Significant Regulatory Activity

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 12

Policy statement

FR Doc 05-13670

Docket No. FAA-2004-17681

Shared responsibility for addressing airworthiness

Summary of Situation

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues a policy statement for addressing airworthiness of transport airplanes, fuel tank safety compliance and aging aircraft program.

Enunciates a policy of "shared responsibility" between design approval holders (DAHs) and operators.

Action Date & Comments

Final rule, effective July 12.

Sets forth as a matter of policy that DAHs will "provide operators with the necessary information in a timely manner" to meet safety initiatives.

FAA says recent practice underscores the DAHs role, such as the program to reinforce cockpit doors, and the Class D to Class C cargo compartment conversion program (e.g., the addition of a fire suppression capability).

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 12

Final rule on portable oxygen concentrator (POC) devices aboard aircraft

FR Doc 05-13664

Docket No. FF-2004-18592

SFAR No. 106

Safety of portable oxygen equipment

Summary of Situation

FAA publishes special federal aviation regulation (SFAR No. 106) outlining conditions under which infirm passengers will be permitted to bring a POC aboard an aircraft and use it during the flight.

The regulation is prompted by the development of POCs that work by filtering out nitrogen from the air and providing the user with a supply of oxygen enriched air (about 90 percent concentration).

The FAA proposed this initiative July 14, 2004, and this final rule incorporates industry and other comments (more than 2,000), notably that requirements initially imposed on the carrier are now put on the user.

The FAA was required to furnish medical oxygen for passengers, but this was very expensive for the passenger; facilitating the use of POCs is seen as a customer service. The SFAR allows POCs to be operated by passengers aboard the aircraft, and it sets forth requirements to do so both for the passenger and the operator.

Action Date & Comments

Policy effective Aug. 11.

FAA lays out the following policies:

Use of electrical power: Potential travelers requiring oxygen therapy stated that other passengers routinely plug laptop computers into the aircraft electrical system, and they should be able to do the same for POCs.

The Air Transport Association strongly objected to informing passengers of the availability of electrical outlets for POCs, as they are not available for every aircraft or seat, and power may be shut off if the aircraft experiences electrical overload conditions anyway.

FAA agrees, saying air carriers may choose to inform POC users of aircraft power, but there is no requirement to do so.

Number of batteries to be carried aboard to address expected delays: The FAA notes that weather delays, to include holding on the ground, "could easily drain battery power before the trip was completed."

The FAA determines that it's "up to the user" to carry the number of extra batteries necessary to cover possible contingencies.

Safety of carrying multiple batteries: The FAA requires the user to ensure that all spare batteries in carry-on baggage are protected from short-circuit problems (e.g., terminal to terminal or terminal to metal contact). The FAA suggests that users can get help packing the batteries from homecare providers, the airlines, or from small package shippers.

Recharging batteries: The FAA says, "There is a history of battery problems with other portable electronic devices when a battery is being charged during flight. We currently do not have data to establish a limit on the recharging of POC batteries during flight. Therefore, if the aircraft electrical system is available to recharge a POC battery, it is currently permissible to do so under this SFAR."

Pilot in command notification: The captain will be informed that a passenger has brought aboard a POC, and it will be accompanied by a physicians statement that the passenger has a medical need for oxygen for a substantial portion of the flight. "It is necessary for the pilot in command to know this information because of the possibility the device will fail and the user may have a medical emergency requiring action on the part of the flight crew," states the FAA. "Also, if a POC is using the electrical power of the aircraft ? the pilot will benefit from the knowledge and be able to announce and inform users if the use of that power needs to be restricted during the flight."

Liquid oxygen devices: Some commentors and interest groups asked why the FAA couldn't allow the use of devices using a liquid oxygen supply. The FAA responded that liquid oxygen is considered a hazardous material, and passengers are prohibited from carrying same in the cabin. However, if the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issues an exemption, an amendment to the SFAR will be considered.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 12

Disposition of comments

FR Doc 05-13669

Docket No. FAA-2004-17681

Fuel tank safety and aging airplane safety

Summary of Situation

FAA outlines DAH requirements and rationale for same (relates to initiative above regarding the roles of the DAH and operators to enhance safety).

The FAA disposes in this document a variety of comments received about its aging airplane program and enhanced fuel tank safety initiative under SFAR 88.

Regarding the DAH requirements, the FAA notes that "operators can only perform installation of a compliant product," and cited a number of examples:

• B727 freighter conversion floor,
• Metalized Mylar thermal acoustic blanket change-out,
• B737 rudder power control unit (RPCU) replacement,
• And the reinforced cockpit door rule.

Because of problems associated with these initiatives, DAHs are required to support operator compliance.

Action Date & Comments

No deadline, explanatory only.

Airbus does not believe the FAA has the legal authority to issue the DAH requirements, and Boeing and Airbus do not believe the FAA has the authority to specify the source of the compliance data.

FAA disagrees, citing the "broad statutory authority to impose requirements we find necessary for safety."

Regarding the mandate for timelines, the FAA noted that DAH support has not always been in a timely manner, for example,

1. Thrust reversers, where it took 10 years to develop some service information for airworthiness related actions, and

2. Operators are still awaiting DAH action to assess repairs for damage tolerance, "even though the DAH committed to completing this activity by 1993."

Airbus believes the workload created by enacting the DAH requirements would be overwhelming to the FAA. The FAA responded that regardless of whether the FAA adopted the DAH requirements, its workload would remain the same, as design and program approvals would still be necessary, specifically with regard to:

• Standardized application of guidance material;
• Compliance planning to streamline necessary coordination; and
• Specified compliance dates for DAHs.

"These advantages reduce our workload and increase or efficiency," the FAA said.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 14

Final rule

FR Doc 05-13762

Docket No. FAA-2004-17683

Implementing the maintenance provisions of bilateral agreements

Summary of Situation

FAA announces that it has entered into a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) with Canada, and that it is negotiating Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) to accompany the BASA.

Action Date & Comments

Effective when a signed MIP enters force, and that will be announced in the Federal Register.

The FAA explains, "A key difference between the U.S./Canada BASA/MIP and those with other countries is that the latter provide for the certification by the FAA of repair stations in those countries that will be maintaining U.S.-registered aircraft ?. No such FAA certification of ? Canadian maintenance organizations exists or is planned. The current reciprocal maintenance arrangement with Canada was established, in part, because the Canadian regulations were determined to compare favorably from a safety standpoint with those of the United States."

The FAA believes that the cost savings resulting from the rule eliminate a barrier to trade and therefore are "cost-beneficial."

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 19

NPRM

FR Doc 05-14171

Docket No. FAA-2005-21861

Fuel system safety

Summary of Situation

Airbus A320 airplanes.

Requires installation of a bonding strip between each of the two scavenge pumps of the center fuel tank.

These locations are presently not bonded.

FAA determines the action is necessary to reduce the potential for ignition sources inside the fuel tanks, which could lead to a fuel tank explosion.

Action Date & Comments

Comments due Aug. 18.

Action based on fuel system safety review (item was listed in table of actions spawned by SFAR 88 as one of those to be implemented, see ASW, July 11).

No charge for the required parts, which are being provided by the manufacturer. Labor cost estimated at $65 per airplane.

Affects 371 planes in U.S. registry.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 19

NPRM

FR Doc 05-14170

Docket No. FAA-2005-21862

Fuel system safety

Summary of Situation

Airbus A320 airplanes.

Requires installation of a bonding lead between the low pressure valve and the adjacent pipe assembly in each wing.

FAA determines the action as necessary to eliminate an ignition source that could result in fire or explosion of the wing tank.

Action Date & Comments

Comments due Aug. 18.

Action based on fuel system safety review (item was listed in table of actions spawned by SFAR 88 as one of those to be implemented, see ASW, July 11).

No charge for the required parts, which are being provided by the manufacturer. Labor cost estimated at $130 per airplane.

Affects 403 planes in U.S. registry.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 20

Notice of availability of advisory circular (AC)

FR Doc 05-14252

Fire protection requirements

Summary of Situation

FAA announces new methods for showing that thermal acoustic insulation blankets meet fire protection requirements for transport category airplanes.

The FAA says in the AC, "This material is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a regulation. It describes acceptable means, but not the only means, for demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations."

AC No. 25.856-1 of June 24 is titled, "Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Propagation Test Method Details."

It probably needs to be viewed alongside AC No. 25.856-2, "Installation of Thermal Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection."

Action Date & Comments

Provides details of the direct flame and radiant panel tests used to qualify insulation. Significantly, the AC shows how the hook and loop fasteners or tape are to be tested; these items hold the insulation in position, and their fire resistance is critical.

Method of Demonstrating Fire Resistance of Tape

The tape should be aligned so that the pilot burner igniter flame contacts the seam of the first overlap. Source: AC 25.856-1

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 21

Supplemental NPRM, reopening of comment period

FR Doc 05-14394

Docket No. FAA-2004-19863

Safety of emergency equipment

Summary of Situation

Airbus A319, A320 and A321 airplanes.

New action reduces compliance times and calls for installation of placards to prevent failure of the escape slide/raft to deploy correctly, which could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation.

Action Date & Comments

Comments due Aug. 15.

The placards are needed to provide positive visual indication of girt bar engagement in the armed mode, necessary for proper functioning of the slide/raft.

Compliance deadline is Dec. 31, 2006.

Cost is about $6,200 per airplane.

Affects 517 planes in U.S. registry.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 21

Final rule

FR Doc 05-14088

Docket No. FAA-2005-20882

AD 2005-15-03

Safety of doors in an emergency

Summary of Situation

McDonnell Douglas DC-10, MD-10, MD-11 airplanes, and freighter versions.

Requires repetitive tests and corrective actions to ensure functioning of the exterior emergency control handles of passenger doors, failure of which could delay evacuation in an emergency.

Action Date & Comments

AD effective Aug. 25.

Action is based on a report that the handles on an MD-11 were inoperative.

Cost of functional tests is $65; cost of replacement bearings is $1,120 per door.

Affects 633 airplanes in the worldwide fleet, 218 of which are in U.S. registry.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 21

Final rule

FR Doc 05-14087

Docket No. FAA-2005-20500

AD 2005-15-02

Emergency hydraulic and electric power safety

Summary of Situation

Airbus A320 airplanes.

Requires testing and replacement of components to ensure that the ram air turbine (RAT) pressurizes the system in an emergency, failure of which could lead to loss of hydraulic and electrical power.

Action Date & Comments

AD effective Aug. 25.

Action based on reports of unsuccessful in-flight functioning of RAT, which failed to pressurize the blue hydraulic circuit.

Cost placed at about $260 per airplane, with parts supplied by manufacturer at no charge.

Affects 130 planes in U.S. registry.

Action & Date Posted on Federal Register

July 21

NPRM

FR Doc 05-14393

Docket No. FAA-2005-21909

Landing gear safety

Summary of Situation

Avions de Transport Regional Model ATR-72 airplanes.

Requires inspection and replacement of aluminum arms of the main landing gear (MLG) brace assemblies with steel arms to prevent collapse of gear on takeoff or landing.

Action Date & Comments

Comments due Aug. 22.

Based on two reports of arm rupture due to fatigue cracking. Requires eddy current inspection.

Cost of inspection and replacement estimated at $5,200.

Affects 18 airplanes in U.S. registry.

Source: U.S. Federal Register