SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of the Final Rule

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

B. Summary of the NPRM

C. General Overview of Comments

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. Support for Changes to Parts 91, 125, 135, and 137

B. Suggestions for Removal of Current Technical Data Terminology at § 145.211(c)(1)(v)

C. Suggestions for Consistency of Terminology at § 145.217

D. Suggestions Regarding Clarification of the Work Performed on an Article at § 145.201

E. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Commenters on the Omission of Part 145 Repair Stations From the NPRM Regulatory Impact Analysis

2. Commenter's Request for More Transparency Regarding FAA's Oversight Process for Manufacturer-Recommended and Registered Owner/Operator's Inspection Programs

3. Commenters Request To Add Terminology at § 145.217

4. Suggestion To Remove Terminology at §§ 145.201 and 145.217

5. Miscellaneous Changes to § 145.201(a)(2)(i)

6. Other Miscellaneous Suggestions for Changes Not in the Proposal

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. International Compatibility

G. Environmental Analysis

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

E. Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation ( printed page 72398)

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of the Final Rule

This final rule revises 14 CFR part 91 to make maintenance requirements for certain aircraft more flexible. To begin, it expands the maintenance inspection program options for owners and operators of single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and unmanned aircraft. Specifically, single-engine turbine-powered airplane owners and operators can now use an inspection program recommended by the manufacturer, or one created by the registered owner or operator, provided it is approved by the Administrator. Existing inspection options, such as the annual, 100-hour, or progressive inspection programs, remain available as alternatives.

In addition, for unmanned aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 135, the rule now allows these aircraft owners and operators to follow inspection rules under part 91. This means they can choose either a manufacturer-recommended inspection program or one established by the registered owner or operator, as long as it receives Administrator approval.

Beyond inspection programs, the final rule amends subpart K of part 91 by extending the reporting interval for aircraft mechanical reliability reports from 72 hours to 96 hours. It also provides the option to submit these reports electronically, simplifying the submission process.

Finally, this final rule clarifies and streamlines maintenance-related regulations in various parts of 14 CFR, including parts 125, 135, 137, 145, and additional subparts of part 91. By addressing confusing or ambiguous language, these updates help aircraft owners, operators, and maintenance providers comply with regulations more easily. Overall, the rule supports FAA's mission of efficiency by enabling greater flexibility for owners, operators, and maintenance providers in meeting maintenance requirements, all while ensuring that aviation safety remains uncompromised.

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

This rule's manned aircraft maintenance programs include a 10-year estimate of costs and savings. These estimates are based on the assumption that all manufacturers of single-engine turbine-powered aircraft would develop and make available their manufacturer inspection programs to owners and operators of that aircraft type. Using a seven percent discount rate, the result is an annualized net cost savings of $57.02 million.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety, such as the rules governing the inspection, maintenance service, and overhauling of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, as well as the equipment and facilities, the timing of and manner of such activities, is found in title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 grants the FAA Administrator the authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority, including the authority to issue regulations.

This rulemaking is issued under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A) and (B), which directs FAA to prescribe regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for:

(1) inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances; and (2) equipment and facilities for, and the timing of and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges FAA with promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

Finally, 49 U.S.C. 44707 authorizes FAA to examine and rate repair stations and shops that repair, alter, and maintain aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. Specifically, under 49 U.S.C. 44707(2), FAA is charged with inspecting and rating repair stations and shops on the adequacy and suitability of the equipment, facilities, and materials for, and methods of, repair and overhaul, and the competency of the individuals doing the work or giving instruction in the work.

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

Previously, single-engine turbine-powered airplanes were not authorized to use the inspection options listed in 14 CFR 91.409(f) as alternatives to the annual or 100-hour inspection requirements. These options listed under § 91.409(f) included a continuous airworthiness inspection program under a part 121 or part 135 operator's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP), an approved aircraft inspection program under part 135, a manufacturer-recommended inspection program, and a program created by the owner or operator and approved by FAA.

In 1989, FAA updated § 91.409(e), introducing more inspection options for turbine-powered rotorcraft. This allowed operators to schedule inspections in a way that optimized the time between inspections, resulting in more efficient operations. However, single-engine turbine-powered airplanes were excluded from this update because they were less common compared to rotorcraft at the time. Today, that is no longer the case—there are now more than 4,500 single-engine turbine-powered airplanes registered in the U.S. Moreover, the increasing integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System since 2016 has added further context to the need for regulatory updates. To accommodate and support UAS operations under parts 91 and 135, FAA has granted exemptions and waivers, generally requiring UAS to adhere to the manufacturer's inspection instructions or incorporate those instructions in an operator's approved maintenance inspection program.

Given these developments, FAA sees no safety concerns that justify denying single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and UAS the same regulatory flexibility as turbine-powered rotorcraft when it comes to part 91 inspection options. Manufacturer-recommended inspection programs for turbine-powered rotorcraft have consistently proven to be safe and effective alternatives to annual or 100-hour inspections. FAA anticipates similarly positive outcomes for single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and UAS that use manufacturer recommended programs, or ones established by the owner or operator and approved by the Administrator.

Lastly, there is a pressing need to address ambiguities in part 145 related to maintenance documentation and contract maintenance. FAA has received numerous questions and requests for legal interpretations pertaining to these matters, underscoring the importance of providing clearer regulatory language.

B. Summary of the NPRM

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2024, with the comment period closing on May 1, 2024, proposed several amendments. First, it proposed expanding the availability of maintenance inspection program options under 14 CFR 91.409(e) to ( printed page 72399) single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and unmanned aircraft (excluding part 107 aircraft) operating under parts 91 or 135. This change enables owners and operators to use inspection programs under § 91.409(f), offering greater flexibility. In addition, the NPRM proposed relaxing the mechanical reliability reporting requirements found under § 91.1415(d). The new reporting timeframe, from 72 to 96 hours, would align with §§ 121.703, 125.409, 135.415, and 145.221. It proposed changing the section heading from “Mechanical reliability reports” to “Service difficulty reports” for consistency. The NPRM also proposed clarification of part 145 requirements. Specifically, the proposed changes to § 145.217 would clarify that FAA approval of contract maintenance applies only when a certificated repair station assumes responsibility for outside maintenance and approves it for return to service. In addition, § 145.201(a)(2) would remove “for which the certificated repair station is rated,” allowing repair stations to arrange contract maintenance on articles they are not rated for. Other reorganization changes to part 145 were proposed to reduce administrative burdens and clarify contract maintenance regulations.

Moreover, the NPRM proposed numerous miscellaneous updates to 14 CFR parts 91, 125, 135, and 137. The proposed amendments aim to clarify and streamline inspection program options and submission processes for aircraft owners and operators. Subtitles “Annual Inspection” and “100-Hour Inspection” were added to § 91.409 at (a) and (b), respectively, to improve consistency in labeling across 14 CFR. Proposed changes to § 91.409(e) included reorganizing it into two subparagraphs: one for large airplanes, multiengine turbine-powered airplanes, and unmanned aircraft, and another for turbine-powered rotorcraft and single-engine turbine-powered airplanes.

Proposed amendments to 14 CFR 91.409(f) involved simplifying terminology, such as replacing “[a] continuous airworthiness inspection program that is part of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program [CAMP] . . .” with “ an inspection program that is part of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program . . .” and revising other phrases throughout the subsection for consistency and clarity (emphasis added). The NPRM aimed to reduce administrative burdens by removing the requirement under § 91.409(f)(4) to list the name and address of the person responsible for scheduling inspections. Proposed revisions to § 91.401 (the applicability section for subpart E of part 91) offered to reorganize the section and incorporate certain applicability provisions that are found in other sections of subpart E. Revisions were also proposed to § 91.403(c) to enhance clarity by dividing the alternative compliance options that were located in a single paragraph, into three new paragraphs—(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3).

Finally, the NPRM proposed revisions to 14 CFR 91.405 to clarify maintenance requirements for correcting aircraft discrepancies that are discovered through inspection. Revisions to paragraph (a) proposed to clarify that “repair” of an aircraft discrepancy is not the only maintenance action that owners and operators may take. The revision proposed to list other types of maintenance actions that may be taken, such as inspection, preservation, or replacement of parts. The revision was proposed to add a reference to § 91.213 (“Inoperative instruments and equipment”) in paragraph (a), to inform that deferral of qualifying instruments and equipment under specific conditions and limitations is permitted. The NPRM further proposed to change § 91.405(c) to clarify that there is no time limitation regarding how long the inoperative instrument or equipment item could remain inoperative as long as it is inspected at each required inspection and there is no adverse effect on the aircraft's continued safe operation. Revisions to paragraph (d)'s introductory text were proposed to add the phrase “. . . marking it `Inoperative' ” to enhance clarity and maintain consistency with §§ 43.11(b) and 91.213(d)(3)(ii). Lastly, the NPRM proposed to clarify that all maintenance programs referenced in § 135.411(a)(2) refer to a CAMP, and to reorganize § 137.53(c) (Operation over congested areas: Pilots and aircraft). It proposed to relocate the § 137.53(c)(1)(i) inspection requirement, which mandates a 100-hour or annual inspection or inspection under a progressive system for most aircraft, to § 91.409 to consolidate it with other 100-hour or annual inspections for aircraft operated for hire or flight instruction. In addition, it proposed to remove paragraph (c)(1)(ii) entirely, which specifies inspection requirements for turbine-powered multiengine civil airplanes, since § 91.409(e) already governs inspections for such aircraft. Overall, the NPRM's proposal aimed to ensure consistency and reduce confusion across regulations.

C. General Overview of Comments

FAA received 21 comments in total, including one duplicate and two submitted after the deadline. However, the two late comments were from individuals who were supportive of the rule without any suggested changes. Eight of the comments were from individuals, and the remaining 13 comments were from business entities. Eight commenters supported the rule but suggested additional changes. The commenters' suggested changes are discussed more fully in the `Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule' section below. Two comments were outside the scope of the rule.

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. Support for Changes to Parts 91, 125, 135, 137, and 145

FAA received only supportive comments regarding the proposed amendments to 14 CFR parts 91, 125, 135, and 137. There was no opposition or suggested changes to these proposed amendments. Accordingly, FAA is adopting the final rule for these parts as proposed in the NPRM. Though the proposed amendments to part 145 were received well by the public, there were several comments that presented, recommended, or suggested changes to the proposed amendments of this part. As a result of these suggested changes to the proposed amendment regarding part 145, this final rule deletes the word “current” from § 145.211(c)(1)(v) in order to minimize confusion regarding the data that repair stations must maintain. Under § 145.217(a), the final rule inserts the phrase “outside source” in order to clarify the issue of when § 145.217 is applicable. Lastly, part 145 certificated repair stations are included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of this final rule.

B. Suggestions for Removal of Current Technical Data Terminology at § 145.211(c)(1)(v)

Section 145.211(c)(1)(v) requires the quality control manual to contain a description of the system and procedures for “[e]stablishing and maintaining current technical data.” The NPRM invited the public to comment on whether to remove the current requirement that a repair station must maintain the specified documents and that the documents be “current” and accessible when the relevant work is being done.

Five commenters wrote and suggested that the term “current” causes confusion, and it would be beneficial if the word “current” were replaced with another word, or completely removed, in the regulation when referring to Instructions for Continued ( printed page 72400) Airworthiness (ICA). One individual commenter reasoned that the use of the word “current” is irrelevant to the intent of the rule because repair stations are already required to maintain all technical data regardless of whether it is current or not. The individual further commented that keeping the word would make the requirement confusing because repair stations would think that they only have to maintain current data and not all data, which is not accurate. The individual also suggested amending § 43.13(a) by removing the phrase “Instructions for Continued Airworthiness,” reasoning that the current maintenance manuals are considered instructions for continuous airworthiness, therefore making the term “Instructions for Continuous Airworthiness” redundant.

The other four commenters, likewise, stated that the § 145.211(c)(1)(v) language should be adjusted to accommodate the proposal's requirement that the appropriate technical data be available when the work is performed. They reasoned the NPRM's objective could be achieved by using their recommended language of: “[e]nsuring appropriate technical data is available and used when work is being performed.”

FAA agrees with the suggestion regarding deleting the word “current” from § 145.211(c)(1)(v). However, FAA does not agree with the other changes suggested. Concerning the individual commenter's requested change to § 43.13(a) and assertion that the manufacturer's maintenance manuals are essentially ICA, FAA disagrees because ICA may not always be included in manufacturers' maintenance manuals. Sometimes ICA are found in service bulletins, service letters, and other service documents. Therefore, the current regulatory language is accurate and not redundant. Accordingly, FAA is adopting the rule as proposed, without this suggested omission.

Concerning the four commenters' collective new language at § 145.211(c)(1)(v), FAA believes that the suggested new language creates more ambiguity because that language does not inform or define what “appropriate” technical data means or includes. As such, FAA partially accepts these suggestions and removes the word “current” at § 145.211(c)(1)(v) in the final rule to enhance the clarity of the regulation. Incorporating the suggestions, the text would read as follows: “Establishing and maintaining [deleted] technical data for maintaining articles.”

C. Suggestions for Consistency of Terminology at § 145.217

Two commenters suggested that FAA use the term “outside source” consistently throughout § 145.217. The commenters noted that the term is introduced at § 145.217(a) but then changes to the phrase “non-certificated person” or “outside facility.” For purposes of continuity and because “outside source” may include a noncertificated person, FAA agrees with the two commenters and amends § 145.217 at (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(2)(ii) to reflect these suggestions. These suggestions are aligned with the purpose of the rule to streamline and clarify various maintenance regulations, so there is a better understanding of how to comply with them.

In addition, four commenters suggested amending the proposal at § 145.217(a)(1) to make it clear that § 145.217 applies only when the certificated repair station that is contracting for the function will issue an approval for return to service for the work performed by the contractor. To clarify this applicability issue, the commenters suggested removing the phrase “. . . to the outside source” so that subsection (a)(1) can simply read: “[t]he Administrator approves the maintenance function to be contracted.”

FAA agrees with the intent of this suggestion because this change is needed for further clarity, which is the purpose of the proposal. However, instead of accepting the commenters' suggested language, FAA has made the suggested changes at § 145.217(a) for easier readability instead of at § 145.217(a)(1) as the commenters initially suggested. The final rule will read as follows: “[a] certificated repair station may approve the work for return to service following the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed on an article by an outside source under contract or other arrangement, in accordance with § 145.201(a)(2), provided all the following conditions are met:.”

D. Suggestions Regarding Clarification of the Work Performed on an Article at § 145.201

Four commenters, collectively, wrote a recommendation in support of the proposed changes to 14 CFR 145.201. However, they noted that additional changes should be made “[t]o align section 145.201 with § 43.9(a)(4) and make [§ 145.201] more comprehensive . . .” Specifically, they noted that the proposal perpetuated an inconsistency with the § 43.9 privilege of approving work for return to service. When maintenance or alteration is performed, the maintenance provider approves the work on the article, rather than the article itself, for return to service. To align § 145.201 with § 43.9(a)(4), the commenters made the following suggestions: (1) add additional text to § 145.201(a)(1) to read as: “[t]he certificated repair station may approve for return to service the work on any article for which the certificated repair station is rated after it has performed maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration in accordance with part 43; (2) replace the phrase “an article” with the phrase “the work” at § 145.201(a)(2); and (3) change subparagraphs § 145.201(c)(1), (2), and (3) to reflect correctly that the repair station only approves for return to service “the work” performed on an article.

Commenters suggested that similar conforming changes should be made to §§ 145.219(c) and 145.223(c), because § 145.219(a) currently requires that records be kept for two years from the date an article was approved for return to service. The commenters also suggested that the paragraph should be changed to two years from the date “the work” was approved for return to service. For the same reason, they suggested that § 145.223(c) should be revised to clarify that a non-certificated source must allow FAA to inspect its work before a certificated repair station may approve for return to service the work performed by the non-certificated source.

FAA partially agrees with the suggestions to amend § 145.201(a)(2) and (c) to replace the term “an article” with the term “the work.” In addition, FAA partially accepts this recommendation and amends the text at § 145.201(c) to include the phrase “the work performed on—”. FAA decided to amend the text at § 145.201(c) introductory paragraph instead of amending at § 145.217(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(2)(ii), like the commenters suggested, because this option makes the text more concise and helps with readability. FAA declines the suggested amendment to §§ 145.219(c) and 145.223(c), because these changes exceed the proposed language and interested parties could not have reasonably anticipated the final rule to have such changes.

E. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Comments on the Omission of Part 145 Repair Stations From the NPRM's Regulatory Impact Analysis

Four commenters, collectively, suggested that part 145 repair stations need to be included in the RIA section. ( printed page 72401) They stated the removal of the requirement that repair stations must keep “current” data when it may not be needed or used represents potentially millions of dollars in savings for certificated repair stations that comply with the current mandate.

They also state that 14 CFR 145.217 only applies when the certificated repair station approves another person's work for return to service. This amendment clarifies existing regulations, helping both the agency and the industry avoid hours of unnecessary back-and-forth. By reducing continuous changes to repair stations' quality manuals, it minimizes the need for repeated agency reviews, streamlining the process. Furthermore, four commenters, collectively recommended that part 145 repair stations be included in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis, though it acknowledged that the proposed rule does not impact current reporting and collection requirements for repair stations or certificate holders.

FAA acknowledges the inadvertent omission of part 145 repair stations and accepts the suggestion to include certificated repair stations in the final rule's RIA. The final rule creates no additional information collection obligations. Thus, the omission of part 145 repair stations has no impact on the PRA analysis, and repair stations have not been included in the PRA analysis of the final rule.

2. Commenter's Request for More Transparency Regarding FAA's Oversight Process for Manufacturer-Recommended and Registered Owner/Operator's Inspection Programs

One commenter suggested that FAA needed to be more transparent regarding the safety data collected and more openly document FAA's acceptance standards for inspection programs with industry stakeholders. Specifically, the commenter requested that FAA share UAS safety data and the process for approval for proposed UAS maintenance inspection programs with industry stakeholders. In addition, the commenter suggested that FAA perform a more complete and thorough oversight and safety review of each manufacturer-recommended inspection program or the program established by the registered owner or operator.

FAA believes the commenter's suggestion is outside the scope of the rule's proposal. The intent of the rule was to lessen the burden on owners, operators, maintenance providers, and FAA without compromising safety. FAA believes it has struck that balance here and that the oversight and review it performs is sufficient to ensure the safety of these inspection programs. Though the commenter is correct that additional disclosure would increase transparency, FAA does not believe, and the commenter has provided no evidence to support, that doing so would increase safety. Further, FAA is concerned that the process outlined by the commenter would likely result in heavily redacted disclosures, reducing even that transparency benefit. Finally, FAA notes that this process only applies to UAS operations under part 135, which comprise a minority of such operations that will only decline in number when the agency's rulemaking to establish a new part 108 for Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) operations is completed.

3. Commenters' Request To Add Terminology at § 145.217

Four commenters, collectively, recommended adding additional descriptive language to 14 CFR 145.217(b) to list the specific maintenance functions that a certificated repair station may contract out to a noncertificated person.

FAA is adopting the final rule as proposed, without adding the requested language, because it is widely understood that the phrase “maintenance functions” also encompasses maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alterations. Accordingly, additional language is not needed.

4. Suggestion To Remove Terminology at §§ 145.201 and 145.217

One commenter recommended replacing the term “contract maintenance” with another term throughout 14 CFR 145.201 and 145.217, but the commenter offered no suggestions for the replacement term. The commenter's reasoning for recommending the change in terms is twofold. First, they stated the “term is not specific enough to distinguish itself.” Second, they reasoned, the definition of contract maintenance causes a lot of confusion within the industry because it has several different meanings throughout 14 CFR. Specifically, they stated 14 CFR provides “vastly different definitions of `contract maintenance' in §§ 121.368, 135.426, and 145.217 . . . .” In the alternative, the commenter suggested adding a second category clarifying that certificated repair stations that perform return to service on articles contracted to them by another certificated repair station are not considered contract maintenance under § 145.217.

FAA notes that the commenter made this suggestion, but did not recommend any viable options for replacing the term. FAA analyzed the issue raised and determined it did not require a change. Accordingly, FAA is adopting the rule as proposed, without the requested omission of the term.

Another commenter suggested changing the requirements for the information that certificated repair stations collect, under § 145.217(a)(2)(ii), when it contracts out maintenance functions to an outside source. The rule currently requires certificated repair stations to collect the outside source's name, and the type of certification and rating(s), if any, held by the outside source. The commenter believes that only the name should be required to be collected.

FAA disagrees with this suggestion because the type of certification and rating(s) of an outside source who is performing contract maintenance work is vital information that FAA needs. Accordingly, FAA is adopting the rule as proposed, without the requested omission.

5. Miscellaneous Changes to § 145.201(a)(2)(i)

Four commenters, collectively, suggested adding language to 14 CFR 145.201(a)(2)(i) because they believe there is conflicting language between §§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(a)(1). They suggested the following language to § 145.201(a)(2)(i): “[t]he maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on the article is within the scope of the certificated repair station ratings and limitation in its operations specifications; and . . . .”

FAA is adopting the final rule as proposed, without the suggested additional language, because the additional terms the commenters suggested adding to § 145.201(a)(2)(i) are already found in the introductory paragraph (a), as well as at §§ 145.53(a) and 145.109(a), which already requires the certificate holder to operate within their issued operations specifications.

6. Other Miscellaneous Suggestions for Changes Not in the Proposal

Four commenters, collectively, suggested an additional 23 changes be made to various sections of part 145 that were not proposed in the NPRM.

FAA is adopting the final rule as proposed, without the suggested changes, except for the aforementioned changes that were explained throughout this section. Incorporating these changes in the final rule would not be a logical outgrowth of the NPRM; therefore, they are out of scope.

Though FAA is making no further changes to this final rule in response to ( printed page 72402) these comments, the agency values this feedback and will consider it for future regulatory actions.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, FAA has prepared a RIA for this rule, summarized in this section and available in the docket. E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation”) issued January 31, 2025, instructs agencies to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” FAA has determined this is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The final rule will revise the aircraft maintenance rules primarily in the area of manned and unmanned aircraft maintenance and inspections. The most substantial change is the addition of more inspection program options for owners and operators of single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and unmanned aircraft. Currently, owners and operators of these types of aircraft are limited to annual, 100-hour, or progressive inspection programs. The final rule also amends 14 CFR part 145 to clarify and simplify various maintenance-related regulations in areas with confusing or ambiguous language. These areas include maintenance and inspection requirements for parts 91 and 125 operators and document retention. Furthermore, the rule clarifies part 145 regulations pertaining to repair station maintenance documentation and contract maintenance.

For single-engine turbine-powered airplanes, this final rule will increase these options to include, among others, a manufacturer-recommended inspection program, or an inspection program established by the registered owner or operator and approved by the Administrator. For unmanned aircraft, including unmanned aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 135 that are authorized to use the inspection rules in part 91, this final rule will allow the selection of one of those inspection programs. The added inspection programs will afford aircraft owners more flexibility in performing aircraft inspections as they will have more options and will likely reduce inspection costs incurred by owners and operators. These programs will provide owners and operators of single-engine turbine-powered airplanes and unmanned aircraft more options for inspecting their aircraft without reducing safety and potentially increasing the current frequency or cycle of inspections.

Repair stations will see cost savings from this final rule by decreasing their cost of maintenance manuals. Currently they must keep “current” data for maintenance manuals they are certificated to repair. With this final rule repair stations will not be required to pay for manuals and maintenance subscriptions for aircraft they are not working on.

This will also enable manufacturers to implement more efficient and effective inspection programs for new and existing fleets of aircraft, which will bolster safety while also controlling associated costs, and will be attractive to new and existing owners. This final rulemaking will not create a burden for owners/operators of single-engine turbine-powered airplanes since the decision to switch aircraft inspection programs is voluntary. Nor will this final rule create a burden for owners/operators of unmanned aircraft because the use of manufacturers' recommended inspection programs is, in general, already required under existing exemptions and will be a less burdensome alternative to FAA-approved inspection programs for part 135 operators.

One manufacturer estimated that inspecting aircraft under a Maintenance Steering Group—3rd Task Force (MSG-3) (used by manufacturers to develop initial scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements) inspection program could save owners/operators approximately $7,974 per aircraft in 2020 US dollars ($9,492 in 2024 US dollars) compared to an annual inspection program.

Manufacturers will incur costs to update inspection programs, but these costs will be voluntary, as the rule will not require manufacturers to develop new inspection programs. However, most manufacturers will likely choose to do so, given the relatively low associated costs compared to potential benefits in terms of safety and customer satisfaction. Furthermore, even if a manufacturer does not choose to create an inspection program for a specific type of aircraft, this rule still provides a benefit to aircraft owners in that it also allows aircraft owners to develop their own inspection program.

Because a manufacturer-developed inspection program or one created by the aircraft owner will be customized to the specific aircraft, improved safety is anticipated to be one of the benefits of this rulemaking. This is due to the utilization of more relevant and appropriate inspection tasks and intervals. A manufacturer-developed program likely will be less invasive compared with the annual or 100-hour inspection. For example, high utilization operators performing a 100-hour inspection frequently generate maintenance issues due to frequent disassembly, inspection, and reassembly of components. Aircraft safety will be improved by having a less invasive scheduled maintenance process. Safety benefits for single-engine turbine-powered airplanes were not quantified; and costs and benefits for unmanned aircraft were not quantified.

Table 1 below presents a summary of estimated cost savings for this final rule's manned aircraft maintenance programs over a 10-year time-period. These estimates are based on all single-engine turbine manufacturers offering the manufacturer inspection program. The annualized net cost savings are $57.02 million using a seven percent discount rate and $54.32 million using a three percent discount rate.

( printed page 72403)

Repair stations will also experience some cost savings, that are not included in the estimated cost savings above, due to not having to pay for maintenance manuals they do not need. However, there is uncertainty in how many repair stations may benefit from this, the price of varying maintenance manuals, and how many maintenance manuals for which a repair station may be able to forgo paying. Nonetheless, FAA finds that the most probable annual savings per station will fall between $1,000 and $34,159.

This final rule will benefit owners/operators of single-engine turbine-powered airplanes by allowing them the option to choose a program that may be less costly and more effective for inspecting their aircraft. It will further benefit operators because their aircraft could be out of commission for shorter periods. As these are mostly small aircraft, the owner may not be regaining a revenue stream but will have use of the aircraft for longer periods of time. This analysis does not quantify this efficiency gain due to a lack of data.¹ The final rule will also affect manufacturers who will voluntarily incur costs to develop and maintain the new inspection programs.

Other changes clarify and simplify the regulations, lengthen the reporting time for mechanical reliability reports for aircraft operating under part 91 fractional ownership rule, and update the language for electronic submissions. These changes have not been quantified and are expected to have minimal impact.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

FAA has determined this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of entities for the following reasons:

• The final rule will not impose mandatory costs on small entities or result in any new costs to maintain the manufacturer inspection program.
• It is likely to result in cost savings on the order of about $9,255 per aircraft for those small entities who voluntarily choose to use a manufacturer inspection program on their aircraft.

Therefore, for the reasons provided, FAA certifies that this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

FAA solicited comments regarding this determination and did not receive any comments.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for the U.S. standards.

FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined it ensures the safety of the American public and will only have a domestic impact. As a result, FAA does not consider this rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal Government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined that this final rule will not result in the expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA determined this rule will not result in any new information collection requirements.

The final rule will lengthen the reporting interval for mechanical reliability reports, for aircraft operating under part 91 subpart K fractional ownership rules, from 72 to 96 hours, and allow electronic report submissions. This increase in the reporting interval will align the requirement with similar reporting requirements in other regulations, such as 14 CFR 121.703, 135.415, and 145.221.

Currently, the general aviation public, including part 91 subpart K owners and operators, use FAA Form 8010-4, Malfunction and Defect Report, to submit voluntary reporting of occurrences or detection of failure, malfunctions, or defects. Approval to collect such information was previously granted by the OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0663.

The supporting statement submitted to OMB for renewal of the Collection of Information 2120-0663 in October 2020 estimated that 2,000 respondents from the general aviation public each year will use Form 8010-4 by spending 10 minutes each, for an annual 334 total burden hours. This change will simply align the required reporting interval from 72 hours to 96 hours with similar requirements for parts 121, 135, and 145 operators and will neither decrease nor increase the current burden hours on the 2,000 respondents.

Therefore, FAA determined that there will be no new information collection requirements associated with the rule, which will increase the reporting timeframe for mechanical reliability reports under 14 CFR 91.1415 from 72 hours to 96 hours and allow for electronic submissions.

F. International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations. ( printed page 72404)

G. Environmental Analysis

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FAA has determined this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions FAA has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).² In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, FAA must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS.³ This rulemaking, which relieves FAA, aircraft owners, operators, and maintenance providers of certain workload burdens by establishing flexible inspection program options for single-engine turbine-powered and unmanned aircraft, extending mechanical reliability reporting intervals, and streamlining ambiguous maintenance regulations without compromising aviation safety, is categorically excluded pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, Paragraph B-2.6(f), which categorically excludes issuance of regulatory documents. FAA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,⁴ and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,⁵ FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this final rule.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it is not a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

E. Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the website of the Office of the Federal Register at www.federalregister.gov and the website of the Government Publishing Office at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at FAA's Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/​regulations_​policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Requests must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

All documents FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analysis, and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit www.faa.gov/​regulations_​policies/​rulemaking/​sbre_​act/​.

¹  An example of data FAA would need focuses on more efficient use of labor. This would require how much time saved by owners/operators from more efficient inspections and their respective wages. If the aircraft is owned and used by one or more individuals for business or pleasure then there would be efficiency gains by being able to use their time more efficiently. If the aircraft is operated by a commercial operator that provides services to customers then there would be direct and indirect efficiency gains through more efficient use of labor by employees of the operation.

²  See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9.

³  I.d. § (9).

⁴  65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).

⁵  FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at www.faa.gov/​documentLibrary/​media/​1210.pdf.

( printed page 72405)

The Amendment

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

91 FR 72397