Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issue Area-New Task, 14284-14286 [E6-4024]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14284-14286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and 
Engine Issue Area--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned a new task to the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to develop a recommendation that will help the FAA 
establish standardized criteria and guidance for conducting airplane-
level safety assessments of critical systems. This notice is to inform 
the public of this ARAC activity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linh Le, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-117), Northwest 
Mountain Region Headquarters, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone: (425) 227-1105; fax: 425-227-1320; e-mail: 
linh.le@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to 
provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the 
FAA's rulemaking activities for aviation-related issues. This includes 
obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitments to 
harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its 
partners in Europe and

[[Page 14285]]

Canada. Previous ARAC harmonization working groups (Flight Controls, 
Powerplant Installations, and Systems Design and Analysis) produced 
varying recommendations regarding the safety of critical airplane 
systems. Although the subject of specific risk analysis was addressed 
in those working groups, the recommendations were not consistent. 
Regulations developed from within the FAA also provide approaches 
different from those recommended by ARAC. The term ``specific risk'' 
refers to the risk to which an airplane is exposed under certain 
conditions (for example, after a latent failure), as distinguished from 
average risk.
    If these different approaches are applied on a typical 
certification project, they could result in nonstandardized system 
safety assessments across various critical systems. This could cause 
conflicting interpretations for conducting system safety assessments in 
future airplane certification programs. After reviewing the existing 
regulations and the recommendations from the various harmonization-
working groups, the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, along with the 
European, Canadian, and Brazilian civil aviation authorities, 
identified a need to clarify and standardize safety assessment 
criteria. The FAA decided to use a new ARAC tasking to integrate the 
safety assessment criteria from various system disciplines. In July 
2005, an industry group comprised of the Aerospace Industries 
Association (AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 
and several airplane and engine manufacturers, proposed a new tasking. 
The FAA agrees with the industry group proposal, and has based this 
tasking on that proposal. ARAC will address the task under the 
Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Issues Group.

The Task

    This tasking will direct ARAC to provide information about specific 
risk assessment and make recommendations for revising requirements or 
guidance material as appropriate. The TAE Issues Group will establish a 
new ``Airplane-level Safety Analysis Working Group'' (ASAWG) to perform 
the following tasks:

Task 1

    The ASAWG will establish a definition for specific risk. It will 
provide relevant examples of its application in today's airplane 
certification, FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB), and 
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) activities. These examples will aid in 
the correct and concise understanding of specific risk.

Task 2

    The ASAWG will review the background and intent of relevant 
existing requirements, existing guidance material, and ARAC 
recommendations and explain how specific risk is addressed. In Task 2, 
the ASAWG will document all current and proposed approaches to specific 
risk but will not establish how specific risk should be assessed. The 
outcome of this task will be a report describing how specific risk is 
currently assessed and managed, by currently available regulatory 
guidance and by actual practice in recent certification programs. The 
report will also address how any regulations and associated guidance 
material proposed by ARAC would manage specific risk. For the relevant 
ARAC proposals, the report will include the intended improvements and 
safety benefits of the recommended changes. The approaches and 
rationale used in airplane-level safety analysis for the following 
aspects will be reviewed and documented in the report:

Latent Failures

    The Task 2 report will document acceptance criteria for the 
``significant latent failures'' highlighted in paragraph 9.c.6 of the 
proposed ARAC Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1309--``Draft ARSENAL 
version,'' dated 6/10/2002. The report will document the following 
aspects:
    1. Criteria used for selecting failure conditions worthy of 
consideration (for example, significant latent failure conditions that 
are not extremely remote as cited in 14 CFR 25.981.)
    2. Acceptability of the next most critical failure on safe 
operation. As part of this consideration, the report will document the 
approach used to establish whether a significant latent failure should 
be allowed to leave the airplane one failure away from a catastrophic 
condition. If it is allowable, the report will identify the acceptance 
criteria. Examples of acceptance criteria may be critical component 
integrity criteria and instructions for continued airworthiness that 
will include a standard procedure for identification and control of the 
maintenance tasks required to periodically check the status of the 
latent failure.
    3. Failure probability assumptions and methods of substantiation
    4. Criteria for determining allowable exposure times
    5. Criteria for limiting the exposure times

Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)

    The report will document the approaches to determine:
    1. Acceptability of next most critical failure on safe operation
    2. Crew limitations and procedures
    3. Reliability of critical components
    4. Allowable exposure time

Airplane Configuration, Flight Conditions and Design Variations

    Flight phase.
    Maximum flight time vs. average flight time.
    Average diversion time vs. maximum allowed diversion time.

Task 3

    The ASAWG will review the results of Tasks 1 & 2 and determine the 
appropriateness and adequacy of existing and proposed airworthiness 
standards for airplane-level safety analysis. This task will 
demonstrate if a more consistent approach across systems is necessary. 
The ASAWG will report its findings from Task 3 to the TAE Issues Group. 
Concurrence from the TAE Issues Group and the FAA is required before 
continuing to Task 4.

Task 4

    The ASAWG will develop a report containing recommendations for 
rulemaking or guidance material and explain the rationale and safety 
benefits for each proposed change. The report will define a 
standardized approach for applying specific risk in the appropriate 
circumstances. The FAA will define the report format to ensure the 
report contains the necessary information for developing a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and/or ACs. Task 4 is contingent on the 
results of the analyses done in Task 3.
    If an NPRM or proposed AC is published for public comment as a 
result of the recommendations from this tasking, the FAA may ask ARAC 
to review all public comments received and provide a recommendation for 
disposition of comments for each issue.

Schedule

    1. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results from its Task 1 
activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than August 21, 2006.
    2. The ASAWG will submit a report with the results of its Task 2 
activity to the TAE Issues Group no later than February 21, 2007.
    3. A report describing the results of Task 3 from ASAWG to TAE 
Issues Group is required no later than November 21, 2007.

[[Page 14286]]

    4. The final report containing the ASAWG's recommendations to the 
FAA is required no later than May 21, 2008.
    Completion of this task is required no later than May 21, 2008. Any 
deviations from this schedule must be requested by the ASAWG and 
approved by the TAE Issues Group.

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    ARAC accepted the task and assigned it to the TAE Issues Group's 
newly formed ASAWG. The working group serves as staff to ARAC and 
assists in the analysis of assigned tasks. ARAC must review and approve 
the working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working 
group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA. The FAA will 
submit the recommendations it receives to the agency's Rulemaking 
Management Council to address the availability of resources and 
prioritization.

Working Group Activity

    The ASAWG must comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part 
of the procedures, the working group must:
    1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the 
rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting 
of the TAE Issues Group held following publication of this notice.
    2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed 
recommendations before continuing with the work stated in item 3 below.
    3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any 
other related materials or documents.
    4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC TAE Issues 
Group.

Participation in the Working Group

    The ASAWG will be comprised of technical experts having an interest 
in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a 
representative or a member of the TAE Issue Group. The ASAWG membership 
will have broad system safety experience. As needed, the ASAWG may 
organize, oversee, guide, and monitor the activities and progress of 
task groups comprised of subject matter experts (SMEs). A task group 
member needs not be a representative or a member of the full ASAWG. The 
ASAWG Chair will select the membership for both the ASAWG and its task 
groups, with concurrence of the TAE Issues Group Assistant Chair and 
TAE Issues Group Assistant Executive Director. The SMEs will address 
individual issues and will be invited to present their views and 
positions for consideration by the task groups or by the ASAWG. This 
allows for an optimum ASAWG group size with appropriate representation 
to achieve informed consensus and foster successful completion of the 
task. This also allows the participation of a large number of cross-
functional SMEs, such as those from the Systems, Flight Controls, 
Powerplants, Structures, and Flight Operations harmonization working 
groups. The ASAWG members should have the appropriate subject matter 
knowledge, broad system safety experience and responsibility within 
their organization, and authority to represent their respective part of 
the aviation community. ASAWG members should:
    1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure 
analysis methodologies;
    2. Have the appropriate knowledge to evaluate the likely impacts on 
safety, airplane system designs, manufacturing, operation, and 
maintenance following adoption of any relevant ARAC recommendation;
    3. Have proficient knowledge of existing methods of compliance to 
one or more of the following relevant sections of 14 CFR: 25.671, 
25.901, 25.933, 25.981, 25.1309, 25.1529, 33.28, 33.75, including JAR 
MMEL/MEL 0-10; and
    4. Have a commitment to communicate with interested parties to 
establish a common understanding of all issues, and facilitate 
developing consensus explanations.
    Task Group Members Should:
    1. Have proven proficiency in airplane system safety and failure 
analysis methodologies;
    2. Have hands-on experience in existing methods of compliance to 
one or more of the relevant sections of 14 CFR listed above; and
    3. Have the appropriate backgrounds to explain to the ASAWG the 
rationales behind one or more of the relevant ARAC proposals (25.671, 
AC 25.901X, AC 25.933X, AC 25.1309--``Draft ARSENAL version,'' 33.75) 
as they pertain to latent failures and the MMEL.
    Invited experts should have the knowledge appropriate to the 
subjects of interest, as determined by the task groups or ASAWG.
    In addition to industry representatives and the FAA, 
representatives from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), 
Brazil's Centro T[eacute]cnico Aeroespecial (CTA), and Transport Canada 
Civil Aviation (TCCA) are invited to participate. The working group and 
task group membership and size will be optimized to ensure credibility 
of representation and to facilitate efficiently accomplishing the 
tasking.
    If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a 
member of the working group, contact the person listed under the 
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Describe your interest in the 
task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group. We 
must receive all requests by April 25, 2006. The assistant chair, the 
assistant executive director, and the working group chairs will review 
the requests and advise you whether your request is approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must 
represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in 
the working group by attending all meetings and providing written 
comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources 
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned 
deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may 
represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure 
the proposed technical solutions don't conflict with your sponsoring 
organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented 
to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun deliberations, 
members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the 
assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working 
group chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and 
use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
    Meetings of the ARAC are open to the public. Meetings of the ASAWG 
will not be open to the public, except to the extent individuals with 
an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will 
make no public announcement of working group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2006.
Anthony F. Fazio,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E6-4024 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P