U.S.

Department Advisory
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Circular
Subject: Maintenance Review Board Report Date: 10/29/10 AC No: 121-22B
Maintenance Type Board, and Initiated by: AFS-300 Change:
OEM/TCH Inspection Program
Procedures

FOREWORD

This advisory circular (AC) provides guidelines that industry may use to develop and revise the
minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for derivative or newly type-certificated
aircraft and powerplants for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval. This AC refers to
these minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements as the Maintenance Review Board
Report (MRBR), Maintenance Type Board. After FAA approval, the requirements become a
basis upon which operators develop their own individual maintenance programs. The report will
become a living report for each type-certificate holder.

Use this AC to standardize development, implementation, and update of FAA-approved

minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements.

for

John M. Allen
Director, Flight Standards Service
10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CONTENTS
Paragraph Page

CHAPTER 1. CREATING AND USING MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.1

1-1. Purpose..............................................................................................................................1
1-2. Cancellation ......................................................................................................................1
1-3. Related Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) .......................................1
1-4. Audience ...........................................................................................................................1
1-5. Use of This AC .................................................................................................................1
1-6. Related FAA Orders (current editions).............................................................................2
1-7. Related FAA Advisory Circulars (current editions) .........................................................2
1-8. Other Reading Material (current Editions) .......................................................................3

CHAPTER 2. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OVERVIEW..........................................................5

2-1. Timeline of Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) Actions...............................................5
2-2. Maintenance Review Board Report ..................................................................................7
2-3. MRB Report Proposal Delivery Schedule Guidelines......................................................8
2-4. Minimum Scheduled Interval/Tasking Requirements ......................................................8
2-5. Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR).............................................................8

CHAPTER 3. INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION.............................................................................11

3-1. Industry Steering Committee ..........................................................................................11
3-2. ISC Functions..................................................................................................................11
3-3. MSG Working Groups....................................................................................................12
3-4. OEM/TCH Functions......................................................................................................12

CHAPTER 4. FAA PARTICIPATION .........................................................................................15

4-1. United States OEM/TCH ................................................................................................15
4-2. Foreign OEM/TCH .........................................................................................................17
4-3. Maintenance Review Board............................................................................................17
4-4. Maintenance Review Board Members............................................................................19
4-5. FAA Maintenance Working Group Advisors .................................................................20
4-6 Foreign Regulatory Authorities ......................................................................................20

CHAPTER 5. MRB REPORT APPROVAL .................................................................................23

5-1. Initial Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) Approval Process.........................23
5-2. Foreign Regulatory Authority Approval of the MRB Report.........................................23
5-3. Proposed Initial MRBR Disapproval Process.................................................................23
5-4. Maintenance Review Board Report Implementation......................................................23

CHAPTER 6. MRB REPORT REVISIONS, FORMAT, AND CONTENT ................................27

6-1. MRB Report Annual Review..........................................................................................27
6-2. Temporary Revisions ......................................................................................................27
6-3. Recommendations for Completing the Report ...............................................................27

i
AC 121-22B 10/29/10

CONTENTS (Continued)
Paragraph Page

CHAPTER 7. MRB POLICY BOARD .........................................................................................33

7-1. FAA Maintenance Review Board Policy Board (MRBPB) ...........................................33
7-2. International Maintenance Review Board Policy Board ................................................33

CHAPTER 8. MAINTENANCE TYPE BOARDS PROCESS ....................................................35

8-1. General............................................................................................................................35
8-2. MTB Process Applicability.............................................................................................35
8-3. MTB Audit Process.........................................................................................................35
8-4. MTB Report ....................................................................................................................36
8-5. Policy and Procedures Handbook ...................................................................................36
8-6. OEM/TCH Representatives ............................................................................................37
8-7. Regulatory Authorities Responsibility............................................................................38

CHAPTER 9. OEM/TCH RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS .............................41

9-1. General............................................................................................................................41
9-2. Recommended Maintenance Process..............................................................................41
9-3. Recommended Maintenance Process Audits ..................................................................41
9-4. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction................................................................................41

CHAPTER 10. MRBR LOW UTILIZATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ................43

10-1. General............................................................................................................................43
10-2. Applicability ...................................................................................................................43
10-3. Requirements ..................................................................................................................43

CHAPTER 11. FLIGHTCREWS ACCOMPLISHING MAINTENANCE ..................................45

11-1. General............................................................................................................................45
11-2. Applicability ...................................................................................................................45

CHAPTER 12. INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD POLICY BOARD

ISSUE PAPER 44 ..............................................................................................................47
12-1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................47
12-2. Purpose............................................................................................................................47
12-3. Policy Description...........................................................................................................47
12-4. Responsibilities ...............................................................................................................49
12-5. Data Quality ....................................................................................................................49
12-6. Data Integrity ..................................................................................................................51
12-7. Data Review....................................................................................................................52
12-8. Data Correlation..............................................................................................................52

CHAPTER 13. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TASKING OPTIMIZATION ................................55

13-1. General............................................................................................................................55
13-2. Applicability ...................................................................................................................55
13-3. Operator Participation.....................................................................................................55

ii
10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CONTENTS (Continued)
Paragraph Page

APPENDIX 1. ACRONYM/ABBREVIATION LISTING FOR THE

MRB REPORT (3 Pages) ..................................................................................................1
APPENDIX 2. IP 44 DEFINITIONS (1 Page).............................................................................1
APPENDIX 3. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK FORMAT (9 Pages)...........1
APPENDIX 4. RELEVANT FLOWCHARTS AND LETTERS (4 Pages) ..............................1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. MRB Process Flowchart .........................................................................................7

Figure 2-2. Certification Maintenance Requirement and MRB Process Interface ....................9
Figure 4-1. Letter to AFS-300 to Establish An MRB..............................................................16
Figure 5-1. MRBR Letter of Approval ....................................................................................24
Figure 5-2. MRBR Approval Page ..........................................................................................25
Figure 8-1. Maintenance Type Board Flowchart.....................................................................37

iii (and iv)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 1. CREATING AND USING MAINTENANCE/

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

1-1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidelines that industry may use to
develop and revise the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for derivative, or newly
type-certificated aircraft and powerplants for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval.
This AC refers to these minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements as the Maintenance
Review Board Report (MRBR) Maintenance Type Board (MTB). After FAA approval, the
requirements become a basis upon which operators develop their own individual maintenance
programs. The report will become a living report for each type-certificate holder (TCH).

1-2. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 121-22A, Maintenance Review Board

Procedures, dated March 7, 1997.

1-3. RELATED TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (14 CFR).

Parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 35, 91, 119, 121, 129, and 135 apply.

1-4. AUDIENCE. Guidance in this AC pertains to FAA personnel, air operators, air carriers,
and original equipment manufacturer (OEM)/TCH and their vendors involved in the
development of the MRBR process.

1-5. USE OF THIS AC. This AC is not mandatory and is not the only means to comply with
the regulations. The FAA issues this AC for guidance and to outline a method of compliance. A
person may elect to follow an alternative method, provided the FAA finds it to be an acceptable
means of complying with the applicable requirements of 14 CFR. If you use the methods
described in this AC you must follow them in all respects. The FAA derived these guidelines
from regulatory authorities and aviation industry experience. This AC is primarily designed to
provide advice and recommendations for the standardized development, implementation, and
update of FAA-approved minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements

NOTE: This AC uses the term “must” only in the sense of ensuring the
applicability of these particular methods of compliance when operators use
the acceptable means of compliance described herein. This AC does not
change regulatory requirements and does not authorize changes in, or
deviations from, regulatory requirements.

1-6. RELATED FAA ORDERS (current editions).

• Order 1100.5, FAA Organization—Field.

• Order 8100.5, Aircraft Certification Service Mission, Responsibilities, Relationships,

and Programs.

• Order 8110.4, Type Certification.

• Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Responsibilities,

Requirements, and Contents.

Par 1-1 Page 1

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

• Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System.

• Order 8300.12, Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs.

• Order 8430.21, Flight Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Division and Aircraft
Evaluation Group Responsibilities.

1-7. RELATED FAA ACs (current editions).

• AC 20-107, Composites Aircraft Structure.

• AC 20-136, Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems Against the Indirect

Effects of Lightning.

• AC 20-158, The Certification of Aircraft Electrical and Electronic Systems for

Operation in the High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Environment.

• AC 23-1309-1, System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes.

• AC 25-19, Certification Maintenance Requirements.

• AC 25-27, Development of Transport Category Airplane Electrical Wiring

Interconnection Systems Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Using an Enhanced
Zonal Analysis Procedure.

• AC 27-1, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft.

• AC 29-2, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft.

• AC 33.4-3, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Aircraft Engine High Intensity

Radiated Fields (HIRF) and Lightning Protection Features.

• AC 120-42, Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations).

1-8. RELATED READING MATERIAL (current editions).

• CMH-17, Composites Materials Handbook.

• Evolution/Optimization Guidelines, International Maintenance Review Board Policy

Board Issue Paper 44.

• Transport Canada TP 13850, Schedule Maintenance Instruction Development Process

Manual.

Page 2 Par 1-6

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

• ATA MSG-3, Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development, current

edition available from:

Air Transport Association of America (ATA),

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20004–1707
1-800-497-3326 Ext. 950

Par 1-8 Page 3 (and 4)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 2. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OVERVIEW

2-1. TIMELINE OF MAINTENANCE STEERING GROUP (MSG) ACTIONS.

a. History. The development of maintenance programs dates to Aeronautical Bulletin 7E

of May 15, 1930. The process of developing maintenance programs for new aircraft and aircraft
engines has evolved from one in which each air carrier proposed its own unique program to a
collaborative effort in which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), associated foreign
regulatory authorities, and industry collaborated to develop the initial minimum scheduled
maintenance/inspection requirements for new and derivative aircraft, aircraft engines, and
propellers. Early experience in the development of initial scheduled maintenance/inspection
requirements revealed that through the use of logical analysis and decision processes, it was
possible to develop a program of applicable and effective maintenance tasks. In 1968 the
Maintenance Steering Group—1st Task Force developed maintenance requirements decision and
analysis logic.

b. Role of the Maintenance Steering Group. In 2006, the Air Transportation Association
of America (ATA) MSG was named the Maintenance Programs Industry Group (MPIG), while
the latest version of MSG still retained the same original title. ATA coordinates, and industry
chairs the MPIG; it assumed the same duties as the original MSG task force. MPIG meets
annually, or as required, to review issues submitted by industry and the regulatory authorities
affecting the latest version of MSG and institute improvements or any necessary evolutionary
changes due to revised regulatory requirements or advances in industry technology.

(1) Handbook—Maintenance Evaluation and Program Development, MSG-1

(July 10, 1968). The FAA and industry used MSG-1 procedures to develop the initial minimum
scheduled maintenance/inspection recommendations for the B-747-100 aircraft and its engines.
A task force later used the experience gained on the B-747-100 project to update the MSG-1
procedures so that a universal document could be made applicable for future newly type-
certificated aircraft and/or engines. This document was called the Maintenance Steering Group—
2nd Task Force (MSG-2) document.

(2) Specification Maintenance Program Development, MSG-2 (January 8, 1970).

In the 1970s, the FAA and industry used the MSG-2 procedures to develop the initial minimum
scheduled maintenance/inspection recommendations for aircraft and engines. In 1980, the
combined efforts of the FAA, ATA interval/tasking requirements, United States and European
aircraft and engine manufacturers, and U.S. and foreign airlines generated new decision logic
and analysis procedures contained in a new document called Maintenance Steering Group-3rd
Task Force, MSG-3.

(3) Airline/Manufacturer Maintenance Program Development Document MSG-3,

Original Revision (September 30, 1980). In 1987, after applying MSG-3 analysis procedures
on a number of new aircraft and engines in the first half of the 1980s, the airline industry decided
that the benefits of the experience gained during those years should be used to improve the
document for future applications. Thus, Revision 1 to MSG-3 was developed.

Par 2-1 Page 5

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

(4) Airline/Manufacturer Maintenance Program Development Document MSG-3,

Revision 1 (March 31, 1988). The FAA and industry began applying MSG-3 Revision 1 in 1988
for the ongoing development of new aircraft and aircraft engine Maintenance Review Board
(MRB) Report (MRBR) documents.

(5) Airline/Manufacturer Maintenance Program Development Document MSG-3,

Revision 2 (September 12, 1993). Further refinements made to the MSG-3 Revision 1 analysis
resulted in Revision 2 to MSG-3. In 1993, the FAA and industry began applying MSG-3 R2 for
development of new and derivative aircraft and engine MRBR documents.

(6) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Program

Development, Revision 2001 (March 2000). This version was reformatted into an electronic
document to adapt to the use of computer technology.

(7) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Maintenance Program Development, Revision 2001.1

(February 2001). To include the large corporate aircraft and aging large transport legacy aircraft
segment in the MSG-3 process, the FAA and industry began using MSG-3 Revision 2001.1 in
2001. This revision introduced significant changes including inspection definitions, corrected
terminology, and expanded wording on safety/emergency equipment. Also, with the advent in
the manufacturer development of more technologically advanced fly-by-wire aircraft and to
improve safety of the legacy transport aircraft, it became necessary to introduce sections on
enhanced zonal analysis procedures (EZAP) and Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Field
(L/HIRF) protection.

(8) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development,

Revision 2002.1 (March 2002). Significant changes at this revision included recording of all
assumptions, consideration of all vendor recommendations, procedures for fault-tolerant systems,
Master Minimum Equipment List considerations, and the inclusion of analysis of nonmetallic
structures.

(9) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development,

Revision 2003.1 (March 2003). Most significant changes added three-letter task
abbreviations/acronyms, further revised fault-tolerant systems procedures, definition changes for
fault-tolerant systems, and further clarification of definition of safety/emergency systems or
equipment.

(10) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development.

Revision 2005.1 (March 2005). Changes introduced in this version added the need to identify
design features that affect fuel tank safety, defined differentiation of Structural Significant Items
and Principal Structural Elements, corrected the relation of fatigue damage (FD) to nonmetallic
materials, revised EZAP to reflect recommendations from FAA’s Aging Transport Systems
Rulemaking Advisory Committee’s on aging wiring and added definition for electrical wiring
interconnection system.

(11) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development.

Revision 2007.1 (April 2007). Changes introduced in this version expanded text to better define
and consider structural wear damage. This change added text and a flow chart to better define

Page 6 Par 2-1

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

Certification Maintenance Requirements. This revision also added text and revised flowcharts to
clarify the FD logic. It was a major rewrite of the L/HIRF protection systems.

(12) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development

Revision 2009.1 (December 2009). Changes introduced in this version added structural health
monitoring and scheduled structural health monitoring concepts and revised fatigue damage.
This change added note requiring General Visual Inspections developed from Category 5 or 8
logic be retained as system and powerplant tasks, and not to become covered by zonal
inspections.

2-2. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD REPORT.

a. Purpose of an MRBR. Industry and regulatory authorities generate an MRBR as a

coordinated effort of achieving timely compliance with the applicable certification regulatory
requirements and the minimum scheduled airworthiness suitability requirements. An MRBR
contains the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for a particular aircraft and
on-wing engine maintenance programs. Develop the MRBR in accordance with the guidelines in
this AC. Any additional requirements developed, employing different ground rules using MSG-3
must be submitted with selection criteria to the Industry Steering Committee and the regulatories
for consideration and inclusion in the MRBR. Do not confuse the MRBR requirements with an
operator maintenance program. After FAA approval, the requirements become a base or
framework around which each operator can develop its own individual aircraft maintenance
program.

b. Use of the MSG Analysis Process. You must use the latest version of the Air
Transportation Association of America Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) analysis process and
procedures for the development of an MRBR for all new, derivative, and optimization of aircraft
and engines. Reapplication for a TC requires using the most recent latest version of the MSG
logic process. The FAA no longer supports MSG-2 at the committee or working group level.
Each OEM/TCH is responsible for supporting the regulatory requirements for their MSG-2
aircraft.

c. Approval of an Operator’s Program Performance. Aircraft/engine design and

performance form the MRBR requirements. Operators’ program performance is the
responsibility of the local regulatory authority. The FAA must approve an operator’s aircraft
maintenance program and methods used to implement these MRBR requirements. Refer to
Figure 2-1.

Par 2-1 Page 7

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

FIGURE 2-1. MRB PROCESS FLOWCHART

2-3. MRB REPORT PROPOSAL DELIVERY SCHEDULE GUIDELINES. The original

equipment manufacturer (OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH) may concurrently build the
MRBR proposal (MRBRP). Portions of the MRBRP may be submitted for consideration when
the design is frozen and applicable minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements become
mature and complete. This will improve the quality of the proposal by reducing discrepancies at
the end of the process. The OEM/TCH Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) must be
approved/accepted before the start of any working group meetings. Deliver all work group data
packages and documents to the regulatory authorities 30 working days before scheduled
meetings. Deliver the final MRBP and any supporting documents to the MRB chairperson
90 working days before expected approval of the document.

2-4. MINIMUM SCHEDULED INTERVAL/TASKING REQUIREMENTS. The

OEM/TCH must develop internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all
maintenance procedures written to support MRBR tasks, and then the OEM/TCH must validate
them. The objective of the validation is to ensure that the procedure is possible to perform and
that the procedure meets the intent of the MRBR task. At a minimum where and when requested
by FAA, the OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft and the necessary qualified
maintenance personnel to demonstrate to the FAA that Failure Effect Category 5 and 8 safety

Page 8 Par 2-2

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

tasks, can be adequately performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the MRB task.
Additional tasks may be validated at FAA’s discretion.

NOTE: Figure 2-1 outlines the relationships between the various documents
involved in the creation of the minimum scheduled interval/tasking
requirements, including the MRBR.

2-5. CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS (CMR). During aircraft

design certification and concurrent with the MRB process, leading up to the type certification
process, the OEM/TCH accomplishes an analysis, in accordance with Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23, § 23.1309; part 25, § 25.1309; part 27, § 27.1309; and
part 29, § 29.1309. The analysis intends to detect any safety-significant latent failures that would,
in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or
catastrophic condition. This system safety assessment leads to a design decision to create a
candidate CMR. A MSG Category 9 task may not take credit for candidate CMR. For further
information regarding this subject please see the current editions of Advisory Circulars
(AC) 23.1309-1, System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes;
AC 25-1309-1, System Design and Analysis; 25-19, Certification Maintenance Requirements;
AC 27-1, Certification of Normal Category Aircraft; and AC 29-2, Certification of Transport
Category Rotorcraft. Refer to Figure 2-2.

Par 2-4 Page 9

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

FIGURE 2-2. CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT AND MRB

PROCESS INTERFACE

Page 10 Par 2-5

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 3. INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION

3-1. INDUSTRY STEERING COMMITTEE. The original equipment manufacturer

(OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH) will work with the expected participating operators of the
aircraft, the engine OEM/TCH, and other product vendors to form an industry steering
committee (ISC) to address the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for the aircraft
and engines. Representatives from aircraft, engine, propeller, and appliance manufacturers, and
intended operators normally comprise the ISC. Its chairperson will work with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) MRB chairperson, who is responsible for coordinating with
other participating regulatory authorities to (1) develop and establish a Policy and Procedures
Handbook (PPH) for the development of the MRB Report (MRBR) proposal; and (2) direct the
activities of the working groups (WG) and prepare the MRBR. Under the direction of the
selected ISC chairperson, the ISC will perform the functions in the PPH, listed in paragraph 3-2.
As applicable, the following information should be in each PPH. Assemble the PPH in this basic
format per Appendix 3.

3-2. ISC FUNCTIONS. Perform these functions:

a. Approve the PPH and forward it to the MRB chairperson for review and acceptance.
The FAA MRB chairperson will direct to the OEM/TCH further comments during the MRB PPH
review process. The ISC must approve the initial PPH and all subsequent revisions; the FAA
must accept them before any WG meetings can begin.

b. Determine the number and type of each WG that will be necessary and then organize
and manage those groups. The ISC will ensure that a minimum of three separate operators attend
each WG meeting.

c. Provide the MRB chairperson with a list of the number and various type of each WG,
the name and affiliation of each member, and any subsequent personnel changes.

d. Arrange for required aircraft technical/MSG training for all ISC and WG members, and
FAA/regulatory authorities.

e. Invite the MRB chairperson and selected MRB members to ISC meetings.

f. Invite other regulatory authorities to ISC and WG meetings, with concurrence and
coordination of the MRB chairperson.

g. Attend ISC/MRB meetings.

h. Review all WG analyses and presentations. Return to the WG for further review
analysis with which the ISC does not concur. The ISC must establish a tracking system to
resolve these actions and issues.

i. ISC will accept the WG analyses/tasks.

j. Provide complete and accurate meeting minutes for all ISC and WG meetings. Establish
a method of distributing and tracking all meeting minutes.

Par 3-1 Page 11

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

k. Establish a tracking system to ensure resolution of all maintenance issues and open
action items or concerns. Document and resolve all maintenance issues and open action items
before presenting an MRBR proposal to the MRB chairperson.

l. Provide to the appropriate MRB members all supporting technical data/analysis for the
proposed MRBR.

m. Review and provide comments on proposed MRBR.

3-3. MSG WORKING GROUPS. Appropriate representatives of the OEM/TCH

(aircraft/engine), vendors, owners, operators, maintenance organizations and regulatory
authorities must comprise WGs. An industry representative will chair the WG; he or she is
selected by the WG and accepted by the ISC. WG responsibilities include the following
functions additional to those included in paragraph 3-2:

a. Develop minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for new or derivative

aircraft/engine using the latest revision of the MSG process and latest approved PPH.

b. Establish sampling requirements when an analysis determines that such sampling is

applicable and effective in the identification of the cause of failure.

c. Produce a set of meeting minutes for each WG activity.

3-4. OEM/TCH FUNCTIONS. The OEM/TCH will perform the following functions:

a. Develop and prepare a draft PPH for ISC approval.

b. Provide required aircraft technical/MSG training for all ISC and WG members, and
FAA/regulatory authorities before holding the first WG meeting.

c. Provide the ISC with a comprehensive list of Maintenance Significant Items (MSI) and
Structural Significant Items (SSI), and the items precluded from the MSI/SSI list before
beginning any ISC/WG meeting.

d. Arrange for the required attendance of the appropriate OEM/TCH design personnel at
each ISC/WG meeting.

e. Provide WG members with current technical data to support the analysis of each MSI,
SSI, and zones of the aircraft for analysis by each WG. The data are required 30 days before the
ISC/WG meeting.

f. Arrange for technical support and access to the aircraft or appropriate OEM/TCH and or
vendor facility for the review and validation of all analysis and tasks.

g. Provide the ISC/MRB and appropriate WG members, during each ISC/MRB meeting,
with an updated report of all Airworthiness Limitation (ALI) item, Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR), and all design changes.

Page 12 Par 3-2

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

h. Ensure that the OEM/TCH manuals contain information and procedures for
accomplishing all on-aircraft systems/structures/zonal tasks covered in the MRBR.

i. Participate in all ISC and WG activities in support of the development of the MRBR.

j. Provide the MRB chairperson a copy of all supporting technical data/analysis for the
proposed MRBR at the conclusion of the project.

k. Submit the MRBR proposal to the MRB chairperson at least 90 working days before
scheduled approval.

NOTE: Where the OEM/TCH conduct sampling and analytical inspections

on an opportunity basis, the following procedures apply: (1) The OEM/TCH
will provide timely notification to the MRB chairperson or delegate
regarding the time and location of the inspection to permit MRB chairperson
or delegate participation. When the MRB chairperson or delegate attendance
is not possible, the OEM/TCH must provide a copy of the complete
inspection report to the MRB chairperson. (2) Subsequent to the first three
inspections of the complete engine or modules, the MRB chairperson in
coordination with the Boston Aircraft Evaluation Group will determine
further regulatory authority participation on a case-by-case basis on
technical issues only.

Par 3-4 Page 13 (and 14)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 4. FAA PARTICIPATION

4-1. UNITED STATES OEM/TCH. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM)/type

certificate holder (TCH) formally notifies the responsible Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG)
manager of its intention to develop a Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report (MRBR)
proposal.

a. Assigning an MRB Chairperson. The appropriate AEG manager will assign a

qualified individual as MRB chairperson to manage the specific MRB process for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). The MRB chairperson selects and manages additional MRB
members. Through the appropriate division/office manager, the MRB chairperson will formally
invite experienced and qualified FAA working group (WG) advisors to participate in each WG.
Acceptance to participate is considered a commitment for the duration of the project.

b. Notification of MRB Composition. The MRB chairperson will provide formal written
notification to AFS-302 of the MRB board composition. Refer to Figure 4-1. The MRB
chairperson will also invite AFS-302 or his or her representative, along with an invitation to the
Maintenance Program Industry Group (MPIG) chairperson, to participate in the MRB process.

c. Coordination With Aircraft Certification. The FAA MRB chairperson is also

responsible for coordination on all issues of concern with FAA certification within the
appropriate Aircraft Certification project manager and engineering staff. This may require
developing issue papers and responding to Aircraft Certification issue papers or seeking
consultation on new technological issues that may arise during the design and development
process of the aircraft.

d. Assignment of MRB Members. The MRB chairperson will assign an FAA MRB
member to each WG. The MRB chairperson may assign additional FAA advisors to each WG if
necessary. FAA WG advisors will include staff from FAA engineering/design certification
branches as well as appropriate aviation safety inspectors from Flight Standards Service (AFS)
having oversight of aircraft maintenance operations, and AEG personnel.

Par 4-1 Page 15

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

FIGURE 4-1. LETTER TO AFS-300 TO ESTABLISH AN MRB

Page 16 Par 4-1

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

FIGURE 4-1. LETTER TO AFS-300 TO ESTABLISH AN MRB (CONTINUED)

4-2. FOREIGN OEM/TCH.

a. MRB Chairperson for Certification of Foreign Aircraft. During the certification

process of a foreign-manufactured aircraft, the applicant will formally request FAA participation
from the appropriate AEG. The AEG office manager will assign a qualified FAA MRB
chairperson who will perform the duties as the FAA representative on the international
MRB/industry steering committee (ISC).

b. Responsibilities of FAA MRB Chairperson.

(1) This FAA MRB chairperson is the counterpart to the international MRB chairperson
in all matters concerning MRB activities and MSG processes. The MRB chairperson is the sole
authority regarding United States FAA requirements. The chairperson also provides the
collective input from all the FAA advisors regarding WG activities. The primary duty is to
ensure compliance with the applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
minimum interval/tasking requirements/FAA regulatory requirements. Also, to the extent
possible, the chairperson ensures standardization and harmonization of the domestic and
international MRB activities within the international MRB process.

(2) Regarding all issues of concern, the FAA MRB chairperson is also responsible for
coordination with FAA certification within the appropriate Aircraft Directorate project manager
and engineering staff. This may require developing issue papers and responding to certification
issue papers, or seeking consultation on new technological issues that may arise during the
design and development process of the aircraft.

(3) The FAA WG advisors provide assistance and guidance to WG members regarding
the Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH), latest version of MSG process, FAA policy, and
regulatory requirements. The FAA advisors report directly to the FAA MRB chairperson on all
matters regarding assigned WG activities, actions, results, and controversial issues.

4-3. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD.

a. MRB Personnel. The MRB supports the development of an industry MRBR proposal
containing the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements for a newly FAA
type-certificated or derivative aircraft and its aircraft engines. The MRB may include qualified

Par 4-1 Page 17

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

FAA AFS inspector personnel, AEG personnel, and engineering representatives from the
controlling FAA certification/directorate office.

b. MRB Chairperson Functions. The MRB chairperson will initiate the development of
an MRB obtaining a complete schedule of all MSG process activities from the OEM/TCH. The
MRB chairperson assigns MRB members or other qualified FAA personnel to work as advisors
to each applicable industry WG. It is also the responsibility of the MRB chairperson to perform
the functions identified in the PPH, described in Chapter 3. These include the following:

(1) Determine the number and type of qualified FAA personnel that are necessary, and
assign them to their respective WG by specialty (systems, engines, avionics, structures, zonal,
lighting/High Intensity Radiated Field, etc.).

(2) Provide the ISC chairperson with a list of FAA personnel names, their affiliations,
assignments, and changes in personnel as they occur.

(3) Invite other regulatory authorities, in coordination with the AEG manager and the
OEM/TCH, to participate in the MRB, and coordinate the activities with regulatory authorities
through their representatives.

(4) Obtain letters of confirmation between the FAA and each participating regulatory
authority. Refer to the template example Figure 5 Letter of Confirmation in Appendix 4.

(5) Inform the ISC chairperson of all participating regulatory authorities.

(6) Establish and maintain a file of all MRB proceedings in the MRB historical file.

(7) Establish the extent of other regulatory authority participation and assignment as
WG Advisors.

(8) Keep other regulatory authorities informed regarding any changes to MRB policy
and procedures before and during the MRB process.

(9) Accept the ISC-approved PPH, following a review by all participating regulatory
authorities, within 30 working days of receipt.

(10) Coordinate all MRB activities and associated matters with the ISC chairperson.

(11) Ensure that the OEM/TCH provides the necessary aircraft

familiarization/technical training inclusive of MSG training to all MRB members and WG
advisors.

(12) Schedule the MRB meeting before attendance of ISC meetings, as required.

(13) Attend all ISC meetings and be prepared to address any previous open issues that
developed during WG or ISC meetings.

Page 18 Par 4-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

(14) Ensure that the appropriate FAA and other regulatory authorities attend WG
meetings.

(15) Offer information, guidance, and assistance to the ISC and each WG regarding
regulatory requirements, PPH, compliance and process management, MSG noncompliance, and
other related issues.

(16) Review reports from previous ISC meetings (if applicable) and from the WG
members with regard to open issues or concerns.

(17) Provide oversight of the TCH/OEM validation of the Associated Maintenance

Procedures.

(18) Discuss and correct potential problem areas of controversy with other regulatory
authority participants and decide if FAA Maintenance Review Board Policy Board (MRBPB)
guidance is needed. If required, draft an appropriate issue paper for submittal to MRBPB for
resolution.

(19) Coordinate all items of new technology developments and issues not previously
addressed by the MSG standard with the FAA MRBPB and international MRBPB.

(20) Approve the MRBR, and revisions, in accordance with established MRBR
revision procedures.

4-4. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS. MRB members perform the

following functions:

a. Provide guidance and feedback to the FAA WG advisors and WG members.

b. Direct FAA WG advisors in assigned WG regarding compliance with the PPH and
current regulatory and policy requirements.

c. Attend MRB meeting to review and discuss all significant quality problems and open
issues as required.

d. Attend ISC meetings, as invited by the ISC chairperson to support regulatory and policy
requirements.

e. Attend WG meetings to review and discuss all significant quality problems and open
issues as required. Ensure that the WG follows the MSG process and PPH guidelines. Report any
deviations from the MSG process/approved PPH procedures to MRB chairperson.

f. Review technical data and MSG analysis and PPH revisions provided by the OEM/TCH
before each WG meeting, as required. The OEM/TCH must provide and deliver the data
30 working days before each meeting.

g. Record all WG activity and discussion in the meeting minutes, and record unresolved
open actions/open issues in a formal ongoing action list or report.

Par 4-3 Page 19

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

h. Provide oversight of the TCH/OEM valiation of the associated maintenance procedures.

i. Review WG meeting minutes and provide progress reports to the MRB chairperson
within 2 weeks after each WG meeting, but no later than the next scheduled ISC meeting. This
review will contain an assessment of WG activities, including a notification of any controversy
for potential problem areas or issues affecting the MSG process.

j. Provide the MRB chairperson with highlights to include minimum scheduled

interval/tasking requirements and any unresolved WG concerns or issues.

4-5. FAA MAINTENANCE WORKING GROUP ADVISORS. FAA WG advisors perform

the following functions:

a. Attend WG meetings and provide technical information, assistance, and guidance to the
WG members.

b. Attend MRB meetings if requested by an MRB chairperson.

c. Act as an MRB member for the WG when requested by the MRB chairperson. Perform
all the functions of the MRB member while acting as an MRB member.

4-6. FOREIGN REGULATORY AUTHORITIES. Foreign regulatory authorities will

perform the following functions:

a. Participate in the MRB, ISC, and/or WG activities, as provided by the letter of

confirmation between the regulatory authority and the FAA.

b. Attend ISC meetings by invitation from the ISC chairperson and the concurrence of the
MRB chairperson.

c. Notify the ISC chairperson, via the MRB chairperson, of any national regulatory
differences requirements before compiling the MRB report proposal.

d. Acknowledge approval of the MRB report in the manner outlined in the letter of
confirmation and in the PPH.

e. Review WG meeting minutes and provide to the MRB chairperson an assessment or

notification of controversial or potential problem areas before the next scheduled ISC meeting.

NOTE: If the participation of multiple regulatory authorities is necessary,

do it with common standards and joint authority representation.

Page 20 Par 4-4

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

NOTE: When the lack of personnel or other reasons limit the role of the host
authority, the MRB chairperson may seek more involvement of other
regulatory authorities as MRB members/WG advisors.

NOTE: Use generic terminology when dealing with various regulatory

operating rule requirements (for example, “regulations or other national
regulatory requirements”).

Par 4-5 Page 21 (and 22)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 5. MRB REPORT APPROVAL

5-1. INITIAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD REPORT (MRBR) APPROVAL

PROCESS.

a. MRBR Proposal. The industry steering committee (ISC) chairperson forwards the
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) MRBR proposal to the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH) representative(s) and may invite the OEM/TCH to discuss
the comments or findings. The OEM/TCH must present the ISC-proposed MRBR, as
recommended, to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review as part of the
instructions for continued airworthiness. Following ISC final review, the OEM/TCH submits a
formal letter and the MRBR proposal to the MRB chairperson for review and approval.

b. FAA Approval Process. Concurrent with MRBR approval, the MRB chairperson will
forward a copy of the MRBR with an approval recommendation to AFS-302 for their
concurrence. The AFS-302 representative concurs or rejects and returns the MRBR to the
assigned Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). If AFS-302 concurs, the MRB chairperson sends a
letter of approval along with the signed approval page of the MRBR to the OEM/TCH (ISC
co-chair). Refer to Figures 5-1 and 5-2, below. Should AFS-302 reject the MRBR, the assigned
AEG MRB chairperson will return the report to the OEM/TCH for corrections and resubmit. The
chairperson returns the corrected report to AFS-302 for their concurrence. Normally, the FAA
approval process occurs within a timeframe of 90 working-days, unless corrections are required.
Approval by foreign regulatory authorities will normally occur concurrently with FAA approval.
The OEM/TCH is responsible for publishing and distributing the initial and revised MRBR, and
any supporting documents in a format acceptable to the Administrator.

5-2. FOREIGN REGULATORY AUTHORITY APPROVAL OF THE MRB REPORT.

There may be a need to identify national regulatory differences that are not compatible,
acceptable, or applicable to all regulatory authorities. When this condition exists, use an
appendix or specified section to the MRBR to list these differences, with the respective
regulatory authority approving each difference. If the FAA is the validating authority for a
foreign MRB, then a separate appendix or specified section to the MRBR will identify regulatory
differences.

5-3. PROPOSED INITIAL MRBR DISAPPROVAL PROCESS. The OEM/TCH must

coordinate disapproval of a proposed MRBR with the MRB chairperson so that the ISC
chairperson receives written notification of such action. The disapproval letter will include the
specific reason(s) for the disapproval, and suggested guidance to make the MRBR proposal
approvable.

5-4. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD REPORT IMPLEMENTATION. Operators of

the aircraft type should implement the Initial MRBR in accordance with established procedures.
The MRBR requirements are not an operator maintenance program. After FAA approval, the
requirements become a baseline or framework around which each operator can develop its own
individual aircraft maintenance program. Aircraft/engine design and performance help form the
MRBR requirements. The oversight of an operator’s program is the responsibility of the local
regulatory authority. MRBR revisions are encouraged, but are not mandatory inclusions in an

Par 5-1 Page 23

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

operator’s approved maintenance program. The FAA recommends the operator’s program
incorporate MRBR revisions associated with type design changes. The local regulatory authority
must approve and/or accept all maintenance program revisions.

FIGURE 5-1. MRBR LETTER OF APPROVAL.

Page 24 Par 5-4

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

FIGURE 5-2. MRBR APPROVAL PAGE

Par 5-4 Page 25 (and 26)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 6. MRB REPORT REVISIONS, FORMAT, AND CONTENT

6-1. MRB REPORT ANNUAL REVIEW. Because the Maintenance Review Board (MRB)
report is intended to be an up-to-date, “living” document, the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH), industry steering committee (ISC), and the MRB
chairperson should annually conduct a joint MRB Report (MRBR) review to determine any need
for a revision. The MRB chairperson should document results of these reviews for inclusion in
the MRB historical file.

a. Proposed Changes. If needed, the OEM/TCH, ISC and the MRB will convene to
evaluate any proposed changes. Submit all proposed changes with supporting data to the MRB
chairperson. Approval or disapproval of the proposed changes will be processed in the same
manner as outlined for the MRBR approval/disapproval process.

b. AFS-302 Review. AFS-302 review/concurrence of all revised MRBRs is required when

changed text matter of the report affects Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy. If there
is doubt, where it affects FAA policy, then submit the MRBR for review and concurrence by
AFS-302. Technical changes to revised MRBRs do not need to be submitted for AFS-302
concurrence.

c. Multiple Approvals. If more than one regulatory authority approves an MRBR, each
approving authority will evaluate proposed changes (as per letter of confirmation) before
approval by the FAA. The corresponding regulatory authority will review published revisions to
the MRBR for possible changes to an operator’s maintenance program.

6-2. TEMPORARY REVISIONS. If temporary revisions (TR) are needed, the OEM/TCH,
ISC and the MRB will convene to evaluate any proposed changes. Submit all proposed changes
with supporting data to the MRB chairperson. Approval or disapproval of the proposed changes
will be processed in the same manner as outlined for the MRBR approval/nonapproval process.
Specifically identify and incorporate all TRs during the next MRBR review process.

6-3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETING THE REPORT. Each MRBR should be

entitled, “Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB Report) OEM name, aircraft model #,” and
at a minimum, should contain the following, as appropriate:

a. Title Page. Containing the title of the MRBR and the report number, if any.

b. Table of Contents.

c. Approval Page. Containing the following statements:

(1) “This report outlines the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements to be

used in the development of an approved maintenance/inspection program for the airframe,
engines, systems, and components of the (aircraft make, model, and series).”

(2) “The requirements in the report have been developed using Maintenance Steering
Group (MSG) decision logic from the current MSG revision (or alternative procedure as agreed
upon by FAA, ISC, or WG).”

Par 6-1 Page 27

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

(3) “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hereby approves that this report be
used by U.S. certificated operators of the (aircraft make, model, and series).” (Insert page for
each foreign regulatory authority approval, as applicable) Chapter 5 contains sample approval
letters.

d. Record of Revisions.

e. Summary of Changes.

f. List of Effective Pages (including the revision status and corresponding dates).

g. ISC/MRB Personnel Listing (including ISC/MRB personnel, their organizational

affiliation, and the capacity in which they serve).

h. The MRBR Preamble. (The following information should be included in the preamble
of each MRB report.) “This report outlines the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements
to be used in the development of an approved maintenance/inspection program for the airframe,
engines (on aircraft), systems, components, and appliances, of (aircraft make, model, and series).
These MRB report requirements are a basis from which each operator develops its own
maintenance/inspection program.”

i. Acronyms. Define all acronyms in the MRBR. Appendix 1 contains a list of acronyms
in the MRBR.

j. Definitions. Include definitions of technical terms in the MRBR. (Refer to Appendix 2.)
Whenever possible, use industry accepted definitions such as those found in the Air
Transportation Association ATA latest version of MSG documents and World Airlines Technical
Operations Glossary.

k. Applicability. The MRBR must identify the specific aircraft make, model, and series,
and the standard options/modifications. New options/modifications as amended by MSG analysis
will be added to the MRBR.

l. Analysis of MSIs and SSIs. Analyze all maintenance significant items (MSI) and
structural significant items (SSI) on a task-by-task basis without regard for letter checks. If a task
is determined to be a safety task or applicable cost effective task, select the appropriate tasking
interval.

(1) The MRBR will provide guidance regarding the means to optimize the minimum
scheduled interval/tasking requirements to a level higher than that provided as initial
requirements in the MRBR. This guidance will be unique to the aircraft model.

(2) Optimization guidance should consider the content of like checks or other related
inspections and their repetitive intervals. A determined series or sequence of specified checks or
other related inspections must be completed and the resultant data found satisfactory before
optimization of that type of check/inspection. Include in this section of the MRBR the
description, type of checks/inspections, and their intervals.

Page 28 Par 6-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

m. Maintenance Requirement Rules. Include the following in the MRBR.

(1) The optimization procedures as described in the Policy and Procedure Handbook,
the following rules applies: Refer to Chapter 12 for optimization details.

(2) Individual task intervals may be optimized based on satisfactory substantiation by

the operator, review and approval by its appropriate regulatory authority, or in accordance with
the operator’s FAA-approved reliability program.

(3) Task interval parameters expressed in the MRBR may be converted to an individual
operator’s desired units, provided this conversion does not result in the operator exceeding the
initial requirements of the MRBR.

(4) The use of nondestructive inspection (NDI) methods, such as X-ray, ultrasonic,
eddy current, and radioisotope, or alternative processes that the manufacturer approves, can
provide an alternative to the methods this report prescribes. Each operator should notify its
regulatory authority of the use of an acceptable alternative method.

NOTE: Within this report, the terms “check” and “inspection” are not
intended to imply a level of skill required to accomplish a task.

(5) Life-limited items must be retired in accordance with the limits established in the
engine or aircraft Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) or the Airworthiness Limitations section
of the engine or aircraft OEM/TCH Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

(6) After the accumulation of industry service experience, the ISC or MRB chairpersons
may request changes to the requirements of this MRBR that the operator may use after approval
of the appropriate regulatory authority.

(7) Failure Effect Category (5 or 8) safety tasks cannot be deleted or escalated without
the approval of the MRB Chairman and/or the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).

n. System/Powerplant Requirement Rules. The FAA recommends the following

contents of the system/powerplant requirement rules section of the MRBR.

(1) MSG (Specify the revision) logic was used to develop an on-aircraft minimum
scheduled interval/tasking requirement. With the exception of life-limited items, this process
does not normally include detailed shop maintenance procedures. Individual operators control
off-aircraft detailed procedures; they are in accordance with the OEM/TCH published minimum
interval/tasking requirements, which the regulations require.

(2) MSI: The OEM/TCH provides the MSI list in a separate specified document.

(3) Each MSI the OEM/TCH identified has been subjected to MSG analysis. This
process has resulted in the identification of maintenance tasks that are contained in this report.
Each MSI for which a task was not generated during the analysis is identified as follows:
(Provide MSI listing, or other means as specified, for which no tasks were identified.)

Par 6-3 Page 29

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

(4) SSI. SSIs must not be confused with Principal Structural Elements, (PSE) (Title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations part 25, § 25.571); however, the SSIs must address all PSEs.

o. Structural Program Rules. The OEM/TCH develops (structural inspection procedure

(SIP) requirement rules to meet the inspection requirements for damage tolerance. The types of
damage considered during structural requirement development are environmental deterioration
(ED) (corrosion, stress corrosion), accidental damage (AD), and fatigue damage (FD). Some
forms of ED are age related; therefore, calendar intervals control inspections for this type of
deterioration. The required structural requirements section incorporates these calendar
inspections, plus the requirements for detecting other types of ED, AD, and FD. The structural
requirement rules section of the MRBR recommends the following contents:

(1) All aircraft in an operator’s, or group of operator’s fleet are subject to the provisions
of this report. These requirements include external and internal inspections, structural sampling
and age-exploration programs, corrosion prevention and control programs, and additional
supplemental structural inspections that may be required for fatigue-related items. Calendar time,
flight cycles, or flight hours express the initial check intervals for the SIP. Do not optimize a
repeat inspection interval until at least one aircraft in an operator’s or group of operator’s fleet
has been inspected within the initially defined interval listed in the MRBR.

(2) All changes to structural inspection items listed in the Airworthiness Limitations
section require FAA engineering approval. Document number in the appropriate appendix will
reference structural inspection limitations listed in the aircraft manufacturer’s Airworthiness
Limitations inspection section in the MRBR.

(3) The Structures Program should include requirements to maintain composite

structural details, elements or assemblies whose failure could affect the structural integrity
necessary for the safety of the aircraft. These requirements should take into account that
composite structures may be damaged by accidental impact or aging deterioration; and those
composite structures degrade in a different way compared to metallic structures. Composite
structure will be analyzed to create a minimum initial scheduled maintenance/inspection
requirements. All structural items will be categorized as either an SSI or Other Structure. (The
SSI/PSE list is provided by the OEM/TCH in a separate specified document.)

p. Zonal Program Rules. The Zonal Inspection Program (ZIP) provides for the
consolidation of a number of general visual inspection (GVI) tasks for each zone. A zonal
inspection may include GVI tasks derived from MSI and SSI. An MSI/SSI task that is in the ZIP
must be cross-referenced with supporting documentation and located in the appendix of the
MRB as a zonal item. Likewise, the zonal item must be cross-referenced as an MSI/SSI task to
ensure content and accountability. Include the following contents of the Zonal Procedure Rules
section of the MRBR:

NOTE: Failure Effect Category (5 or 8) safety tasks are not candidates for
zonal requirements.

Page 30 Par 6-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

(1) The ZIP contains a series of GVI tasks. Detailed inspection (DET) and special
detailed inspection (SDI) are not to be contained in the ZIP. Zonal inspection requirements apply
only to zones.

(2) The ZIP contains GVI tasks derived from enhanced zonal analysis procedures
(EZAP).

(a) Identify zones that both contain electrical wiring and have potential for
combustible material being present. For those zones, perform an enhanced zonal analysis that
permits the identification of stand-alone inspection tasks that allow appropriate attention to be
given to deterioration of installed wiring and electrical wiring interconnection system (EWIS),

(b) EWIS tasks derived during the EZAP process will be identified as GVI, DET, or
Restoration (RST) tasks. The ZIP will not contain stand-alone EWIS tasks. These special
dedicated tasks reside in ATA 20 of the Systems/Powerplant section of the MRBR, and do not
have a failure effect category.

(c) Uniquely identify all EWIS/EZAP-derived stand-alone tasks GVI, DET, or RST
in the EZAP analysis for traceability during future changes. This prevents inadvertent deletion or
escalation of an EZAP-derived stand-alone task without proper consideration of the risk basis for
the task and its interval. All escalations must go through the appropriate FAA oversight office.

(d) The latest version of the MSG analysis develops all Lightning and High
Intensity Radiated Field (L/HIRF) GVI tasks. The ZIP will not contain stand-alone L/HIRF
tasks. These special dedicated tasks should reside in a separate section of the MRB. Uniquely
identify all L/HIRF tasks.

(3) Access to zones should be easy to accomplish and should not require the use of
special tools. Normally, the inspection aids include a flashlight and/or inspection mirror. Inspect
the entire visible contents of the zone for obvious damage, security of installation, and general
condition including corrosion and leaks. Refer to latest version of MSG document for an
accurate definition of GVI.

(4) The following zones do not contain system installations, but receive adequate
surveillance from other maintenance or structural inspections tasks. Accordingly, the inspection
requirements in the ZIP do not specify these zones. (Insert listing of the zones not specified in
the ZIP or in other document as specified.) (Insert aircraft zone diagram sheets or in other
document as specified.)

q. Foreign Regulatory Authority National Requirements. A section at the end of the

MRBR per each regulatory authority will identify national differences as mandated by foreign
regulatory authorities. (Each is accepted by the respective authority).

r. Appendices.

• Identification of aircraft zones.

• Extended Operations requirements.

Par 6-3 Page 31

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

• All acronyms/abbreviations as used in the MRBR.

• Definitions of specific terms, processes, inspections as identified in MRBR.
• Other, as applicable.

Page 32 Par 6-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 7. MRB POLICY BOARD

7-1. FAA MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD POLICY BOARD (MRBPB).

a. Purpose of the MRBPB. The MRBPB advocates the standardization of Maintenance

Review Board (MRB) policy and procedures and provides a structured forum for discussions
leading to the development of national and international recommendations regarding all MRB
activities. The MRBPB develops Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/Aircraft Evaluation
Group (AEG) positions for standardized guidance on issues that arise from the MRB/Air
Transportation Association (ATA) latest version of the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG)
process. Continued development of standardized MRB policies, procedures, and guidance
promotes harmonization within the respective FAA AEG offices and participating industry
groups.

b. Meetings. Membership includes a designee from the Aircraft Maintenance Division,

AFS-300, and one designee from each AEG office. The MRBPB normally meets at least twice a
year with one meeting just before the International Maintenance Review Board Policy Board
(IMRBPB). Additional meetings may be held via electronic media. It is the responsibility of the
MRBPB to develop harmonized issue papers, procedures, and guidance. It also produces FAA
guidance for issue papers recommended for implementation by the IMRBPB. The MRBPB
participates in international meetings on MRB policy issues with other regulatory authorities.

7-2. INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD POLICY BOARD.

a. Function of the IMRBPB. IMRBPB is a system for the continuing development of

policies, procedures, and guidance for the use of personnel operating under the purview of
various MRB. IMRBPB is a process of promoting harmonization with other regulatory
authorities throughout the world; the IMRBPB advocates the standardization of MRB policy and
procedures. The IMRBPB also provides a structured forum for discussions leading to the
development of national and international policy regarding all MRB activities. The ATA and the
Maintenance Programs Industry Group under the ATA Airworthiness Committee represent the
industry at the IMRBPB meeting. The committee is also open to input from the aviation industry.

b. Composition of the IMRBPB. The IMRBPB convenes once a year.

Industry/regulatory discussion are a portion of the meeting. Industry representation should be
limited to appropriate representatives dealing with the discussion topics. The meeting venue will
normally rotate among the IMRBPB members.

c. IMRBPB Documents. IMRBPB maintains an issue paper list with associated

documents such as minutes of meetings, action item list, substantiation documents, and
associated IMRBPB policy decisions. The IMRBPB only addresses issues related to the
MRB/MSG processes and uses the latest revisions of the following guidance.

Par 7-1 Page 33

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

• FAA Advisory Circular AC 121-22, Maintenance Review Board Report

Maintenance Type Board Procedures, current edition.
• EASA Doc # C.I011-01, Maintenance Review Board Team.
• Transport Canada TP 13850, Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Development
Process Manual.

Page 34 Par 7-2

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 8. MAINTENANCE TYPE BOARDS PROCESS

8-1. GENERAL. The Maintenance Type Boards (MTB) process permits type certificate (TC)
applicants to develop minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements when air operators are
not available to participate in the process. The MTB and Maintenance Review Board (MRB)
processes are similar, except with the MTB process there is limited or no operator participation.
MTB maintenance instructions are developed using current Air Transportation Association of
America (ATA) Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) analytic logic. The minimum scheduled
interval/tasking requirements are published as manufacturer recommendations.

8-2. MTB PROCESS APPLICABILITY. The MTB process applies to transport-category

aircraft originally type certificated for nine or less passengers and less than 33,000 lb, or
helicopters originally type certificated for nine or less passengers and less than 20,000 lb.
Original equipment manufacturers (OEM)/type certificate holders (TCH) for these aircraft have
the option to use the MRB process.

a. Where United States is the State of Design. Where the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is the primary type certification authority, the applicant who is seeking a
TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable may develop their
scheduled maintenance instructions in accordance with an MTB or request the Aircraft
Evaluation Group (AEG) to convene an MRB.

b. Where United States is Not the State of Design. A foreign applicant who is seeking,
or intending to seek, an FAA type certificate for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this
chapter is applicable, will invite the FAA AEG to discuss the process under which the scheduled
maintenance instructions have been or will be developed, and how the FAA might accept that
process.

c. Analytic Logic to Use for Scheduled Maintenance Task Development. Use the most
current version of the MSG logic when initiating a new MTB. Electrical wiring interconnection
system (EWIS)/enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP) analysis may be necessary if
applicable by certification rule.

8-3. MTB AUDIT PROCESS.

a. Audit of the Completed Analytical Process. All OEMs/TCHs of type certificated

aircraft for which an MTB Report (MTBR) has been developed must maintain records of the
analysis performed in a manner such that the FAA may conduct an audit of the complete initial
analytic process, and any subsequent analytic processes, that have led to an amendment of the
initial MTBR.

b. Validation of the Associated Maintenance Procedures. The OEM/TCH must develop

internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all maintenance procedures written
to support MTBR tasks and then the OEM/TCH must validate those maintenance procedures.
The objective of the validation is to ensure that the procedure can be performed and that the
procedure meets the intent of the MTBR task. Where and when requested by FAA, the
OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft and the necessary qualified maintenance
personnel to demonstrate to the FAA that Failure Effect Category 5 and 8 safety tasks, at a

Par 8-1 Page 35

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

minimum, can be adequately performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the MTBR
task. Additional tasks may be validated at FAA’s discretion.

8-4. MTB REPORT.

a. General. The MTBR contains the minimum scheduled interval/tasking requirements

necessary for a transport-category aircraft. MTBRs are living documents that must be reviewed
annually to ensure that they reflect the current lessons learned from aircraft operation experience.
In this manner, the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft fleet is ensured and only those tasks
that are applicable and effective are performed.

b. MTBR Review and Approval. The OEM/TCH applicant is responsible for developing
a proposed MTBR and presenting it to the AEG for approval. The MTBR format and content
criteria should be aligned with the criteria used for the Maintenance Review Board report, as
found in Chapter 6. Once approved, the OEM/TCH holder publishes the MTBR as part of the
aircraft’s instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). It is a means of complying in part with
the maintenance instruction requirements of Appendix H of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, and Appendix A of 14 CFR part 29 as required by part 25,
§ 25.1529 and part 29, § 29.1529. The AEG must approve the MTBR, as well as subsequent
changes, before it becomes available for use by U.S. operators.

NOTE: MTBR tasks will be identified as such in the ICA and can only be
changed through the MTB process.

c. Disapproval of Proposed MTB Reports or MTBR Revisions. The MTB chairperson

will notify the OEM/TCH in writing of the disapproval of the MTBR or of any subsequent
revision. The letter will include the specific reason(s) for the disapproval.

d. Publication of the MTBR. When an MTBR has been produced, the OEM/TCH will
publish it as part of the ICA for the aircraft.

e. MTBR Annual Review.

(1) The MTBR is intended to be an up-to-date document, and as a consequence, the

OEM/TCH and the MTB chairperson should conduct a joint review, at least annually, to
determine the need for revisions. Results of these reviews are to be documented by the MTB
chairperson for inclusion in the MTB historical file.

(2) The OEM/TCH and the MTB will convene and evaluate proposed changes to the
MTBR. Proposed changes and their supporting data are submitted to the MTB chairperson.
Approval or disapproval of the proposed changes must be processed in the same manner as
outlined for the initial MTBR approval/disapproval. Any changes to the MTBR must follow the
optimization process in Chapter 12.

8-5. POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK.

a. General. The OEM/TCH must develop an internal policy and procedures document or
handbook for the purpose of managing the MTB process. The FAA recommends that the format

Page 36 Par 8-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

and content of the Policy and Procedure Handbook (PPH) outline be adopted for the MTB
process (refer to Appendix 3). Present a copy of the PPH to the MTB chairperson for AEG
review and acceptance before beginning any task development work. All participants in the MTB
process are to use the PPH as the standard to conduct the MTB process. Regulatory authority and
industry experience have indicated that the following information is expected in each PPH for
the successful latest version of MSG process and development of a MRBR:

b. Process Flowchart. A process flowchart describing the MTBR scheduled maintenance

task development and minimum interval/tasking requirements process and its relationship to the
development of ICAs is below.

FIGURE 8-1. MAINTENANCE TYPE BOARD FLOWCHART

8-6. OEM/TCH REPRESENTATIVES. Representatives of the OEM/TCH who are engaged

in performing the analysis for an MTB process must meet the following criteria.

a. Experience. Representatives must have relevant maintenance engineering experience

on an equivalent aircraft type, system, or component.

Par 8-5 Page 37

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

b. Training. Representatives must have undergone training in the analytic logic process to
be used.

8-7. REGULATORY AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBILITY. When the OEM/TCH formally

notifies the AEG of the intention to develop an MTB proposal, the AEG manager will assign a
qualified person as MTB chairperson to establish and manage the MTB. The MTB chairperson
selects MTB members/working group (WG) advisors.

a. MTB Chairperson. The MTB chairperson is responsible to perform the following

functions:

(1) Determine the number and type of FAA personnel that are necessary, and then
organize them into an MTB.

(2) Provide the OEM/TCH with the names of FAA/AEG MTB personnel, their
affiliations, assignments, and changes as they occur.

(3) Establish and maintain a file of all MTB proceedings for the MTB historical file.

(4) Establish the extent of regulatory authority participation and assignment of WG

advisors.

(5) Ensure that the OEM/TCH provides the necessary technical and analytical logic
training to MTB members/WG advisors.

(6) Attend steering committee (SC) meetings.

(7) Offer advice to the SC and the WGs.

(8) Provide oversight of the TCH/OEM validation of the Associated Maintenance

Procedures.

(9) Review reports from previous SC meetings (if applicable) and from the WG
members.

(10) Approve the MTBR, and revisions.

b. MTB Members. MTB members are expected to meet or have the equivalent experience
and training this chapter requires. In addition, the MTB members are expected to perform the
following functions:

(1) Attend WG meetings and provide guidance to the WG members.

(2) Review WG meeting minutes and provide progress reports to the MTB chairperson
before the next scheduled SC meeting. This review will contain an assessment of WG activities,
including a notification of any controversy or potential problem areas.

(3) Attend SC meetings, as invited by the MTB chairperson, in coordination with the
OEM/TCH.

Page 38 Par 8-6

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

(4) Attend MTB meetings.

(5) Provide oversight of the TCH/OEM validation of the Associated Maintenance

Procedures.

c. Experience and Training Requisites. MTB members must meet the following levels:

(1) Experience:

(a) Valid FAA aircraft mechanic certificate, or

(b) Practical experience and theoretical training that is equivalent, or

(c) Practical training and experience on an equivalent aircraft type or system, or

(d) Practical industry experience as an aircraft maintenance inspector.

(2) Training:

(a) Aircraft-specific training.

(b) MSG training.

Par 8-7 Page 39 (and 40)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 9. OEM TCH RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS

9-1. GENERAL. Original equipment manufacturers (OEM)/type certificate holders (TCH) of

airplanes that are less than 12,500 lb, or helicopters that are to be type certificated (TC) in the
normal category less than 7,000 lb may develop their scheduled interval/tasking requirements in
accordance with the OEM/TCH internal processes. The OEM/TCH must meet the requirements
of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness: Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents, current edition, in addition to the
criteria below. OEMs/TCHs for these aircraft have the option to use the Maintenance Type
Board process or Maintenance Review Board (MRB) process.

9-2. RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS APPLICABILITY.

a. United States is the State of Design. The FAA is the primary type certification
authority, the OEM/TCH who is applying for a TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which
this chapter is applicable may develop its scheduled maintenance instructions in accordance with
a recommended maintenance process.

b. United States is Not the State of Design. A foreign applicant who is applying for an
FAA TC for a new or a derivative aircraft for which this chapter is applicable, will invite the
FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) to discuss the process under which the scheduled
maintenance instructions will be developed, and how the FAA may accept that process.

9-3. RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE PROCESS AUDITS.

a. Audit of the Completed Analytical Process. All OEM/TCH must maintain records of
the analysis to develop their scheduled maintenance instructions. OEMs/TCHs must keep the
records in such a manner that the FAA may readily audit the analytic process and any subsequent
analytic processes that may lead to an amendment of the minimum scheduled interval/tasking
requirements.

b. Validation of the Associated Maintenance Procedures. The OEM/TCH must develop

internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all maintenance procedures written
to support scheduled maintenance tasks; the OEM/TCH must then validate those maintenance
procedures. The objective of the validation is to ensure that it is possible to perform the
procedure and that the procedure meets the intent of the scheduled maintenance instruction.
Where and when requested by FAA, the OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft
and the necessary qualified maintenance personnel to demonstrate to the FAA that any particular
maintenance procedure can be adequately performed, and that the procedure meets the intent of
the scheduled maintenance task.

9-4. SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTION.

a. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Review and Approval. The instructions for

continued airworthiness (ICA), as published by the OEM/TCH, must contain a statement for the
scheduled maintenance instruction development that states that the scheduled maintenance
instructions and their associated procedures have been reviewed and approved for use by
operators, and identify any limitations applicable when implementing the instructions.

Par 9-1 Page 41

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

b. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Publications. The OEM/TCH must publish the

scheduled maintenance instructions as part of the aircrafts ICA. It is the responsibility of the
OEM/TCH to issue amendments to the ICA as required.

c. Scheduled Maintenance Instruction Development as a Living Document. Before

FAA acceptance of the scheduled maintenance instructions as part of the aircraft’s OEM/TCH
process, the OEM/TCH must develop an auditable system for continuing analysis of all tasks
included within the maintenance instructions. As part of the continuing analysis system, the
OEM/TCH should address the following:

(1) A system for acquiring from operators reports related to adequacy of task, failures,
failure frequencies, and the consequence of the failure.

(2) An age-exploration system for the continuous evaluation of age–condition

information for the substantiation of current task intervals and for the adjustment of task
intervals.

(3) A system for controlling the addition of new scheduled tasks, to ensure that they are
applicable and effective.

(4) A system for the periodic evaluation of all tasks in the program to eliminate those
that are no longer applicable and effective.

(5) A system for evaluating unanticipated problems and determining the appropriate
action.

Page 42 Par 9-4

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 10. MRBR/MTBR LOW UTILIZATION

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

10-1. GENERAL. A logic process is necessary to ensure minimum scheduled interval/tasking

requirements are met for low utilization aircraft. This will ensure early detection of deterioration
in areas that are sensitive to time rather than cycles or flight hours.

10-2. APPLICABILITY. These requirements apply to aircraft that have a Maintenance Review
Board Report (MRBR) and Maintenance Type Board Report (MTBR) or have been analyzed
under the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) to define the minimum scheduled interval/tasking
requirements.

10-3. REQUIREMENTS. The OEM/TCH should specify low-utilization parameters in its

Policy and Procedure Handbook/MRBR/MTBR. The intervals for tasks identified in the
MRBR/MTBR are based on normal utilization. Operators deviating substantially below normal
type utilization should consider the application and employment of a low-utilization program
based on calendar time. Tasking requirements will be addressed on a task-by-task basis to ensure
the proper utilization parameter.

a. When the aircraft has been analyzed using MSG logic, it is not necessary to revisit the
analysis before applying the proper low-utilization parameter for a task.

b. The OEM/TCH is responsible to develop a low-utilization program. This is a

stand-alone program, and not a supplement to the MRBR/MTBR.

Par 10-1 Page 43 (and 44)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 11. FLIGHTCREWS ACCOMPLISHING MAINTENANCE

11-1. GENERAL. This section addresses flightcrew performing maintenance tasks. Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) defines people authorized to accomplish maintenance.
Flight crews cannot take credit for any Maintenance Review Board Report/Maintenance Type
Board Report tasks.

11-2. APPLICABILITY. Inspections are considered maintenance. This is based on 14 CFR

part 43, § 43.7(f), which states: “A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve
an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of
§ 43.3(g).” Flightcrews are not permitted to accomplish any maintenance accomplished outside
the scope of preventive maintenance as defined in part 43 Appendix A(c). Commercial
operations under 14 CFR part 119 are not allowed to accomplish maintenance/preventive
maintenance tasks without an exemption to perform those tasks. The only exception to this is
rotorcraft under part 43, § 43.3(h).

Par 11-1 Page 45 (and 46)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 12. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF

TASKING INTERVALS

12-1. INTRODUCTION. The guidance in this document is intended for use by original
equipment manufacturer(OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH) and Maintenance Review Board
(MRB)/Industry Steering Committee (ISC) members who are involved with the
evolution/optimization or deletion/addition of tasks in an initial/current MRB Report (MRBR).
Apply this guidance for evolution/optimization or deletion/addition activities where no official
correspondence has been forwarded to the airworthiness authorities, or for activities to be
finalized (MRBR proposal submittal) after April 2009. The following is guidance for developing
and assessing proposals to the MRBR.

a. The initial MRBR for any new aircraft is developed in the absence of actual in-service
experience. As a result, the tendency is to be conservative in the decisionmaking process. As
service experience is accumulated, task intervals (thresholds/repeats) should be adjusted to
reflect the results of actual in-service data.

b. The OEM/TCH evolution/optimization process does not assume any operational control
over an operator’s maintenance program.

NOTE: When intervals are stated in this document it includes both

threshold and repeat values.

NOTE: If this chapter is not followed, the OEM/TCH will be limited to no

more than 10 percent escalation with approved data. Further escalation is
not allowed until a task is repeated and sufficient data are available.

12-2. PURPOSE. While this guidance is not exhaustive, use it as the basis for a Policy and
Procedures Handbook (PPH) procedure when the OEM/TCH, MRB, and Industry Steering
Committee (ISC) wish to proceed with evolution/optimization regarding the MRBR process.
Evolution/optimization or deletion/addition of a task through the management of data is a means
to assure the continued applicability and effectiveness of the task, while simultaneously
improving the integrity of the MRB process. This policy allows the OEM/TCH to develop and
use a process that serves as a continuous analysis and evolution/optimization or deletion/addition
for the MRBR. It is based on performance data and experience for model-specific fleets flown by
multiple operators under a variety of operating conditions and environments.

12-3. POLICY DESCRIPTION. The OEM/TCH must meet the policy requirements defined by
the regulatory authorities of the country of origin; and will define further details and procedure
clarifications in the PPH. As the PPH is a living document, a response must be given within
60 days after ISC acceptance/OEM submission. The following should occur:

a. The MRB/ISC must coordinate and approve PPH revisions, where applicable.

b. Evaluate in-service data, both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance findings related
to the intent of the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) task.

c. Weigh the relevance and significance of findings.

Par 12-1 Page 47

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

d. Standardize data format and content (ATA SPEC 2000 Chapter 11 or equivalent).

e. Ensure data quality, integrity, completeness, and clarity.

f. Consider each task individually.

g. Review original design and engineering specs, as required.

h. Review all information related to continue airworthiness (Airworthiness Directives,

Service Bulletins, in-service reports/letters, modifications/repairs, etc.).

i. Base MRBR task evolution/optimization or deletion/addition on worldwide

representative samples that span the operating environment and age groupings of the aircraft.

j. Base interval evolution/optimization or deletion/addition on risk management. Risk

management is the systematic application of management policies, procedures, and practices to
the tasks of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, and monitoring risk.

k. Use safety management principles at the OEM level. Safety management is the
application of engineering and management principles, criteria and techniques to optimize safety.
It is an integrated and comprehensive engineering effort.

l. Apply statistical models to support the evolution/optimization or deletion/addition

exercise. In a data-driven statistical decisionmaking process, data size is determined based on the
level of confidence. Confidence level refers to the likelihood that the overall fleet performance
lies within the range specified by the sample fleet performance. The confidence level is usually
expressed as a percentage. For example, a 95 percent confidence level implies that the
probability that the fleet parameter lies within the confidence interval is 0.95. For a given
confidence level, data size may vary depending on the fleet size and variability of in-service
data.

m. The OEM/TCH will collect sufficient data that would support the expected confidence
level. However, engineering judgment will remain a part of the evaluation. Statistical analysis
should be supported and validated by engineering judgment.

n. Measure task effectiveness should be measured and demonstrated, that is, the ability to:

• Detect and prevent defects before loss of function/structural integrity.

• Mitigate risk of exposure to hidden defects.

o. Record and respond to operators’ and regulators’ feedback.

p. Ensure the effectiveness and integrity of the process by: 1) collecting in-service data in
an ATA SPEC 2000 Chapter 11 format or equivalent, 2) analyzing it, and 3) comparing the
results with existing MRBR task requirements.

Page 48 Par 12-3

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

q. This policy allows for evolution/optimization or deletion/addition of MRBR, scheduled

maintenance tasks, intervals, and enhances the use of reliability-driven maintenance analysis
processes.

r. Adjust the MRBR based on performance data and analysis processes. However,
operator reliability programs should continue to ensure continuous evolution/optimization of
their maintenance programs.

s. The OEM/TCH evolution/optimization process does not assume any operational control
over an operator’s maintenance program.

12-4. RESPONSIBILITIES. The OEM/TCH applicant must notify the approving authorities in
writing of their intent to begin an evolution/optimization or deletion/addition process. This will
be in the form of an official correspondence as defined by the approving authorities.

NOTE: Approving authorities are those authorities that approve the MRBR.
The approving authorities will respond, in writing, to the OEM/TCH of their
intent to participate in the evolution/optimization or deletion/addition
exercise for a given fleet or model.

a. OEM/TCH (PPH Amendment and ISC/MRB Acceptance/Approval). The

OEM/TCH will include within the PPH the policy requirements and criteria as contained within
this document. The OEM/TCH will further define the details and procedural actions necessary to
conduct the evolution/optimization or deletion/addition exercise. The MRB/ISC will coordinate
and approve this plan. Where documents that support the evolution/optimization or
deletion/addition are incorporated by reference within the PPH, the current document number
and revision number must be stated.

b. OEM/TCH Data Collection. The OEM/TCH system must include a data quality, data
integrity, data quantity, audit system, and historical data tool as defined in the next steps.

c. Data Format. The OEM/TCH will use in-service data in a standardized format (ATA
SPEC 2000 Chapter 11 format, or equivalent), as deemed acceptable by the regulatory authority,
to ensure data quality and integrity. ATA SPEC 2000 Chapter 11 is an industry-sanctioned
maintenance reliability data communication format. In order to use this format, operators would
have to transition to this type of format, or the OEM/TCH would have to convert the operator
data into this standardized format.

d. Regulatory Authorities. It is incumbent on the OEM/TCH to demonstrate to the

regulatory authorities compliance with these guidelines for all and any evolution/optimization or
deletion/addition MRB task adjustment.

12-5. DATA QUALITY. The OEM/TCH should have a system in place that allows for the
collection of data found during operator’s task accomplishment to be delivered to the OEM/TCH
and then entered in a standardized format into their data collection system. The data collected
and used by the OEM/TCH regarding evolution/optimization will include the following
information:

Par 12-3 Page 49

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

a. Aircraft Age. Aircraft age (since delivery) is measured in calendar days, flight hours,
or flight cycles, as applicable. MRB task evolution will be based on in-service data collected
from a representative sample of older and newer aircraft incorporating more current production
standards and modifications. Fleet age representation will be summarized in the analysis report.

b. Geographical or Operational Environment Representation. MRB task interval

adjustments will be based on in-service data collected from a representative sample that spans all
operating environments. The data will be in proportion to the specific model fleet size of each
geographical area; however, it is not necessary to sample all geographical regions, nor is it
required to collect data from all extreme operating conditions (e.g., extremely hot and sandy
(desert ), extremely cold (arctic). A brief summary of the operating environments of the sampled
aircraft will be provided in the report.

c. Number of Tasks Accomplished. The number of times the task has been accomplished
including “nil/no findings” will be captured and used in the evaluation. Participating operators
should provide task findings and nonroutine write-ups for the related tasks of the sample fleet for
the evolution/optimization or deletion/addition exercise reporting period.

d. Interval of Tasks findings Applied. Actual task interval of each participating operator
will be captured and evaluated.

NOTE: The actual intervals may vary between operators and may be
different from MRBR requirement. The impact of these variations will be
assessed and accounted.

e. Component Data (Shop Findings, No-Fault-Found Removals and Failures).

Information regarding component removal and replacement activity and vendor repair
documents should be evaluated, as applicable, where available. This information provides the
data necessary to perform component failure-mode and life-cycle analysis which is necessary to
support the evolution/optimization or deletion/addition of the tasks associated with the
component.

f. Correct Mapping to the MRBR Task. Nonroutine write-ups and in-service findings
should be linked to appropriate MRBR tasks, as applicable. Only findings related to the MSG-3
task intent are relevant.

g. Failure Effect Category Considerations. MRBR task interval optimization is based on

principles that reflect the criticality of airplane systems components identified during MSG
analysis. Account for Failure Effect Categories during the analysis.

h. Operational Representation Flight Hour vs. Cycles, Calendar Time. Aircraft

utilization (flight-hours or cycles, as applicable) should be captured and evaluated. Include a
summary of fleet-wide service experience, high-time aircraft (hours, cycles, years), time in
service, daily utilization (high, low, average), etc in the analysis report.

i. Consecutive Tasking Requirements. To the extent possible, capture consecutive task

check data to assess reliability of aircraft systems, components, or structural elements related to
the MRBR task.

Page 50 Par 12-5

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

NOTE: This requirement may be applied to lower interval tasks.

Consecutive check data can be impractical for higher interval tasks.

j. Unscheduled Maintenance Findings. Mechanical irregularities and the resulting

corrective actions captured from pilot reports and maintenance reports should be reviewed, as
applicable. Unscheduled maintenance is a prime indicator of the effectiveness of the scheduled
maintenance program.

k. Scheduled Maintenance Findings.

(1) Routine Maintenance Tasks That Generate No Findings. Tasks that generate no
findings are as important as tasks that generate findings in determining failure-mode and
life-cycle analysis.

(2) Routine Maintenance Tasks That Generate Nonroutine Cards. These findings,
which require corrective action, involve structures, area/zonal, and aircraft systems categorized
by ATA chapter.

l. Unrelated Significant Findings, If Applicable. Operators should capture significant

nonroutine write-ups generated in the course of an unrelated maintenance task, if applicable.
These findings, which require corrective action, may not correlate to a routine maintenance task.

m. Four-Digit ATA Code, If Available. To the extent possible, operators should provide
four-digit ATA code for scheduled/unscheduled maintenance write-ups to facilitate transfer of
findings to appropriate MRBR tasks.

n. Serial Number of Aircraft. The operator should provide an aircraft manufacturer serial
number that uniquely identifies each aircraft in the sample fleet.

12-6. DATA INTEGRITY. Data integrity is the quality of correctness, completeness, and
compliance with the intention of the creators of the data. It is the condition in which data are
identically maintained during any operation, such as transfer, storage, and retrieval. Data
integrity is achieved by preventing accidental or deliberate, but unauthorized insertion,
modification, or destruction of data in a database.

a. Data Validation. OEM/TCH must have a data validation process that does the
following:

(1) Verifies that operator data are converted to ATA SPEC 2000 Chapter 11 or
equivalent standard format.

(2) Ensures that all required data elements and attributes are satisfied for submitted
data.

b. Audit System. The audit system must ensure that all data be traceable to the original
task.

Par 12-5 Page 51

AC 121-22B 10/29/10

12-7. DATA REVIEW.

a. Analysis Schedule—Evolution/Optimization or Deletion/Addition Timeline. MRB

task interval adjustments should be considered after sufficient service experience is accumulated
since entry into service. Subsequent task interval adjustments should be considered after
additional service experience has been accumulated since the last interval adjustment. In both
cases, data sufficiency is measured by the level of confidence as stipulated in these guidelines.

b. Statistical Analysis. The OEM/TCH will develop and implement a statistical analysis
system to provide justification that a 95 percent confidence level has been achieved for the
evolution/optimization or deletion/addition exercise on a task-by-task basis. Exceptions can be
presented and may be approved at the discretion of the approving airworthiness authorities.

c. Engineering Analysis. Engineering analysis will verify that findings are relevant to the
scheduled task under evaluation. Nonroutine write-ups will be evaluated to determine the
significance or severity of findings. Pilot reports and component reliability reports will also be
examined to account for line maintenance activities that may be relevant to the task under
evaluation. The severity of the findings must be considered and evaluated.

NOTE: Scheduled servicing (e.g., lubrication/oil replenishment) task data do

not result in reported related findings, therefore, engineering assessment
must be conducted to support an evolution/optimization or deletion/addition.
Negative long-term effects (e.g., corrosion) resulting from inappropriate
servicing intervals must be considered.

d. Modification Status, Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, Service Letters,

etc. Review all information related to the task (Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives,
service letters, and other in-service reports/resolutions, as applicable). Also, assess fleet
configuration.

e. Internal Review. The OEM/TCH will develop and implement internal quality
procedures to review and validate MRBR revision process as defined in the PPH. OEM/TCH
will develop and implement internal processes to validate MRBR revised tasks and/or intervals
resulting from evolution, or demonstrate that an equivalent written internal process already exists
to reach the same intent (not required before April 2010).

12-8. DATA CORRELATION. Correlate mean time between unscheduled removal, mean time
between failures, pilot reports, nonroutines, technical followup on open technical issue, and all
other pertinent data, as applicable.

a. Working Group Activity (WG)—Interval Recommendation to the ISC (e.g.,

increase, decrease, remain the same, introduction of new task, or task deletion).

(1) MRB task intervals can be escalated based on the results of in-service experience. In
addition, tasks should be de-escalated when in-service data support interval reductions. A task
may also be deleted when it is determined that it is ineffective, or the failure mode for which the
task was selected never developed due to effective design provisions.

Page 52 Par12-7
10/29/10 AC 121-22B

(2) Task deletion, addition, or modification of intent requires new/revised/amended

MSG-3 analysis. However, complete reanalysis of the MSG package is not required. Any
decision together with justification will be recorded and traceable in the associated MSG-3
analysis. Applicable and effective criteria as specified in MSG will be observed.

(3) The intervals of potential failure finding tasks (i.e., those looking for degradation)
should be less than the shortest likely interval between the point at which a potential failure
becomes detectable and the point at which it degrades into a functional failure. If the specific
failure data are available, this interval may be referred to as the “P to F” interval. Assess
consecutive task accomplishments to show that failures are not occurring before the new initial
interval.

(4) Interval determination should be validated with a maintenance engineering analysis

based on consideration of all the items listed in the quality and quantity of data. The process will
be referred or mentioned in the PPH for ISC and regulatory acceptance.

b. ISC Review Acceptance of MRBRP. The ISC will ensure all PPH guidance has been
followed and applied. The MRB will ensure all PPH guidance has been followed and applied.
The MRBR is released.

Par 12-7 Page 53 (and 54)

10/29/10 AC 121-22B

CHAPTER 13. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TASKING OPTIMIZATION

13-1. GENERAL. Statistical Analysis Tasking Optimization (SATO) is a term to describe an

original equipment manufacturer (OEM)/type certificate holder (TCH) customized program for
optimization of scheduled maintenance. It is data driven, combining data for model-specific
fleets from multiple operators that use the type of aircraft under a variety of operating conditions
and environments. Its intention is to use a larger fleet sampling data to optimize tasking intervals
in operators’ maintenance programs. SATO is not intended to replace an operator’s Reliability
Program (if applicable). Its use by operators will be voluntary. OEMs/TCHs that wish to offer
SATO programs must design a framework for its operation. The OEM/TCH will work with the
appropriate Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) to evaluate the program at the Maintenance
Review Board (MRB) level.

13-2. APPLICABILITY. An OEM/TCH SATO program should contain these minimum

elements:

a. A delivery system of data from the operator to the OEM in an ATA SPEC 2200 format
(or equivalent).

b. An in-service data program to catalog the data into a useable form.

c. An aircraft reliability management database. The OEM/TCH must have a quality

assurance system that ensures the data are clean and valid before accomplishing the engineering
analysis.

d. A statistical model that will optimize the data.

13-3. OPERATOR PARTICIPATION.

a. Prerequisites for Participation. If an operator wishes to participate in an OEM/TCH

SATO program, the OEM/TCH will have to accept it. This means the operator must meet the
OEM/TCH prerequisites that may include supplying specific historical data about their fleet in a
format acceptable to the OEM/TCH program. Complete (from birth) data would be the best;
however, that will not always be possible. The OEM/TCH program will set a baseline of
minimum data.

b. Maintenance Planning Document (MPD). Data will be combined with other

participant operators’ data to “optimize” the MPD by including a larger sample of data. The
AEG chairperson or the designee for the affected aircraft will review the OEM/TCH
recommendation for an optimized task and resolve any issues. The principal inspectors (PI) who
have operators with affected aircraft will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed
optimized task before final consideration. When satisfied with the technical merits, the AEG will
send the OEM/TCH recommendation to AFS-302 for policy review and final concurrence. The
OEM/TCH will then distribute the accepted recommendation to all participating operators. Only
operators participating in the SATO program will be allowed to use the optimized MPD. The
participating operators would then incorporate the new revised MPD task into their maintenance
program and submit the revision to the PI.

Par 13-1 Page 55

10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1. ACRONYM/ABBREVIATION LISTING FOR THE MRB REPORT

The following is a recommended listing of acronyms and abbreviations that may be contained in
each MRB Report.

AC Advisory Circular
ACO Aircraft Certification Office
AD Accidental Damage/Airworthiness Directive
ADR Accidental Damage Rating
AEG Aircraft Evaluation Groups
AEG-BOS Boston-AEG, Engines, Propellers
AEG-DFW Dallas Ft. Worth-AEG, Rotorcraft
AEG-LGB Long Beach-AEG, Transport Aircraft
AEG-MKC Kansas City-AEG, Small Airplane
AEG-SEA Seattle-AEG, Transport Aircraft
AFS Flight Standards Services
AEP Age Exploration Program
AFRP Aramid Fiber Reinforced Plastic
ALI Airworthiness Limitations
AMM Aircraft Maintenance Manual
AMOC Alternate Means of Compliance
ATA Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
CAM Canadian Airworthiness Manual
CAA Civil Airworthiness Authority
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
CMCC Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee
CMM Component Maintenance Manual
CMO Certificate Management Office
CMR Certification Maintenance Requirement
CP Corrosion Program
CPCP Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
DAH Design Authority Holder
DET Detailed Inspection
DIS Discard
DSO Design Service Objective
DTA Design Tolerance Assessment
DTR Damage Tolerance Rating
DVI Detailed Visual Inspection
DY Daily
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EAPAS Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane
Systems
ECO Engine Certification Office
ED Environmental Deterioration

Page 1
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 1
EDR Environmental Deterioration Rating
EICAS Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System
EROPS Extended Range Operations
ETOPS Extended Two Engine Operations
EWIS Electrical Wiring Interconnection System
EZAP Enhanced Zonal Analysis Procedure
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FC Functional Check
FCK Functional Check
FD Fatigue Damage
FEC Failure Effect Category
FH Flight Hours
FLT Flight
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FOEB Flight Operations Evaluation Board
FSDO Flight Standards District Office
FTS Fuel Tank Safety
GFRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic
GV General Visual
GVI General Visual Inspection
HIRF High Intensity Radiated Fields
ICA Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IP Issue Paper
ISC Industry Steering Committee
IMRBPB International Maintenance Review Board Policy
Board
JAA Joint Aviation Authorities
JAR Joint Airworthiness Requirement
JOEB Joint Operations Evaluation Board
L/HIRF Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Field
LU Lubrication Task
MEA Maintenance Engineering Analysis
MMEL Master Minimum Equipment List
MFG Manufacturer
MEL Minimum Equipment List
MTB Maintenance Type Board Process
MTBR Maintenance Type Board Process Report
MPD Maintenance Planning Data Document
MPIG Maintenance Program Industry Group
MPP Maintenance Program Proposal
MRB Maintenance Review Board
MRBPB Maintenance Review Board Policy Board
MRB Report Maintenance Review Board Report

Page 2
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 1
MSC Maintenance Steering Committee
MSG-1 Maintenance Steering Group - 1st Task Force
MSG-2 Maintenance Steering Group - 2nd Task Force
MSG-3 Maintenance Steering Group - 3rd Task Force
MSI Maintenance Significant Item
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
MTBUR Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removal
MWG Maintenance Working Group
NDI Non-destructive Inspection
NDT Non-destructive Test
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPC Operational Check
PI Principal Inspector
PMMEL Proposed Master Minimum Equipment List
PPH Policy and Procedures Handbook
PSE Principal Structural Element
R/I Remove and Install
RF Radiated Frequency
RMP Recommended Maintenance Process (RMP)
RS Restoration Task
RST Restoration
SATO Statistical Analysis Tasking Optimization
SDI Special Detailed Inspection
SID Supplemental Inspection Document
SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation
SIP Structural Inspection Procedure
SSA System Safety Assessment
SSI Structural Significant Item
SSID Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
SVC Service Task
STWG Structures Working Group
SWG Structures Working Group
TCH Type Certificate Holder
TBD To Be Determined
TCDS Type Certificate Data Sheet
UV Ultra-Violet
VC Visual Check Task
VCK Visual Check
WG Work Group
ZA Zonal Analysis
ZIP Zonal Inspection Program
ZLWG Zonal Working Group
ZWG Zonal Working Group

Page 3
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2. IP 44 DEFINITIONS

a. Confidence Level. The likelihood that the overall fleet performance lies within the
range specified by the sample fleet performance. The confidence level is usually expressed as a
percentage.

b. Nonroutine Task. A task is nonroutine when it is not a planned/scheduled task coming

from the operator’s/manufacturer’s maintenance program.

c. Nonmetallics. Any structural material made from fibrous or laminated components

bonded together by a medium. Materials such as graphite epoxy, boron epoxy, fiberglass, kevlar
epoxy, acrylics and the like are nonmetallics. Nonmetallics include adhesives used to join other
metallic or nonmetallic structural materials.

d. Line Maintenance. Routine check, inspection and malfunction rectification performed

en-route and at base stations during transit, turn-around or night stop.

e. Pilot Report (also known as PIREP). Suspected or known malfunctions, or

unsatisfactory conditions that are entered by the flightcrew into the aircraft log and require
maintenance action.

f. Qualified FAA MRB Chairperson. An Airworthiness inspector with working

knowledge of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) process must have system/structures
training on particular aircraft and have MSG formal training.

g. Unscheduled Maintenance. Maintenance performed to restore an item to a satisfactory

condition by providing correction of a known or suspected malfunction and/or defect.

h. Evolution/Optimization. Task through the management of data is a means to assure

the continued applicability and effectiveness of the task while improving the integrity of the
process.

i. Risk Management. The systematic application of management policies, procedures,

and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating and monitoring risk.

j. Safety Management. The application of engineering and management principles,

criteria and techniques to optimize safety. It is an integrated and comprehensive engineering
effort.

k. Structural Significant Items (SSI). Any detail, element, or assembly that contributes
significantly to carrying flight, ground, pressure or control loads, and whose failure could affect
the structural integrity necessary for the safety of the aircraft.

Page 1
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 3
APPENDIX 3. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK FORMAT

This appendix intends to provide standardized and harmonized policy in the development of a
proper policy and procedures handbook (PPH). It is encouraged that all industry applicant’s PPH
documents be developed containing the same basic data and information, as applicable, to
provide for a complete, consistent, and quality process.

Regulatory authority and industry experience has indicated that the following information is
expected in each PPH, as applicable, for the successful latest version of the Maintenance
Steering Group process and development of a Maintenance Review Board Report:

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE DEVELOPMENT

Contents of PPH

I Approval & Acceptance Letters or Signature Page

II Record of Revisions

III List of Effective Pages

IV History of Changes

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Highlights of Significant PPH Changes

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Background

1.3 Scope & Objective

1.4 Regulatory Requirements

1.5 MSG Guidelines

1.6 Revision Process Policy

1.7 Temporary Revisions Process

1.8 Program Organization Program Work Schedule

Page 1
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 3
1.9 Main Principles and Design Standards

1.10 Aircraft Utilization Assumptions

1.11 Establishing Task Intervals (Frequencies)

1.11.1 Systems & Powerplants Task Interval Determination

1.11.2 Zonal Inspection Task Interval Determination

1.11.3 Structures Task Interval Determination

1.11.4 Task Review Procedures

1.11.4.1 General

1.11.4.2 Factors to be considered

1.11.4.3 ISC & MRB Responsibilities

1.11.4.4 Manufacturer Responsibilities

1.11.4.5 Evaluation Criteria

1.11.4.6 Lubrication Tasks

1.11.4.7 Servicing Tasks

1.11.4.8 Operational Check

1.11.4.9 Inspection Tasks (General Visual, Detailed, Special Detailed)

1.11.4.10 Functional Check

1.11.4.11 Restoration or Discard

1.11.4.12 Structure/Zonal Inspections

1.11.4.13 Task Interval Review Report

1.12 IP 44 MRB Optimization Process

2. Organization and Administration

2.1 Industry Participation

2.1.1 General

2.1.2 Intellectual Property Management

Page 2
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 3
2.1.3 Communications, Internal and External

2.1.4 Industry Steering Committee (ISC)

2.1.5 Working Groups (WG)

2.1.6 OEM/TCH

2.1.7 Partners, Suppliers & Vendors

2.1.8 Certification and Design personnel

2.2 FAA & Other Regulatory Authority Participation & Functions

2.2.1 General

2.2.2 Regulatory Authority Maintenance Review Board

2.2.3 Regulatory Authority Members and Advisors

2.2.4 Foreign Regulatory Authorities

2.2.5 Aircraft Certification office personnel

2.3 Documentation

2.3.1 MRB Report Revisions Prior to Entry into Service

2.3.2 Latest version of MSG Analysis Procedure

2.4 Organization of Meetings

2.4.1 ISC & WG Meeting Reports

2.4.2 ISC & WG Action Item Lists

2.4.2 Acceptance & Timely Distribution of Reports and Lists

2.5 Meeting Reports

2.5.1 Standardization and Harmonization of Required Data for WG Meeting

Reports

2.5.2 Standardization and Harmonization of Required Data for ISC Meeting

Reports

2.6 Supplemental Presentations

Page 3
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 3
3. Systems and Powerplant Analysis Procedures

3.1 General

3.1.1 Handling and Tracking of Task Transfers to Zonal

3.1.2 Handling and Tracking of Task Transfers amongst Systems and Powerplant
WGs

3.2 Procedural Steps

3.2.1 Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) List (Appendix E)

3.2.2 Maintenance Significant Item Selection Form

3.2.3 The Systems Functional Description (SDF) Form

3.2.4 Component Supplier & Maintainability and Reliability Data (MDR) Form

3.2.5 Design Features

3.2.6 The Functional Failure Analysis (FFA) Form

3.2.7 The Failure Effect Questions (FEQ) Form

3.2.8 The Task Selection Questions (TSQ) Form

3.2.9 Task Summary

3.3 Analysis Forms

3.4 Responsibilities

3.4.1 OEM/TCH

3.4.2 Partners, Suppliers & Vendors

3.4.3 Working Groups

3.4.4 Industry Steering Committee

3.5 Analysis Guidelines

3.6 Lightning/HIRF Protection System Analysis Procedures

3.6.1 Introduction

3.6.2 Propose for Consideration of Process Revision

3.6.3 Proposal

Page 4
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 3
3.6.4 Revised Process Overview

3.6.5 Proposed Process

3.6.5.1 LHWG Process for Connector

3.6.5.2 LHWG Process for Connector Analysis -Fuselage

3.6.5.3 Maintenance Inspection of Wing Tanks

3.6.6 Lightning/ HIRF Forms

3.6.7 Preliminary Level A (Catastrophic) and B (Hazardous), C (Major) Items

3.7 Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs)

3.7.1 CMR Process

3.7.2 Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee (CMCC)

3.7.3 Documentation and Handling of CMRs

3.7.4 ISC & MRB CMR Policy and Procedures

4. Structural Analysis Procedures

4.1 General

4.2 Procedural Steps

4.3 Identification of Significant Structure Item (SSI) or Other Structural Selection

4.4 Environmental Deterioration

4.4.1 Timely Detection Matrix

4.4.2 Susceptibility Matrix

4.4.3 Ground Rules for EDR

4.4.4 Use of ED Analysis Process

4.4.5 Galvanic Corrosion Procedures & Charts

4.4.6 Corrosion Protection and Control Program

4.5 Accidental Damage Analysis Process

4.5.1 Timely Detection Matrix

Page 5
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 3
4.5.2 Susceptibility and Residual Strength Matrix

4.5.3 Ground Rules for ADR

4.5.4 Use of AD Analysis Process

4.6 Fatigue Damage Analysis Process

4.6.1 Type Certification Interface

4.6.1.1 Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALI)

4.6.2 Crack Growth Rate

4.6.3 Residual Strength

4.6.4 Crack Delectability

4.6.5 FD Inspection Threshold

4.6.6 Feasibility of an FD Sampling Program

4.6.7 Selecting Inspection Intervals for FD

4.7 Composite Structure (Nonmetallic)

4.7.1 Nonmetallic Materials

4.7.2 Structural Composition

4.7.3 Accidental Damage

4.7.4 Environmental Deterioration

4.7.5 Fatigue Damage

4.7.6 Analysis Forms (nonmetallic)—Refer to section 4-9 for all forms

4.8 Program Implementation Guidelines

4.9 Analysis Forms

4.9.1 Structure Rating Form

4.10 Responsibilities

4.11 Analysis Considerations

4.12 Glossary

Page 6
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 3
5. Zonal Analysis Procedures

5.1 General

5.2 Zonal Analysis Procedures – General

5.3 Zonal Analysis General Rules

5.3.1 Enhanced Zonal Analysis Ground Rules (EWIS/EZAP)

5.4 Responsibilities

5.4.1 Handling and Tracking of Task Transfers to Zonal

5.4.2 Handling and Tracking of Tasks Rejected by Zonal

5.5 Flow Diagram and Procedural Steps

5.6 Analysis Forms

5.6.1 Form—Title Page and Zonal Task Summary

5.6.2 Form—Transferred MSIs and SSIs

5.6.3 Form—Zone Contents

5.6.4 Form—Panel Access

5.6.5 Form—Zonal Tasks

5.6.6 Form—Zonal Analysis

5.6.7 Form—Enhanced Zonal Analysis

5.6.8 Form—Zonal Task Consolidation

5.7 Zone Diagrams

5.7.1 Aircraft Zones

6. Operator Purchased Standard Options

6.1 General

6.2 List of Items

7. Training

7.1 Policy and Procedures Training

Page 7
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 3
7.2 MSG Analysis Training

7.3 Airplane General Familiarization Training

7.4 (Aircraft Model) Airplane Detailed Training

8. Maintenance Review Board Report-Procedures and Format

8.1 Purpose

8.2 Maintenance Review Board Report Proposal (MRBRP)

8.2.1 Development of MRBRP Concurrent to MSG Process

8.2.2 Contents

8.3 MRB Report

8.3.1 Contents

8.3.2 Multiple Primary Critical Systems

8.3.3 Approval Process

8.4 MRB Item Numbering Scheme Ground Rules

8.4.1 MRB Item Numbering Scheme for Systems, Structures & Zonal Tasks

8.4.1.1 MRB Policy & Rules for Systems/Powerplant Requirements

8.4.1.2 MRB Policy & Rules for Structures Requirements

8.4.1.3 MRB Policy & Rules for Zonal Requirements

Appendix A ATA latest version of MSG Document (Currently applied revision)

Appendix B PPH Acronyms & Abbreviations

Appendix C ISC, MRB and Working Groups

Appendix D (Aircraft Model) Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)

Appendix E Maintenance Significant Items (MSI) and Analysis List Items

Appendix F Structural Significant Item (SSI) List or Applicable Document

Appendix G SFAR 88 Fuel Tank Safety Guidelines

Appendix H Glossary and Definitions

Page 8
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 3
Appendix I Advisory Circulars & Regulatory Documents

Appendix J Policy Letters and Issue Papers

Appendix K Temporary Revision Process

Appendix L IP 44 MRB Optimization Process

References

Active Page Record

Revision Record

Page 9
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 4
APPENDIX 4. RELEVANT FLOWCHARTS AND LETTERS

FIGURE 1. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SELECTION

FLOWCHART

Page 1
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 4
FIGURE 2. OEM/TCH REQUEST FOR AN MRB

Page 2
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 4
FIGURE 3. INVITE LETTER TO WG MEMBERS/ADVISORS

Page 3
AC 121-22B 10/29/10
Appendix 4
FIGURE 4. REGULATORY LETTER OF PARTICIPATION

Page 4
10/29/10 AC 121-22B
Appendix 4
FIGURE 5. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION TEMPLATE

NOTE: The following is a template of a letter to send to “guest National

Aviation Authority (NAA)” chairperson. Copy the ISC chairperson, and
TCH.

IP 83/IMRBPB AI N°05/07

Dear NAA Chairperson:

Per (Host NAA guidance), I would like to offer this letter of confirmation regarding the
(TCH aircraft type) aircraft, MRBR revision xx.

As the host country for the (TCH aircraft Type) aircraft we (Host NAA) would like to define our
requirements in accordance with our guidelines, and per the process agreed in the IMRBPB
IP 83, for guest signatories’ regulatory authorities. This letter will serve as the confirmation letter
outlining our working relationship with your NAA. The guest signatory’s regulatory authorities
will perform the following functions regarding the (TCH aircraft Type) Aircraft MRB activities:

1. Participate in the development and acceptance of the PPH. Any NAA regulatory differences
will be defined in an appendix to the PPH.

2. (Guest NAA] will coordinate all requested PPH changes through the (Host NAA) MRB
chairperson.

3. Participate in the MRB WG activities; inform the (Host NAA) work group advisor of any
national regulatory or technical differences. The (Host NAA) advisor will ask for regulatory
concurrence. Any non-concurrence will be documented in the meeting minutes. In addition, any
regulatory differences between the host country and signatory authorities at the completion of the
MSG-3 process would be documented in a separate MRBR appendix.

4. The (Host NAA) advisor will ensure the conversation or debate over an issue ends in a timely
fashion to ensure the completion of WG activities in the allotted time.

5. Attend ISC meetings by invitation from the ISC chairperson released through TCH in
coordination with of the (Host NAA) MRB chairperson.

6. Notify the ISC chairperson, via the (host) MRB chairperson of any national regulatory
differences before compiling the MRBR proposal.

The final responsibility of the (Guest NAA) will be to coordinate with the (Host NAA), the
(Guest NAA) MRBR approval and appendixes, if applicable.

Sincerely,

Host NAA

Page 5