A4A Writes the FAA to Discuss the Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction Means (FRM) Rule.

 

Airlines for America (A4A) understands that FAA is considering a direct final rule (DFR) or “spot amendment” to extend the intermediate deadline for modifying in-service airplanes in accordance with the requirements of the fuel tank flammability reduction means (FRM) rule (14 CFR 121.1117(d)). The intermediate deadline requires air carriers to retrofit 50 percent of applicable airplanes with FRM by December 26, 2014.  As you may know, the development and approval processes for FRM retrofit kits is significantly behind schedule.  Carriers cannot begin the installation process until retrofit systems have been approved by FAA.  The DFR would avoid the impacts of compressing air carrier maintenance plans and potential airplane groundings that are likely to result.  There is simply not enough time to retrofit airplanes with the FRM kits by the rule’s deadline.  Temporary exemptions are an alternative means of accomplishing the same objectives as a DFR.

For the last two years, A4A has highlighted that progress toward the production of FRM-compliant, FAA-approved service instructions, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs), and kits for FRM retrofits was falling well behind the pace needed to begin retrofits in the June-December 2011 schedule set by the FRM rule.  As we have stated in several forums, the on-time performance of type certificate holders (TCHs) is a persistent concern with rules developed under 14 CFR 26.  With the initial installation window contemplated by the FRM final rule having lapsed two to eight months ago, U.S. air carriers are now receiving the retrofit deliverables for only two of seven affected airplane models (i.e., A320s and A330s).  Projections are that retrofit kits for one Boeing model and a major variant of another will be delayed to the point that retrofitting these airplanes will not begin until November, 2012 – 11 to 17 months after the final rule schedule. 

A4A recommends that FAA adopt a DFR to address these delay issues.  A DFR would minimize the administrative burden on all parties involved – air carriers, design approval holders and FAA.  It would avoid a largely duplicative task of processing numerous petitions for exemption to accomplish the same objective with the same justifications.  Further, we believe a DFR is most appropriate to the situation.  A DFR would prevent an uneven playing field in which the operators of some models are spreading out retrofits over three and one half years for the 50 percent retrofit deadline (six and one half years for the 100% retrofit deadline) while operators of other models that are experiencing kit delays will have as little as two years for the 50 percent retrofit deadline (five years for the 100% retrofit deadline) and will be required to file an individual petition for exemption.  A DFR also provides the best assurance against production bottlenecks at repair stations that air carriers have contracted or may contract to accomplish FRM modifications, and where a shorter retrofit deadline granted under one petition may have no priority over modifications under another.  However, carriers have concluded that if the outlook for a DFR is not promising by June 2012, they must submit petitions for temporary exemptions in an effort to minimize schedule compressions and avoid potential airplane groundings.A4A requests and recommends that FAA engage operators in the development of a DFR.  We believe that the DFR should equally extend all of the retrofit deadlines in §121.1117 (i.e., the 50 and 100 percent deadlines and extensions granted for the use of ground conditioned air (GCA) in §121.1117(k)).  A DFR that does not extend all of these deadlines would compress retrofit schedules into a period much shorter than the final rule planned, and would retract the reductions of compression provided to carriers having GCA extensions.  A DFR that does not provide extensions to the 50 percent, 100 percent retrofit deadlines and GCA extensions, would not solve the delay concerns and likely would receive negative comments.  Further, airplane safety performance data shows that under a DFR, the ignition prevention airworthiness directives (ADs), including SFAR 88 ADs would provide an equivalent level of safety.  Currently, airplanes of the type requiring retrofit (i.e., having a heated center wing tank (HCWT) and no flammability reduction system) have safely accumulated 465.2 million flight hours.  This performance validates the effectiveness of ignition-prevention modifications implemented by airworthiness directives, which has already surpassed a 78 percent effectiveness rating.  In addition, new-production airplanes of all applicable models operated by U.S air carriers are being delivered with FRM systems.  We request the FAA to strongly consider these factors and data-based risk management methods, and proceed with a DFR that equally extends to all retrofit deadlines in §121.1117.  Alternatively, FAA could consider granting an A4A exemption on behalf of member and similarly situated air carriers if it would provide the same extensions.

Please do not hesitate to call me to discuss this matter, or if you have any question.