Aerospatiale Concorde Type 1 consisting of the following: section:
(1) A proposed project schedule, (b) Extended operational limit. To
§ 25.1809 Changes to type certificates: identifying all major milestones, for preclude WFD from occurring in the
Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD). transport category airplane fleet, each
meeting the compliance dates specified
(a) Applicability. Except as stated in in paragraph (d) of this section. person applying for an extended
paragraph (b) of this section, this section (2) A proposed means of compliance operational limit must comply with the
applies to supplemental type certificates with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of following requirements:
(STCs) and amendments to type this section. (1) Perform an evaluation of the
certificates (ATC)— (3) If the proposed means of airplane structural configuration to
(1) For transport category airplanes for compliance differs from that described determine when WFD is likely to occur
which initial operational limits are in FAA advisory material, a detailed for structure susceptible to multiple site
established under § 25.1807 of this explanation of how the proposed means damage or multiple element damage.
subpart; and will be shown to comply with this The airplane structural configuration to
(2) That are identified using the section. be evaluated consists of—
guidelines developed according to (4) A proposal for submitting a draft (i) All model variations and
§ 25.1807(g)(3) of this subpart. of all compliance items required by derivatives approved under the type
certificate for which approval for an established under § 25.1811 of this PART 121—OPERATING
extension is sought; and subpart, either— REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,
(ii) All structural repairs, alterations, (i) Modify the proposed repair, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
and modifications installed on each alteration, or modification to preclude
affected airplane, whether or not 8. The authority citation for part 121
WFD from occurring before the airplane continues to read:
required by airworthiness directive, up reaches the extended operational limit;
to the date of approval of the extended or Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,
operational limit. 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–
(2) Using the results from the (ii) Develop the maintenance actions 44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901,
evaluation performed in paragraph that must be performed to preclude 44903–44904, 44912, 45101–45105, 46105,
WFD from occurring before the airplane 46301.
(b)(1) of this section, establish an
extended operational limit, stated as a reaches the extended operational limit. 9. Amend § 121.1 by adding a new
total number of accumulated flight These maintenance actions must be paragraph (g) to read as follows:
cycles or flight hours. developed using:
§ 121. Applicability.
(3) Establish a supplement to the (A) Guidelines specified in
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) § 25.1807(g)(3)(iii) of this subpart; or * * * * *
and submit it to the FAA Oversight (g) This part also establishes
(B) Guidelines approved by the FAA requirements for operators to take
Office for approval. The supplemental Oversight Office.
ALS must include a section titled actions to support the continued
Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) that (3) The maintenance actions airworthiness of each airplane.
incorporates the applicable extended identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 10. Amend part 121 by adding subpart
operational limit established under section must be documented as AA to read as follows:
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. airworthiness limitation items, Subpart AA—Continued Airworthiness and
(4) Develop the maintenance actions submitted to the FAA Oversight Office Safety Improvements
determined by the WFD evaluation for approval, and be made available to Sec.
performed in paragraph (b)(1) of this owners and operators of affected 121.1101 Purpose and definition.
section to be necessary to preclude WFD airplanes subject to this section. 121.1103–121.1113 [Reserved]
from occurring before the airplane 121.1115 Widespread fatigue damage.
Appendix H to Part 25—Instructions for
reaches the proposed extended Continued Airworthiness
operational limit. These maintenance Subpart AA—Continued Airworthiness
actions must be documented as * * * * * and Safety Improvements
airworthiness limitation items in the 6. Amend H25.3 of Appendix H by § 121.1101 Purpose and definition.
ALS and submitted to the FAA adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: (a) This subpart requires persons
Oversight Office for approval. holding an air carrier or operating
H25.3 Content
§ 25.1813 Repairs, alterations, and certificate under part 119 of this chapter
modifications: Widespread Fatigue Damage * * * * * to support the continued airworthiness
(WFD). (h) Guidelines for identifying and of each airplane. These requirements
(a) Applicability. This section applies evaluating repairs, alterations, and may include, but are not limited to,
to modifications identified according to modifications to structure that may be revising the maintenance program,
§ 25.1807(g)(1) of this chapter and to susceptible to WFD and compromise the incorporating design changes, and
repairs, alterations, and modifications ability of the airplane to reach the initial incorporating revisions to Instructions
identified using the guidelines operational limit. for Continued Airworthiness.
developed under § 25.1807(g)(3) of this (b) For purposes of this subpart, the
7. Amend H25.4 of Appendix H by ‘‘FAA Oversight Office’’ is the aircraft
subpart, that are proposed for revising paragraph (a)(1), adding and
installation on transport category certification office or office of the
reserving paragraph (a)(3), and adding Transport Airplane Directorate with
airplanes with an extended operational paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows.
limit approved under § 25.1811 of this oversight responsibility for the relevant
subpart. Appendix H to Part 25—Instructions for type certificate or supplemental type
(b) Repairs, alterations, or Continued Airworthiness certificate, as determined by the
modification requirements. Each person Administrator.
* * * * *
seeking approval for any repair, § 121.1103–§ 121.1113 [Reserved]
alteration, or modification must comply H25.4 Airworthiness Limitations
with the following: Section § 121.1115 Widespread fatigue damage.
(1) Perform an evaluation according to (a) Applicability. This section applies
* * * * *
the applicable guidelines developed to certificate holders operating transport
under section § 25.1807(g)(3) of this (a) * * * category airplanes for which an
subpart to determine if any new (1) Each mandatory modification operational limit has been established
structure or any structure affected by the time, replacement time, structural under § 25.571, § 25.1807, or § 25.1811
repair, alteration, or modification is inspection interval, and related of this chapter.
susceptible to WFD and, if so, when it structural inspection procedures (b) Operational limit. No certificate
is likely to occur. This evaluation must approved under § 25.571. holder may operate an airplane
be performed using those guidelines or identified in paragraph (a) of this
* * * * *
guidelines approved by the FAA section after June 18, 2008, unless an
Oversight Office. (4) An operational limit, stated as a Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS)
(2) If the evaluation required by total number of accumulated flight approved under appendix H to part 25
paragraph (b)(1) of this section cycles or flight hours, approved under or § 25.1807 of this chapter is
concludes that WFD is likely to occur § 25.571 of this part. incorporated into its maintenance
before the extended operational limit * * * * * program. The ALS must—
(1) Include an operational limit by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this Subpart A—General
approved under § 25.571 or § 25.1807 of section to the Principal Maintenance
this chapter, as applicable, except as Inspector for review and approval. * * * * *
provided in paragraph (c) of this 20. Amend part 129 by adding subpart
section; and § 121.368 [Redesignated] B to read as follows.
(2) Be clearly distinguishable within 11. Redesignate § 121.368 as new Subpart B—Continued Airworthiness and
its maintenance program. § 121.1105. Safety Improvements
(c) Extended operational limit. No Sec.
§ 121.368 [Reserved]
certificate holder may operate an 129.101 Purpose and definition.
airplane beyond the operational limit 12. A new § 121.368 is added and 129.103–129.113 [Reserved]
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this reserved. 129.115 Widespread fatigue damage.
section, unless the following conditions
§ 121.370 [Redesignated]
are met: Subpart B—Continued Airworthiness
(1) An ALS must be incorporated into 13. Redesignate § 121.370 as new and Safety Improvements
its maintenance program that— § 121.1107.
§ 129.101 Purpose and definition.
(i) Includes an extended operational
§ 121.370 [Reserved] (a) This subpart requires a foreign air
limit and any widespread fatigue
damage (WFD) airworthiness limitation 14. A new § 121.370 is added and carrier or foreign person operating a
items (ALIs) approved under § 25.1811 reserved. U.S.-registered airplane in common
of this chapter; and carriage to support the continued
§ 121.370a [Redesignated]
(ii) Is approved under § 25.1811 of airworthiness of each airplane. These
this chapter; 15. Redesignate § 121.370a as new requirements may include, but are not
(2) Its maintenance program must § 121.1109. limited to, revising the maintenance
incorporate the applicable guidelines for § 121.370a [Reserved] program, incorporating design changes,
identifying and evaluating repairs, and incorporating revisions to
alterations, and modifications that have 16. A new § 121.370a is added and Instructions for Continued
been developed according to reserved. Airworthiness.
§ 25.1807(g)(3), or other guidelines PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN (b) For purposes of this subpart, the
approved by the FAA Oversight Office. AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN ‘‘FAA Oversight Office’’ is the aircraft
(3) The extended operational limit, OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED certification office or office of the
WFD ALIs, and applicable guidelines AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON Transport Airplane Directorate with
must be clearly distinguishable within CARRIAGE oversight responsibility for the relevant
its maintenance program. type certificate or supplemental type
(d) Repairs, alterations, and 17. The authority citation for part 129 certificate, as determined by the
modifications. This paragraph applies to continues to read: Administrator.
modifications identified according to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119,
§ 25.1807(g)(1) of this chapter and to § 129.103–§ 129.113 [Reserved]
44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,
repairs, alterations, and modifications 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904, § 129.115 Widespread fatigue damage.
identified in the applicable guidelines 44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107–71 sec. (a) Applicability. This section applies
developed according to § 25.1807(g)(3) 104.
to foreign air carriers or foreign persons
of this chapter, when installed on
18. Amend § 129.1 by revising operating U.S.-registered transport
airplanes operating under an extended
paragraph (b), and adding a new category airplanes for which an
operational limit. Any certificate holder
paragraph (d) to read as follows: operational limit has been established
returning an airplane to service after
under § 25.571, § 25.1807, or § 25.1811
such a repair, alteration, or modification § 129.1 Applicability and definitions.
of this chapter.
must do the actions required by * * * * *
paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this (b) Operational limit. No foreign air
(b) Operations of U.S.-registered carrier or foreign person may operate a
section. These actions are in addition to aircraft solely outside the United States.
any other actions and approvals U.S.-registered airplane identified in
In addition to the operations specified paragraph (a) of this section after June
required by this chapter. under paragraph (a) of this section,
(1) Within 90 days after return to 18, 2008, unless an Airworthiness
§§ 129.14 and 129.20 and subpart B of Limitations section (ALS) approved
service— this part also apply to U.S.-registered
(i) Perform a WFD evaluation of the under appendix H to part 25 or
aircraft operated solely outside the § 25.1807 of this chapter is incorporated
repair, alteration, or modification;
United States in common carriage by a into its maintenance program. The ALS
(ii) Develop any necessary
foreign air carrier or foreign person. must—
maintenance actions according to
§ 25.1813 of this chapter; and * * * * * (1) Include an operational limit
(iii) Submit the evaluation and (d) This part also establishes approved under § 25.571 or § 25.1807 of
proposed maintenance actions to the requirements for a foreign air carrier or this chapter, as applicable, except as
FAA Oversight Office through the foreign person to take actions to support provided in paragraph (c) of this
Principal Maintenance Inspector for the continued airworthiness of each section; and
approval. airplane. (2) Be clearly distinguishable within
(2) Within 90 days after approval by 19. Amend part 129 by adding subpart its maintenance program.
the FAA Oversight Office, revise the A heading to read as set forth below, (c) Extended operational limit. No
maintenance program to incorporate any and designating §§ 129.1, 129.11, 129.13 foreign air carrier or foreign person may
WFD ALI approved under this section. through 129.15 and §§ 129.17 through operate an airplane beyond the
(e) Principal Inspector approval. 129.21, and §§ 129.23, 129.25, 129.28, operational limit specified in paragraph
Certificate holders must submit the and 129.29 into subpart A to read as (b)(1) of this section, unless the
maintenance program revisions required follows: following conditions are met:
(1) An ALS must be incorporated into required by paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) § 129.16 [Reserved]
its maintenance program that— of this section. These actions are in 22. A new § 129.16 is added and
(i) Includes an extended operational addition to any other actions and
limit and any widespread fatigue reserved.
approvals required by this chapter.
damage (WFD) airworthiness limitation (1) Within 90 days after return to § 129.32 [Redesignated]
items (ALIs) approved under § 25.1811 service—
of this chapter; and (i) Perform a WFD evaluation of the 23. Redesignate § 129.32 as new
(ii) Is approved under § 25.1811 of repair, alteration, or modification; § 129.107.
this chapter; (ii) Develop any necessary
(2) Its maintenance program must § 129.32 [Reserved]
maintenance actions according to
incorporate the applicable guidelines for § 25.1813 of this chapter; and 24. A new § 129.32 is added and
identifying and evaluating repairs, (iii) Submit the evaluation and reserved.
alterations, and modifications that have proposed maintenance actions to the
been developed according to FAA Oversight Office through the § 129.33 [Redesignated]
§ 25.1807(g)(3), or other guidelines Principal Maintenance Inspector or 25. Redesignate § 129.33 as new
approved by the FAA Oversight Office. cognizant Flight Standards International
(3) The extended operational limit, § 129.105.
Field Office for review and approval.
WFD ALIs, and applicable guidelines (2) Within 90 days after approval by § 129.33 [Reserved]
must be clearly distinguishable within the FAA Oversight Office, revise the
its maintenance program. maintenance program to incorporate any 26. A new § 129.33 is added and
(d) Repairs, alterations, and WFD ALI approved under this section. reserved.
modifications. This paragraph applies to (e) Principal Inspector approval. Issued in Washington, DC on April 11,
modifications identified according to Foreign air carriers or foreign persons 2006.
§ 25.1807(g)(1) of this chapter and to must submit the maintenance program John M. Allen,
repairs, alterations, and modifications revisions required by paragraphs (b), (c),
identified in the applicable guidelines Acting Director, Flight Standards Service,
and (d) of this section to the Principal Aviation Safety.
developed according to § 25.1807(g)(3) Maintenance Inspector or Flight
of this chapter, when installed on Standards International Field Office for Dorenda D. Baker,
airplanes operating under an extended review and approval. Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service,
operational limit. Any foreign air carrier Aviation Safety.
or foreign person returning an airplane § 129.16 [Redesignated] [FR Doc. 06–3621 Filed 4–17–06; 8:45 am]
to service after such a repair, alteration, 21. Redesignate § 129.16 as new BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
or modification must do the actions § 129.109.

Proposed Rule: Air Carrier Certification and Operations: Transport Category Airplanes&#8212 Aging Aircraft Program Widespread Fatigue Damage

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Proposed Rule: Air Carrier Certification and Operations: Transport Category Airplanes&#8212 Aging Aircraft Program Widespread Fatigue Damage

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tuesday,

April 18, 2006

14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129

these terms to be synonymous. An ‘‘alteration’’ is

WFD is the simultaneous presence of stringers. referenced in the Airworthiness

requirements for that specific airplane. The review

5. Advisory Circulars incorporate the latest mandatory Based on the ARAC

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES ADDRESSING WFD

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES ADDRESSING WFD—Continued

Establish requirements for identi- ....................................................... Within 90 days after return to

PS–ANM110–7–12–2005, we are section generally requires compliance authority’s findings of compliance

operation of an airplane is to prohibit operation

TABLE 3.—DESIGN AND EXTENDED SERVICE GOALS

Bombardier Aerospace Model:

British Aerospace Airbus, Ltd.:

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.:

operational limits. be dependent on TC holders, certain Accordingly, we believe that general

FAA-approved revised or new ALS ......................................................................................................................... 132 8,606

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,899 $118,141

List of Subjects of the Instructions for Continued Subpart I—Continued Airworthiness

loads (considered as static ultimate

Você também pode gostar