FAA Policy Statement: Safety-A Shared Responsibility-New Direction for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for Transport Airplanes, 40166-40167 [05-13670]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40166-40167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13670]



[[Page 40165]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 21, 91, 121, 125, and 129



FAA Policy Statement: Safety--A Shared Responsibility--New Direction 
for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for Transport Airplanes; Fuel Tank 
Safety Compliance Extension and Aging Airplane Program Update; Final 
Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 40166]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2004-17681]


FAA Policy Statement: Safety--A Shared Responsibility--New 
Direction for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for Transport Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: This document sets forth the Federal Aviation Administration's 
(FAA) policy concerning the shared responsibility between design 
approval holders (DAHs) and operators in achieving certain types of 
safety objectives. It also provides guidance on the use of DAH 
requirements to support these safety objectives. This policy statement 
is intended to further clarify when and how the FAA will use DAH 
requirements in the future to address certain airworthiness issues for 
transport airplanes.

DATES: This policy is effective July 12, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dionne Krebs, FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, ANM-110, 1601 Lind Avenue, 
SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone: (425) 227-2250; fax: 
(425) 227-1320; e-mail: Dionne.Krebs@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As the FAA looks toward the future, we see a need for a new 
regulatory approach to addressing airworthiness issues in the existing 
fleet of transport airplanes. As the fleet ages and new designs become 
more technologically advanced, resolving emerging safety issues has 
become more complex. This complexity is compounded by the large number 
of airplanes in the existing fleet, with their many variations in 
configuration, and the varying kinds of operations authorized under the 
FAA's operational and flight rules. We are also finding that new 
technologies are now available, in some cases, to address safety issues 
that in the past could not be practically resolved.
    In our effort to be more effective, we have reviewed our regulatory 
approach, as well as the performance of the affected aviation industry, 
in achieving national safety objectives. When the FAA determines that 
the level of safety for the existing fleet is unacceptable, we have two 
alternative courses of action:
     For those safety concerns related to a specific type of 
airplane model, the FAA declares an unsafe condition and requires 
actions through an airworthiness directive (AD) to achieve an 
acceptable level of safety.
     When establishing a new safety standard of general 
applicability (e.g., all air carrier operations, large transport 
airplanes), the FAA issues general rulemaking that applies to future 
new designs, new production, the existing fleet (retrofit), or a 
combination of these, as appropriate.
    We consider these two alternatives to be complementary tools. The 
appropriate alternative depends on the nature and extent of the safety 
issue. In either case, the FAA assesses the impact and solicits public 
comment on our proposed actions (except in emergency situations) before 
implementation.
    When general rulemaking has been necessary to address fleet-wide 
safety issues, our practice has been to issue rules requiring action by 
the airplane operator. That practice relied on voluntary support from 
the design approval holders (DAH) to provide data and documents needed 
to support operator compliance. This approach has generally been 
successful. DAHs and operators have recognized they have a shared 
responsibility on certain safety issues, as reflected in the numerous 
rulemaking advisory committee recommendations transmitted to the FAA 
that affect continued airworthiness. However, this recognition did not 
necessarily ensure that information required by operators, such as 
service bulletins or maintenance or inspection procedures, would be 
provided in a timely manner.
    On occasion, adopting airworthiness requirements only through 
operational rules has imposed an inappropriate burden on operators. In 
those cases, the expected support from the DAHs was not timely or 
consistent. Consequently some operators were unable to comply with the 
operational rule by the compliance deadline, or incurred substantial 
unexpected costs to comply. For example, in the program to reinforce 
flight deck doors, most operators had substantially less than the one 
year, that we originally anticipated as necessary, to modify their 
fleet. In the class D to class C cargo compartment conversion program, 
one type certificate holder did not develop the necessary modifications 
on time for operator compliance. Also, during this program a number of 
operators experienced frequent failures of modification parts, a lack 
of parts and a lack of technical support from several holders of 
supplemental type certificates.
    The FAA concludes that, to achieve our safety objectives, DAHs and 
operators must have a shared responsibility on certain safety issues 
affecting the existing fleet. We also conclude, from reviews such as 
the Commercial Airplane Certification Process Study (March 2002), that 
we need to facilitate more effective communication of safety 
information between DAHs and operators. As both technology and 
airworthiness issues become more complex, certain fleet-wide safety 
issues require that the FAA take a new approach to facilitate their 
timely resolution. This new regulatory approach involves implementing 
complementary requirements for DAHs and operators, when appropriate. 
This approach was summarized in the Fuel Tank Safety Rule Compliance 
Extension and Aging Airplane Program Update published in the Federal 
Register on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45936). We are publishing a document 
addressing the comments from that notice in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

Policy Statement

    Based on our evaluation of more effective regulatory approaches for 
certain types of safety initiatives and the comments received from the 
Aging Airplane Program Update (July 30, 2004), the FAA has concluded 
that we need to adopt a regulatory approach recognizing the shared 
responsibility between DAHs and operators.\1\ When we decide that 
general rulemaking is needed to address an airworthiness issue, and 
believe the safety objective can only be fully achieved if the DAHs 
provide operators with the necessary information in a timely manner, we 
will propose requirements for the affected DAHs to provide that 
information by a certain date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This policy will not affect the FAA's process for 
determining when and under what circumstance it is appropriate to 
issue ADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In applying this policy, we will consider the following factors 
when determining if DAH requirements are needed to support the safety 
objective:
     The complexity of developing data and documents to address 
the safety issue: \2\ Type design data analysis is necessary for the 
timely, efficient development of necessary data and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This consideration will also address the potential for a 
readily identifiable third party to develop the complex data and 
documents in time to achieve compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The need for FAA-approved service instructions to be 
available in a timely manner: We need to be confident that when the 
required data and documents are provided, they will be acceptable,

[[Page 40167]]

are available on time, and can be readily implemented by the operators 
to comply on large fleets of airplanes.
     Whether a number of different types of transport airplanes 
need similar safety improvements: Because the safety issue is common to 
many airplanes, we need to ensure that technical requirements and 
compliance process are consistent to ensure required safety level can 
be achieved equitably.
     The safety objective needs to be maintained for the 
operational life of the airplane: We need to ensure that future design 
changes do not degrade the achieved level of safety in the fleet.
     Additional factors relevant to the safety objective being 
addressed: There may be other factors that are unique to a particular 
safety concern that we also need to consider.
    When the FAA takes this regulatory approach to implementing actions 
necessary for safety through complementary operational and DAH 
requirements, we will:
     Publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for public 
comment.
     Provide the rationale for adopting requirements for both 
the operators and DAHs.
     Identify the affected airplane models and types of 
operations.
     Define the specific information that must be developed and 
made available.
     Provide technical information in the rule when it is 
necessary for compliance.
     Identify processes and procedures for implementation of 
safety related actions.
     Specify the appropriate compliance times to allow for all 
of the design, certification, and implementation activity to occur.
     Consider the economic impacts to all affected parties and 
ensure that the safety benefits are sufficient to warrant the costs.
     Publish the proposed guidance materials associated with 
the safety initiatives concurrently with the rulemaking proposals, or 
as soon after as possible. This will enable industry to evaluate all of 
the related materials as soon as they are available and provide 
comprehensive comments to the FAA. For any materials that are not 
available during the comment period on the NPRM, we will provide a 
separate comment period for the proposed guidance.
     Identify training requirements.
     Seek information from industry to gain a full 
understanding of these considerations when developing our proposal.
    This policy is based on the need to ensure there are acceptable 
data and documents available in a timely manner to support operator 
compliance with the related operational rules. The FAA understands that 
in some cases where airplane modifications are required, third parties 
may be able to offer engineering support for compliance with the 
operational rules. However, the FAA believes that requirements for DAHs 
may still be necessary because DAHs have all of the original data 
(analysis, models, test results, service experience, etc.) necessary to 
evaluate their current designs and develop modifications or programs 
that will enable them to show compliance in a timely way. In addition, 
these rules may also include production cut-in requirements, so DAHs 
would have to develop designs to comply with those requirements anyway.
    This policy builds on current regulations (14 CFR 21.50 and 21.99) 
that require DAHs to ``make available'' certain service information 
that is necessary to maintain the airworthiness of airplanes. The FAA 
understands that data and documents, such as airplane maintenance 
manuals, structural repair manuals, service bulletins, etc., and 
support are part of some purchase contracts between DAHs and operators. 
In each case, the DAH would be required to ``make available'' the 
service information developed under a DAH requirement. Since current 
business relationships are structured to comply with this existing 
long-standing requirement, we do not anticipate any disruption in these 
relationships as a result of the DAH requirements. The requirement to 
``make available'' does not preclude the DAH from charging for these 
data and documents.
    In adopting this policy, we do not intend to limit the flexibility 
that a DAH has to contract with a third party to provide a means of 
compliance with a DAH requirement. This type of business arrangement 
has been used by DAHs to provide customer support for modifications 
associated with both required and voluntary configuration changes. If a 
DAH does rely on third parties, the DAH would still remain fully 
responsible for ultimate compliance with the requirement.
    Under this policy, we will continue to the hold the affected 
operators responsible for implementing actions necessary for safety. In 
the event the DAH no longer exists and, therefore, cannot provide the 
required support, the operator still has the responsibility for 
complying with the operational rule on time. The operator must work to 
contract with a party capable of providing the needed support, or 
potentially remove airplanes from service.
    Under this policy, we would not make DAHs responsible for 
addressing safety problems related to airplane configurations for which 
they are not the design approval holder. They would not be expected to 
provide data and documents related to modifications developed by third 
parties or operator-developed repairs and alterations. However, they 
may be required to provide guidance on how to assess the effects of 
those kinds of changes on the DAH's design.
    Regulations applying this policy will contain additional features 
that will help ensure that the required safety related actions are 
acceptable and available on time for implementation by the operator. A 
requirement for compliance planning by the DAHs will be an integral 
part of this new approach to ensure that the DAH and the FAA have a 
common understanding of how the DAH intends to comply. The FAA is 
committed to assuring the proposed requirements of this new approach 
are complied with so that the safety objectives are achieved on time. 
This approach will also promote the development of consistent and 
standardized safety related actions.
    As previously discussed, this policy statement is the cumulative 
result of past experience and in-depth reviews of past efforts to 
ensure the safety of the fleet through the certification and continued 
airworthiness processes. The FAA concludes that, under the 
circumstances described above, this new regulatory approach is 
necessary for safety and provides an efficient and cost effective 
strategy for addressing complex airworthiness issues in the future.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 6, 2005.
Nicholas A. Sabatini,
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-13670 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P