# 71 FR 58914: Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-8281

## Section

- **Citation:** 71 FR 58914
- **Heading:** Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 71 / 71 FR 58914

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, and 45 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Notice No. 06-15] RIN 2120-AI78 Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:
The FAA is proposing changes to its certification procedures and identification requirements for aeronautical products and parts. The proposed changes address standardizing requirements for production approval holders; requiring production approval holders to issue airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and other aviation parts; requiring manufacturers to mark all parts and components; and revising export airworthiness approval requirements to facilitate global manufacturing. The intent of these proposed changes is to promote safety by ensuring that aircraft, and parts designed specifically for use in aircraft, wherever manufactured, meet applicable standards. This action is also necessary to update our regulations to reflect the current global aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturing environment.

DATES:
Send your comments on or before January 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-25877 using any of the following methods:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays
ng your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Capron, Production Certification Branch, AIR-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Comments Invited II. Availability of Rulemaking Documents III. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information IV. Guide to Terms and Acronyms Used in This Document V. Authority for This Rulemaking VI. Background VII. General Discussion of the Proposal VIII. Subpart-By-Subpart Summary of the Proposal IX. Description of Specific Changes X. Proposed Effective Date for Changes XI. Derivation and Distribution Tables XII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses I. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views
Rulemaking VI. Background VII. General Discussion of the Proposal VIII. Subpart-By-Subpart Summary of the Proposal IX. Description of Specific Changes X. Proposed Effective Date for Changes XI. Derivation and Distribution Tables XII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses I. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments related to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send two copies of written comments.
We will file, in the docket, all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, and so on.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477-78, April 11, 2000) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .
Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments received
lete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477-78, April 11, 2000) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .
Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments received.
If you mail your comments and want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
Readers should note that the FAA has posted on its Web site ( http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/ ) four draft Advisory Circulars (ACs). These ACs describe ways to comply with the requirements of this NPRM. We invite you to send comments on the draft ACs to reach us by the date specified in the DATES section of this NPRM. Send your comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM. Note that the docket for AC comments (FAA-2006-25882) is different from the docket for NPRM comments.
II. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search );
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm ; or
mments (FAA-2006-25882) is different from the docket for NPRM comments.
II. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search );
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm ; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html .
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.
III. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
IV
a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
IV. Guide to Terms and Acronyms Used in This Document
APIS—Approved Production Inspection System ARAC—Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee BAA—Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement BASA—Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency FAA—Federal Aviation Administration FR— Federal Register ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organization NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PAH—Production Approval Holder PC—Production Certificate PMA—Parts Manufacturer Approval STC—Supplemental Type Certificate TC—Type Certificate TSO—Technical Standard Order V. Authority for This Rulemaking
Under the laws of the United States, the Department of Transportation has the responsibility to develop transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation (49 U.S.C. 101). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA or “we”) is an agency of the Department. The FAA has general authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum standards for appliances and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers (49 U.S.C. 106(g) and 44701). We may also prescribe regulations in the interest of safety for registering and identifying an aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance (49 U.S.C. 44104).
The FAA may issue, among other things, type certificates, production certificates and airworthiness certificates (49 U.S.C. 44702)
on, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers (49 U.S.C. 106(g) and 44701). We may also prescribe regulations in the interest of safety for registering and identifying an aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance (49 U.S.C. 44104).
The FAA may issue, among other things, type certificates, production certificates and airworthiness certificates (49 U.S.C. 44702). We issue a production certificate authorizing the production of a duplicate of an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance for which a type certificate has been issued when we find the duplicate will conform to the certificate. We may include in a production certificate terms required in the interest of safety. We issue an airworthiness certificate for an aircraft when we find the aircraft conforms to its type certificate and is in condition for safe operation. We may include in an airworthiness certificate terms required in the interest of safety (49 U.S.C. 44704).
In this document, we are proposing changes to our regulations governing the certification procedures for products and parts and our requirements for identification and registration marking. These changes will improve the quality standards applicable to manufacturers, which helps ensure that aircraft and aircraft parts are produced as designed and are safe to operate. These changes will also make it easier for manufacturers to produce and obtain aircraft parts in the global marketplace, which should aid the efficiency and competitiveness of the industry. We are also proposing to upgrade and standardize our requirements for marking parts intended for use in aviation. These changes will make it easier to determine whether the correct parts are installed, which should contribute to a greater degree of safety. For these reasons, this proposal, if adopted, would be a reasonable and necessary exercise of the FAA's rulemaking authority and obligations.
VI
are also proposing to upgrade and standardize our requirements for marking parts intended for use in aviation. These changes will make it easier to determine whether the correct parts are installed, which should contribute to a greater degree of safety. For these reasons, this proposal, if adopted, would be a reasonable and necessary exercise of the FAA's rulemaking authority and obligations.
VI. Background
Although 14 CFR part 21 has been amended approximately eighty times since it was codified in 1964, the current requirements of part 21 largely reflect their original form. The origins of many of these regulations can be traced back even further to the Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937. In contrast, the following table summarizes how the aircraft-manufacturing environment has changed significantly over the last several decades:
In the 1960's— Today— Most transport category aircraft were manufactured in the U.S. Transport category aircraft are manufactured in a global environment. The typical business model consisted of a production certificate holder with a relatively small number of suppliers. The number of suppliers has increased dramatically. These suppliers manufacture a greater percentage of a given aircraft These suppliers were mainly located in the U.S. Suppliers are located all over the world. Forming partnerships and risk sharing agreements are common approaches to lowering costs, sharing risks, and opening markets. Manufacturers collaborate globally to reduce duplicate requirements for shared suppliers. Production certificate holders oversaw the manufacture of replacement parts The production of replacement parts under parts manufacturer approvals has increased dramatically. The international market for aviation products was relatively small The international market for aviation products has increased dramatically. The U.S. had few bilateral agreements with other countries for the export and import of aviation products. These agreements were limited in scope The U.S
arts The production of replacement parts under parts manufacturer approvals has increased dramatically. The international market for aviation products was relatively small The international market for aviation products has increased dramatically. The U.S. had few bilateral agreements with other countries for the export and import of aviation products. These agreements were limited in scope The U.S. has approximately 30 bilateral agreements with other countries. These agreements have, in comparison, a much broader scope. In recognition of the need to respond to these changes, the FAA gave the Parts Working Group and the Product Certification Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee the task of recommending changes to 14 CFR parts 21 and 45 on March 19, 1993 (58 FR 16572, 16574). The working groups made their recommendations on November 6, 1998. Major concepts proposed by the
• Adding a new class of parts called “commercial parts;
• Expanding the definition of “standard parts;''
• Requiring a completed airworthiness approval for each new aircraft engine, propeller, part, appliance, or article;
• Giving production approval holders responsibility for issuing the airworthiness approval;
• Enhancing and standardizing quality system requirements for all production approval holders (PAHs) to reflect industry best practices; and
• Requiring components of products, parts, appliances, and their components to be marked.
This NPRM also addresses issues that were not among the working groups' recommendations.
VII. General Discussion of the Proposal
Although part 21 has, so far, provided effective certification procedures for products and parts to help foster aviation safety, it does not adequately reflect changes in the global aircraft manufacturing environment
, appliances, and their components to be marked.
This NPRM also addresses issues that were not among the working groups' recommendations.
VII. General Discussion of the Proposal
Although part 21 has, so far, provided effective certification procedures for products and parts to help foster aviation safety, it does not adequately reflect changes in the global aircraft manufacturing environment. Accordingly, the changes we are proposing would update and standardize requirements related to production approvals; promote a safer aviation industry; reflect the global nature of manufacturing; and reflect the global acceptance of products and parts under bilateral agreements between the United States and other countries or jurisdictions.
Standardization
Part 21 includes procedural rules related to three kinds of production approvals:
• Production Certificates (PC) in subpart G.
• Parts Manufacturer Approvals (PMA) in subpart K.
• Technical Standard Order (TSO) authorizations in subpart O.
The rules pertaining to each of these production approvals are different. For example, subparts G and O require each applicant for a PC and TSO authorization respectively to establish a quality system. The applicants must also provide, for FAA approval, data describing the inspection and test procedures necessary to ensure that each article produced conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. Applicants have typically met this requirement by providing the necessary information in the form of a manual. In contrast, subpart K requires each PMA applicant to provide a statement certifying that the applicant has established the fabrication and inspection system that meets the requirements of the subpart. Subpart K does not require a quality manual or any other documentation of the fabrication and inspection system. These differences can be confusing. They also support an industry perception that the quality of products or articles produced under different types of production approvals is different
ant has established the fabrication and inspection system that meets the requirements of the subpart. Subpart K does not require a quality manual or any other documentation of the fabrication and inspection system. These differences can be confusing. They also support an industry perception that the quality of products or articles produced under different types of production approvals is different. This proposal would revise subparts G, K, and O to harmonize requirements for production approval holders. It would also keep industry from having to maintain, and the FAA from having to oversee, multiple systems and procedures caused by these regulatory differences.
Production Approval Holder's Organization
This proposal would require each applicant for, or holder of, a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to provide the FAA with a description of the applicant's management organization and how that organization would ensure compliance with the provisions of subpart G, K, or O, respectively. At a minimum, the description would include assigned responsibilities and delegated authority, and the functional relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other organizational components. This requirement already applies to PC holders under existing § 21.143(a)(1), but the proposal would extend it to PMA and TSO authorization holders also. Refer to proposed §§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605.
The FAA understands the need for various business models and organizational structures and, therefore, would not mandate a particular structure to address quality system requirements. The intent of this requirement is for the top management of the production approval holder to establish and continually improve a quality system that ensures each product and article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation.
A quality system is widely recognized as necessary for continual improvement in manufacturing
ructure to address quality system requirements. The intent of this requirement is for the top management of the production approval holder to establish and continually improve a quality system that ensures each product and article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation.
A quality system is widely recognized as necessary for continual improvement in manufacturing. This recognition is reflected in industry best practices and the global trend toward implementing the following international quality standards:
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001, “Quality Management Systems—Requirements;” and
• Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., International AS9100, “Quality Systems—Aerospace—Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing.”
The FAA believes adhering to these standards will enable the PAH to meet its responsibilities under proposed part 21. The intent of this proposal is also to ensure that—
• These international quality standards are communicated to PC, PMA, and TSO authorization holders;
• Responsibility, authority, and interrelation of personnel who manage, perform, and verify work affecting quality are commensurate with these commitments and are clearly defined and communicated within the organization; and
• Decisions with regard to quality and airworthiness are not unduly influenced by other considerations (for example, cost and schedule); and that the quality system is free to comply with applicable regulations and the FAA approved quality manual.
If this proposal is adopted, the FAA will develop guidance material on these issues.
Production Approval Holder's Quality System
Currently, the quality system requirements for holders of PMAs are different from quality system requirements for holders of PCs and TSO authorizations. This proposal would standardize the quality system requirements for all PAHs
nd the FAA approved quality manual.
If this proposal is adopted, the FAA will develop guidance material on these issues.
Production Approval Holder's Quality System
Currently, the quality system requirements for holders of PMAs are different from quality system requirements for holders of PCs and TSO authorizations. This proposal would standardize the quality system requirements for all PAHs. This proposal would also enhance and modernize quality system requirements to reflect the industry best practices and the global trend toward implementing the international quality standards listed above.
A quality system consists of the organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes, and resources for ensuring the overall quality of products through the actions of management and individuals. A quality system incorporates quality assurance and quality control, both of which support the quality system. Quality assurance refers to planned or systematic actions necessary to provide confidence that a product will satisfy given requirements for quality. Quality control refers to operational techniques and activities used to fulfill requirements for quality.
This proposal would require that the quality system include elements as defined in proposed § 21.137(a) through (o) of subpart G. These requirements would be incorporated by reference into subparts K and O (proposed §§ 21.307 and 21.607). The FAA would develop guidance materials, such as an Advisory Circular, to provide guidance to PAHs for showing compliance with these
Quality Manual
This proposal would require each applicant for a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to provide a quality manual describing its quality system to the FAA for approval
ld be incorporated by reference into subparts K and O (proposed §§ 21.307 and 21.607). The FAA would develop guidance materials, such as an Advisory Circular, to provide guidance to PAHs for showing compliance with these
Quality Manual
This proposal would require each applicant for a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to provide a quality manual describing its quality system to the FAA for approval. Currently, subparts G and O require each applicant for a PC or TSO authorization to establish a quality system and provide for FAA approval data describing the inspection and test procedures necessary to ensure that each article produced conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. Applicants have typically met this requirement by providing the necessary information in the form of a manual. Subpart K, however, does not explicitly require documentation of the PMA holder's fabrication and inspection system in the form of a manual. Just as other proposals in this NPRM would standardize quality system requirements for all PAHs, the intent of this proposal is also to standardize the requirements for documenting the quality system in a quality manual. The quality manual must address each of the requirements related to the quality system in subparts G, K, or O for an applicant for a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization. The quality manual must also address revisions to the manual, and a means of tracking revisions to the manual, that is acceptable to the FAA. In addition, this proposal would require the quality manual to be in the English language and retrievable in a form acceptable to the FAA. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that regardless of the media used, the quality manual is easily available to PAH and FAA personnel who need to use this documentation for performing their duties. The quality manual may be in a digital, computer-based medium
on of the manufacturing facility is changed. The holder of a PMA only needs to notify the FAA of a change in location of its manufacturing facilities. Subpart O is silent regarding a change in the location of manufacturing facilities for the holder of a TSO authorization.
The intent of this proposal is to standardize the requirements applicable to changes in manufacturing facilities for all PAHs. A change in a manufacturing facility would use an approval process instead of a certificate termination and re-application process under the current requirements of §§ 21.159 and 21.143. This approval process would enhance safety by ensuring an appropriate level of FAA oversight of changes to manufacturing facilities of all PAHs. This requirement does not apply to suppliers. The FAA approves the supplier control procedures a PAH would use in selecting and controlling its suppliers. A change in the supply base would not require FAA approval.
Inspections and Tests
This proposal would standardize the language of current §§ 21.157, 21.303(e) introductory text, and 21.615 pertaining to inspections and tests for an applicant for, or a holder of, a PC, PMA, and TSO authorization. In addition, the proposal would amend these requirements to clarify that they apply to supplier facilities. The intent of this proposal is to ensure the FAA has the requisite access to facilities and cooperation of the manufacturer to administer applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter.
Issuance of a Production Approval
This proposal would standardize the language of current requirements pertaining to the issuance of a PC, PMA, and TSO authorization in §§ 21.135, 21.303(d), and 21.605(c). In addition, this proposal would remove the detailed description of FAA responsibilities related to issuance. This information is better placed in internal directives
C. and this subchapter.
Issuance of a Production Approval
This proposal would standardize the language of current requirements pertaining to the issuance of a PC, PMA, and TSO authorization in §§ 21.135, 21.303(d), and 21.605(c). In addition, this proposal would remove the detailed description of FAA responsibilities related to issuance. This information is better placed in internal directives.
Transferability of a Production Approval
This proposal would standardize the language and format of requirements pertaining to transferability of a PC, PMA, and TSO authorization currently in §§ 21.155, 21.303(i), and 21.621. This change would make the language of subparts G, K, and O consistent.
Responsibility of Production Approval Holder
This proposal would establish requirements for the holder of a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (g) of §§ 21.146, 21.316, and 21.616. All holders of a production approval would have the same responsibilities under this part.
Changes in Quality System
Currently, § 21.147 requires the holder of a PC to notify the FAA of any change that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of the product. This proposal would include “articles” as well as products in the requirement. As discussed later in this preamble, the proposal would define “article” as “material, part, component, process, or appliance.” We are also proposing to add this expanded notification requirement to subparts K and O, which are applicable to holders of PMA and TSO authorizations respectively. The intent of this proposal is to standardize requirements for all PAHs.
Export Airworthiness Approvals
Subpart L contains regulations that apply to the export of a product or article. It is important to note that even though an export airworthiness approval is required only when requested by an importing authority, such documents have become increasingly valued within the aviation industry
y. The intent of this proposal is to standardize requirements for all PAHs.
Export Airworthiness Approvals
Subpart L contains regulations that apply to the export of a product or article. It is important to note that even though an export airworthiness approval is required only when requested by an importing authority, such documents have become increasingly valued within the aviation industry. The primary purpose of an export airworthiness approval is to notify the importing authority, and ultimately the end-user, of the airworthiness status ( i.e. , conformity of design requirements and condition for safe operation) of the subject product or article.
Such airworthiness notifications serve the needs of both the civil airworthiness authority approving the product or article for import, and the end-user who intends to place it into operation. Products and articles having original airworthiness approvals upon export, even though not specifically required by the importing civil airworthiness authority, have increased sales potential when destined for use outside the U.S.
This proposal would revise this subpart to:
• Relieve U.S. manufacturers and exporters of burdens presently associated with obtaining export airworthiness approvals by:
• Permitting production approval holders, under privileges extended through their approved quality system(s), to issue export airworthiness approvals for the aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and parts they manufacture (this is presently only accomplished by individual or organizational designees of the FAA);
• Permitting production approval holders to issue export approvals for products and articles they manufacture regardless of their location (this is presently limited to products and articles located in the United States only); and
• Removing the requirement, unless specifically mandated by an importing civil airworthiness authority, that used aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and parts be newly overhauled before their export;
• Relegate the deta
ovals for products and articles they manufacture regardless of their location (this is presently limited to products and articles located in the United States only); and
• Removing the requirement, unless specifically mandated by an importing civil airworthiness authority, that used aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and parts be newly overhauled before their export;
• Relegate the detailed procedures pertaining to the export process presently contained in the regulation to FAA policy/directives; and
• Implement a definition of “product” which would be consistent with the terminology in the rest of Part 21 and with Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness.
Part Marking
The regulations currently require marking of aircraft, aircraft engines and propellers, critical and life-limited parts, PMA parts, and TSO articles. The regulations do not currently require that individual components or spare components of the above items be individually marked, although most manufacturers do so for their own quality assurance and traceability purposes. Under this proposal, manufacturers would have to mark each component of an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller; each part and each component of that part; and each appliance and each component of that appliance.
The lack of marking requirements down to the component level has sometimes hindered field identification when articles must be replaced, serviced, or removed from service, and during accident investigations. This proposal would also standardize minimum part-marking requirements to include an identification of the person who produced the part and a part number. In addition, TSO articles would still have to be marked with the markings required by the applicable TSO
metimes hindered field identification when articles must be replaced, serviced, or removed from service, and during accident investigations. This proposal would also standardize minimum part-marking requirements to include an identification of the person who produced the part and a part number. In addition, TSO articles would still have to be marked with the markings required by the applicable TSO. The intent of these proposals is to reduce the potential for installing unapproved parts on FAA type-certificated products, facilitate airworthiness determinations, standardize part-marking requirements, facilitate the international delivery of parts, and provide information to accident investigators that may help prevent future accidents. This change would also simplify the regulations by consolidating all detailed marking requirements in part 45.
VIII. Subpart-by-Subpart Summary of the Proposal
The following table summarizes the major proposals included in this NPRM:
This NPRM proposes to amend 14 CFR— To— Part 1 Expand the definition of “Approved.” Part 21 Subpart A—General Add definitions of the following terms: “airworthiness approval,” “article,” “commercial part,” “design approval,” “production approval,” “standard part,” “State of Design,” and “State of Manufacture.” Amend § 21.3(f) to require all PAHs, instead of just TSO authorization holders, to report the results of their investigations into certain accidents or service difficulty reports. Part 21 Subpart B—Type Certificates Require an applicant for a TC or STC to provide a statement certifying the applicant has shown compliance with applicable requirements. Amend requirements related to domestic and international transfers of TCs. Part 21 Subpart D—Changes to Type Certificates Require an applicant for a major change in type design to provide a statement certifying the applicant has shown compliance with applicable requirements
applicant for a TC or STC to provide a statement certifying the applicant has shown compliance with applicable requirements. Amend requirements related to domestic and international transfers of TCs. Part 21 Subpart D—Changes to Type Certificates Require an applicant for a major change in type design to provide a statement certifying the applicant has shown compliance with applicable requirements. Part 21 Subpart F—Production under Type Certificate Require a person producing under a TC to obtain an airworthiness approval (FAA Form 8130-3), issued by the FAA or its designee, for each engine, propeller, and article produced under that TC. Delete reference to an approved production inspection system (APIS). A person who is producing under a TC would be required to obtain a PC in accordance with subpart G within 6 months of the date the TC was issued or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. Part 21 Subpart G—Production Certificates Enhance quality system requirements to reflect current industry standards and best practices. Require that an airworthiness approval (FAA Form 8130-3) be issued by the PAH for each engine, propeller, or article manufactured under this subpart. Part 21 Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates Allow for issuing an airworthiness certificate for an aircraft imported to the U.S. via an export certificate of airworthiness if— • Type certificated in accordance with §§ 21.21, 21.25, or 21.29; and • Produced under the authority of another State of Manufacture. Allow FAA to accept performance standards equivalent to the 100-hour inspection requirement and expand provisions governing who may perform these inspections. Part 21 Subpart K—Parts Manufacturer Approvals Revise subpart K, using proposed subpart G as a model, to reduce the scope of subpart K to PMAs only: Move §§ 21.303(a) and (b) (Replacement and modification parts) to part 21 subpart A and amend these sections to— Add “commercial parts” as acceptable replacement and modification parts
and expand provisions governing who may perform these inspections. Part 21 Subpart K—Parts Manufacturer Approvals Revise subpart K, using proposed subpart G as a model, to reduce the scope of subpart K to PMAs only: Move §§ 21.303(a) and (b) (Replacement and modification parts) to part 21 subpart A and amend these sections to— Add “commercial parts” as acceptable replacement and modification parts. Prohibit a person who produces a replacement or modification part for sale from representing that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated product unless that part is a commercial part, a standard part, or produced under part 21 subpart F, G, K, or O. Move § 21.305 (Approval of materials, parts, processes, and TSO articles) to part 21 subpart A. Impose the same quality system and quality manual requirements as for PCs. Require that an airworthiness approval (FAA Form 8130-3) be issued by the PAH for each part manufactured under this subpart. Add a statement of compliance requirement for PMA applicants. Part 21 Subpart L—Export Airworthiness Approvals Completely revise subpart L to facilitate global acceptance and movement of products and articles and remove prescriptive language. Delete definitions and use of the terms, “Class I,” “Class II,” and “Class III” products. Remove § 21.323(b) restrictions related to who may obtain an export airworthiness approval for Class III products. Remove § 21.325(b)(3) requirement that Class II and III products be located in the U.S. Limit the use of an Export Certificate of Airworthiness (FAA Form 8130-4) to aircraft. Part 21 Subpart N—Acceptance of Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and Articles for Import Correct subpart N and its title to replace “approval” with “acceptance.” Design approvals are not issued under part 21 subpart N. Mark each article in accordance with part 45. Part 21 Subpart O—Technical Standard Order Approvals Rewrite subpart O using proposed subpart G as a model. Impose the same quality system and quality manual requirements as for PCs
gines, Propellers, and Articles for Import Correct subpart N and its title to replace “approval” with “acceptance.” Design approvals are not issued under part 21 subpart N. Mark each article in accordance with part 45. Part 21 Subpart O—Technical Standard Order Approvals Rewrite subpart O using proposed subpart G as a model. Impose the same quality system and quality manual requirements as for PCs. Require an airworthiness approval (FAA Form 8130-3) be issued by the PAH for each article manufactured under this subpart. Part 45 Subpart B—Identification of Products, Parts, Appliances, and TSO Articles Add requirements governing who must mark products, parts, appliances, and TSO articles. Add exceptions for the aircraft identification plate location requirement for aircraft operated under part 121, commuter aircraft, and for gliders. Consolidate part-marking requirements to part 45. Require identification of the manufacturer and part number for each component of each product, part, appliance, and TSO article manufactured by a PAH. Delete “FAA-PMA” and “installation eligibility” requirements for PMA parts. In addition to the substantive changes discussed in detail below, we are also proposing editorial changes to the language of parts 21 and 45 for the purposes of clarity and consistency. These editorial changes include updating the terminology used in cross referencing other regulations, using consistent terms to describe duties and obligations, and eliminating gender bias. This proposal includes a reorganization of portions of parts 21 and 45, including changes to several section headings. For further details, refer to the derivation and distribution tables provided later in this preamble.
IX. Description of Specific Changes
14 CFR Part 1—Definitions and Abbreviations
Section 1.1 General Definitions
This proposal would expand the definition of “Approved” to include approvals under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between the United States and a foreign country or jurisdiction
her details, refer to the derivation and distribution tables provided later in this preamble.
IX. Description of Specific Changes
14 CFR Part 1—Definitions and Abbreviations
Section 1.1 General Definitions
This proposal would expand the definition of “Approved” to include approvals under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between the United States and a foreign country or jurisdiction. For decades, the United States has had BAAs, and, more recently, BASA Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness with other countries. Before making these agreements, the FAA thoroughly reviews the certification and production systems of the foreign country or jurisdiction, including its processes and regulations. The FAA does not sign an agreement unless the FAA has confidence in the system of that country or jurisdiction for certifying aviation products and overseeing the design organizations and manufacturers under their authority. These agreements are intended to eliminate redundant processes and allow the FAA to treat data approved by that country or jurisdiction as data approved by the FAA. Accordingly, the intent of this proposal is to clarify that data approved by a foreign country or jurisdiction under a bilateral agreement does not require further FAA approval. Furthermore, the intent of “jurisdiction” is to provide similar clarification for agreements with entities, such as the European Union (EU), that are not countries.
Section 1.2 Abbreviations and Symbols
This proposal would add the following definitions of abbreviations:
• PMA means parts manufacturer approval.
• TSO means technical standard order.
The intent of this proposal is to adopt long-standing and widely used acronyms to simplify and clarify the language of the regulations
ith entities, such as the European Union (EU), that are not countries.
Section 1.2 Abbreviations and Symbols
This proposal would add the following definitions of abbreviations:
• PMA means parts manufacturer approval.
• TSO means technical standard order.
The intent of this proposal is to adopt long-standing and widely used acronyms to simplify and clarify the language of the regulations.
14 CFR Part 21—Certification Procedures for Products and Parts
Subpart A—General
Section 21.1 Applicability and Definitions
This proposal would revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section to provide a complete list of the types of approvals that part 21 addresses—Design approvals, Production approvals, Airworthiness certificates, and Airworthiness approvals. The only production approval listed in the current paragraph is the PC. Definitions for the three “approvals” would be added to paragraph (b) of this section.
This proposal would revise paragraph (a)(2) of this section to clarify that part 21 contains rules that apply to both applicants for and holders of any approval or certificate specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
This proposal would define “airworthiness approval” in paragraph (b)(1) as an export certificate of airworthiness issued for an aircraft; or a document issued for an aircraft engine, propeller or article certifying that the aircraft engine, propeller, or article meets its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. An export certificate of airworthiness is currently issued and would continue to be issued using FAA Form 8130-4 to certify that an aircraft to be exported conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. FAA Form 8130-3 would be used to certify that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. FAA Form 8130-3 would be used domestically as regulated by subparts F, G, K, and O
ontinue to be issued using FAA Form 8130-4 to certify that an aircraft to be exported conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. FAA Form 8130-3 would be used to certify that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. FAA Form 8130-3 would be used domestically as regulated by subparts F, G, K, and O. In addition, FAA Form 8130-3 would be used for export of an aircraft engine, propeller, or article as regulated by subpart L. The intent of this proposal is to provide a simpler way to refer to these types of approvals.
This proposal would define “article” in paragraph (b)(2) as a “material, part, component, process, or appliance” to simplify the regulatory language. This proposal would add a new classification of parts, called “commercial parts,” defined in paragraph (b)(3) as a part that the FAA design approval holder designates a commercial part. The FAA must find the part is not specifically designed or produced for applications
For years, industry has used the term, “commercial parts,” in referring to parts that are not designed or manufactured specifically for aviation use such as light bulbs, fire axes, smoke detectors, and so on. Whereas a standard part specification is developed by a consensus standards organization and is publicly available, the design for a commercial part is developed privately.
The FAA recognizes that it is unrealistic to expect manufacturers making thousands of non-aviation parts per day and relatively few aviation parts to obtain a PMA. Enforcement of PMA violations is difficult because the FAA has often been unable to show that these manufacturers are producing with the intent to sell their parts for installation on a type-certificated product. The intent of this proposal is to create a replacement parts classification for commercial parts, allowing an operator to install commercial parts on a type-certificated product without having to obtain parts manufactured under a PMA
ause the FAA has often been unable to show that these manufacturers are producing with the intent to sell their parts for installation on a type-certificated product. The intent of this proposal is to create a replacement parts classification for commercial parts, allowing an operator to install commercial parts on a type-certificated product without having to obtain parts manufactured under a PMA. This proposal will also allow manufactures to continue to use parts now categorized as commercial parts in their type designs. The added benefit of the proposal is to now have the manufacturers specifically identify for FAA approval the commercial parts they intend to use.
This proposal would define “design approval” in paragraph (b)(4) as a type certificate (including amended and supplemental type certificates) or the approved design under a PMA, TSO authorization, letter of TSO design approval, or other approved design. The intent of this proposal is to provide a convenient way to refer to all types of design approvals. This definition, in conjunction with the definition for “production approval,” helps to clarify that PMA and TSO authorizations are dual approvals consisting of both a design approval and a production approval. In addition, “other approved design” is intended to include approvals that meet the proposed definition of “approved” in 14 CFR part 1.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would delete the special definition of “product” for subpart L. This revised definition eliminates the need for defining “classes” of products in subpart L. The intent of this proposal is to allow use of the term “product” consistently throughout part 21 and to harmonize with the use of this term in Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Annex Part 21 of European Union regulations
inition of “product” for subpart L. This revised definition eliminates the need for defining “classes” of products in subpart L. The intent of this proposal is to allow use of the term “product” consistently throughout part 21 and to harmonize with the use of this term in Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Annex Part 21 of European Union regulations.
This proposal would define “production approval” in paragraph (b)(6) to mean a production certificate, an approval to produce an article under a TSO authorization, or an approval to produce a part or appliance under a PMA. The intent of this proposal is to provide a convenient way to refer to all types of production approvals. In addition, this definition, in conjunction with the definition of “design approval,” helps to clarify that a PMA and a TSO authorization are dual approvals consisting of both a design approval and a production approval.
Proposed paragraph (b)(7) would redesignate and expand the definition of “standard parts” in existing § 21.303(b)(4) to include parts conforming to a specification established by a foreign government agency or a consensus standards organization. In addition, this proposal would indicate that a “specification” may include design, manufacturing, test, and acceptance criteria, and uniform marking requirements; or performance criteria and uniform marking requirements that have been found by the FAA to be adequate for making a finding of airworthiness for that part. This reflects our current interpretation of the word “specification” (62 FR 9923, March 5, 1997).
Certain discrete (non-programmable) electrical and electronic parts meeting an accepted performance standard would be classified as standard parts. These parts conform not on the basis of their physical configuration, but by meeting the specified performance criteria
of airworthiness for that part. This reflects our current interpretation of the word “specification” (62 FR 9923, March 5, 1997).
Certain discrete (non-programmable) electrical and electronic parts meeting an accepted performance standard would be classified as standard parts. These parts conform not on the basis of their physical configuration, but by meeting the specified performance criteria.
This proposal would define “State of Design” in paragraph (b)(8) to mean the State having jurisdiction over the organization responsible for the type design or other approved design, including those entities who are not ICAO contracting States but who exercise authority over an organization responsible for the type design or other approved design. Examples of other approved designs include PMAs or TSO authorizations.
This proposal would also define “State of Manufacture” in paragraph (b)(9) to mean the State having jurisdiction over the organization responsible for the production, final assembly, and final determination of airworthiness of the product or article, including those entities who are not ICAO contracting States but who exercise authority over an organization responsible for the production, final assembly, and final determination of airworthiness of the product or article.
The intent of these proposals is to harmonize our regulations with ICAO standards and recommended practices. Therefore, we have incorporated modified versions of the definitions of “State of Design” and “State of Manufacture” from Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Ninth Ed., July 2001). We are proposing to modify these definitions to include those countries or organizations who are not ICAO members, but who exercise authority over organizations that are responsible for design and manufacturing approvals. This would allow the regulations to accommodate those entities, like EASA, who are not contracting “States” to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), 61 Stat. 1180
g to modify these definitions to include those countries or organizations who are not ICAO members, but who exercise authority over organizations that are responsible for design and manufacturing approvals. This would allow the regulations to accommodate those entities, like EASA, who are not contracting “States” to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), 61 Stat. 1180. For the purposes of this proposal, the word “State” does not refer to one of the United States, but to a country that is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and a member of ICAO.
Section 21.2 Falsification of Applications, Reports, or Records
This proposal would amend § 21.2(a)(1) and (2) to prohibit persons from making misleading statements on applications for certificates or approvals or in any record or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement of this part.
We are proposing this amendment because the installation of products or articles that are mistakenly believed to be airworthy or suitable for installation on type-certificated products poses an unacceptable risk to aviation safety. Under FAA regulations, the person installing a product or article on an aircraft is responsible for determining its airworthiness. Because these individuals cannot determine airworthiness simply by inspecting the item, they often rely on the information provided by whoever sold them the product or article to support their airworthiness decisions. There have been cases in which false or misleading statements have led persons installing aviation products or articles to believe that they were suitable for a particular use when, in fact, they were not.
Records containing misleading statements about the quality of aviation products or articles have a potentially large impact on the safety of the flying public. The existing rule only covers fraudulent and intentionally false statements
leading statements have led persons installing aviation products or articles to believe that they were suitable for a particular use when, in fact, they were not.
Records containing misleading statements about the quality of aviation products or articles have a potentially large impact on the safety of the flying public. The existing rule only covers fraudulent and intentionally false statements. The FAA has determined
This proposal would adopt the “misleading” standard set forth at 14 CFR 3.5(c) and discussed in the FAA final rule on False and Misleading Statements Regarding Aircraft Products, Parts, Appliances and Materials. (70 FR 54822, Sept. 16, 2005) For the purposes of this proposal, a misleading statement requires a material representation or omission that is likely to mislead the consumer, and the consumer acting with reasonable reliance under the circumstances. Misleading statements include misrepresentations as well as failures to disclose material information.
In determining whether the statement or omission is misleading, the FAA would examine the overall impression created by the representation before taking enforcement action. We would contact the person making the statement to discuss why the statement appears misleading and would consider that honest mistakes are made. However, if the statement is not corrected so as to remove its misleading character, or the mistake is one of a series of such mistakes, the FAA will presume knowledge on the part of the person sufficient to take enforcement action.
In addition, existing § 21.2(a)(2) currently refers to an—
Entry in any record or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or the exercise of the privileges of any certificate or approval issued under this part.
This proposal would change this to an—
Entry in any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement of this part
) currently refers to an—
Entry in any record or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or the exercise of the privileges of any certificate or approval issued under this part.
This proposal would change this to an—
Entry in any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement of this part.
The term record includes all forms of records, including paper, microfilm, identification plates, stamped marks on parts, bar codes, and electronic records. In general, part 21 does not require a particular type of records or reports to be kept, made, or used. Accordingly, industry uses various types of records and reports to show compliance with this part. This proposal would increase the scope of records and reports used to show compliance with any requirements “for the issuance and exercise of the privileges of any certificate or approval” to those records and reports used to show compliance with any part 21 requirement. These proposals are intended to strengthen the ability of the FAA to ensure that design, production, and airworthiness certifications and approvals are based on truthful and complete information.
Currently, § 21.2(b) addresses only suspension and revocation of existing certificates and approvals, and does not define consequences for prohibited actions that occur before a certificate or approval is issued. This proposal would expand the consequences of committing prohibited actions in paragraph (b) to include denying issuance of any certificate or approval under this part. This change is intended to clarify the FAA's right to deny issuance of certificates or approvals when the prohibited actions occur before the FAA issues the certificate or approval.
Section 21.3 Reporting of Failures, Malfunctions, and Defects
This proposal would amend § 21.3(d)(2) to clarify that approvals, not type certificates, are issued under proposed § 21.621
or approval under this part. This change is intended to clarify the FAA's right to deny issuance of certificates or approvals when the prohibited actions occur before the FAA issues the certificate or approval.
Section 21.3 Reporting of Failures, Malfunctions, and Defects
This proposal would amend § 21.3(d)(2) to clarify that approvals, not type certificates, are issued under proposed § 21.621.
This proposal would amend § 21.3(e)(3) to replace specific product and part identification requirements with a reference to part 45 where these part-marking requirements are defined. The intent of this proposal is to—
• Consolidate detailed part-marking requirements in part 45; and
• Expand reporting requirements to include all applicable product and part identification information required by part 45 to enhance the FAA's ability to respond to service difficulty reports.
Currently, § 21.3(f) requires only holders of TSO authorizations to report the results of their investigations and corresponding corrective actions. However, holders of TSO authorizations represent less than 20% of all PAHs. The current regulation inhibits the FAA's oversight of investigations and corrective actions for the great majority of the industry. This proposal would amend § 21.3(f) to expand this reporting requirement to apply to all PAHs. The intent of this change is to enhance the FAA's ability to respond to service difficulty reports for all products and articles manufactured under this part.
Section 21.7 Approval of Articles
This proposal would relocate current § 21.305 from subpart K to allow us to limit subpart K to PMA requirements only. It would also amend § 21.305(b) to remove the second and third sentences since these sentences are advisory in nature.
Section 21.9 Replacement and Modification Parts
This proposal would relocate existing § 21.303(a) and (b) from subpart K and combine them into one paragraph as § 21.9(a)
sal would relocate current § 21.305 from subpart K to allow us to limit subpart K to PMA requirements only. It would also amend § 21.305(b) to remove the second and third sentences since these sentences are advisory in nature.
Section 21.9 Replacement and Modification Parts
This proposal would relocate existing § 21.303(a) and (b) from subpart K and combine them into one paragraph as § 21.9(a). The intent of this proposal is to apply these requirements to all production approval holders and to limit subpart K to PMA requirements only.
Proposed § 21.9(a)(4) would allow manufacturers to produce “commercial parts,” as defined in proposed § 21.1(b), for use in aviation without PMA. To use a “commercial part” in the design of a product or part, a design approval holder would provide a list of proposed commercial parts to the appropriate FAA aircraft certification office (ACO) for approval. The design approval holder would identify the application or use of the commercial part and verify that the failure of the part would not degrade the safety of the product. A design approval holder would be responsible for preparing separate lists, for each product or article it manufactures, identifying all commercial parts by part number and nomenclature. The design approval holder would also be responsible for including the list of approved commercial parts, and any approved replacements for those commercial parts, in the manufacturer's maintenance instructions or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
ible for preparing separate lists, for each product or article it manufactures, identifying all commercial parts by part number and nomenclature. The design approval holder would also be responsible for including the list of approved commercial parts, and any approved replacements for those commercial parts, in the manufacturer's maintenance instructions or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. In addition, a design approval holder who would designate commercial parts would have to establish a system that—
• Provides for the review of the intended use and failure consequences of the commercial part on airplane safety;
• Maintains a list of all commercial parts incorporated into each FAA approved product type, TSO article, or PMA part as applicable;
• Furnishes the lists (and changes to the lists) to persons in accordance with existing § 21.50;
• Maintains current commercial parts lists to reflect design changes; and
• Records FAA approval of both the lists and their revisions.
Proposed § 21.9(b) would prohibit a person who produces a replacement or modification part for sale from representing that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated product, except under the provisions of proposed § 21.9(a)(1) through (a)(4). Owners, operators, producers, and maintainers rely on these representations to determine the airworthiness of an aircraft, or the acceptability of products and parts for a given application; therefore these representations must be truthful. Likewise, there is a strong public interest in ensuring that replacement and modification parts meet applicable airworthiness standards and are produced under a quality system that ensures conformity to an approved design.
The meaning of the regulatory language, “for sale * * * as suitable for installation on a type certificated product” has been contested in FAA enforcement actions
be truthful. Likewise, there is a strong public interest in ensuring that replacement and modification parts meet applicable airworthiness standards and are produced under a quality system that ensures conformity to an approved design.
The meaning of the regulatory language, “for sale * * * as suitable for installation on a type certificated product” has been contested in FAA enforcement actions. In 1993, the FAA Administrator rendered a decision and order regarding the interpretation of § 21.303(a) in the case, In the Matter of Pacific Sky Supply, Inc., FAA Order No. 93-19. The issue in the case was whether certain aircraft parts, produced without benefit of a parts manufacturer approval, were produced for sale for installation on type-certificated products. The Administrator held that the standard for determining whether there was a violation of the rule is that the Agency must show that the producer knew or should have known (at the time of production) that it was substantially certain that the parts produced without PMA would be installed on type-certificated products. The Administrator determined that this standard appropriately balances the FAA's duty to promote aviation safety by controlling the spread of unapproved parts and the producers' right to produce parts without FAA approval when it is insufficiently probable that the parts will end up on type-certificated aircraft.
The FAA needs to strengthen our ability to take compliance and enforcement action against producers of unapproved parts. Many parts used on type-certificated products can also be used on other types of aircraft, such as military or experimental aircraft, or in non-aviation applications. While a producer may be fully aware, and even intend, the parts will be used on type-certificated aircraft, proving that it was “substantially certain” that they would be so used can be impossible. In many cases, parts are sold to distributors, who then sell them to end-users without any inquiry as to where they will be ultimately installed
r experimental aircraft, or in non-aviation applications. While a producer may be fully aware, and even intend, the parts will be used on type-certificated aircraft, proving that it was “substantially certain” that they would be so used can be impossible. In many cases, parts are sold to distributors, who then sell them to end-users without any inquiry as to where they will be ultimately installed. Once producers place parts into the stream of commerce, they can rightly claim that they have no knowledge of how the part is ultimately used. This makes proving “substantially certain” very difficult.
Because of the importance of ensuring that aviation parts are safe to use, we think a different standard is necessary. If manufacturers engage in business where it is reasonably likely that parts they produce will be installed on type-certificated products, then these manufacturers must not produce the parts, unless they meet one of the conditions of proposed § 21.9(a).
In evaluating whether a parts producer is violating this requirement, the FAA will look at all the relevant circumstances, including not only the actual purchaser of the parts, but also how the producer has marketed them (for example, catalogs, advertisements, claims of acceptability for FAA approval, installation instructions for type-certificated aircraft, shipping documents, and so on). If it appears that a producer outside the provisions of proposed § 21.9(a) has identified type-certificated products as a target market or that a producer represented its parts as suitable for installation on these products, the FAA will consider that to be strong evidence of a violation of proposed § 21.9(b). The FAA intends to interpret the term “suitable” broadly to cover any statement that expresses or implies that the product or article is acceptable for use on a type-certificated product
tificated products as a target market or that a producer represented its parts as suitable for installation on these products, the FAA will consider that to be strong evidence of a violation of proposed § 21.9(b). The FAA intends to interpret the term “suitable” broadly to cover any statement that expresses or implies that the product or article is acceptable for use on a type-certificated product. The following examples are some of the type of statements that can reasonably be interpreted to mean that FAA requirements for use on a specific type-certificated product have been met:
• “Aviation quality.”
• “Direct replacement for aircraft XX.”
• “Ready to use in your aircraft.”
• “Reproduction of (approved) part number XX.”
• “Fits aircraft model XX.”
• “Eligible for FAA approval.”
Under proposed § 21.9(b), such statements would be prohibited if they were false or misleading.
This proposal would also add new § 21.9(c) to allow a person to sell or represent a part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated aircraft if the part was declared surplus by the U.S. military, was intended for use on that model of U.S. military aircraft, and the person determines the part is in a condition for safe operation. The military owns all the data for its aircraft and provides this data to vendors in order to produce parts to support their aircraft. Surplus military aircraft certificated under §§ 21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 typically have supporting data for all parts. However, additional data can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. Paragraph (c) falls under the processes and practices currently used and therefore presents no significant increase in cost to the FAA or an applicant
oduce parts to support their aircraft. Surplus military aircraft certificated under §§ 21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 typically have supporting data for all parts. However, additional data can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. Paragraph (c) falls under the processes and practices currently used and therefore presents no significant increase in cost to the FAA or an applicant.
Subpart B—Type Certificates
Section 21.20 Compliance With Applicable Requirements
This proposal would amend subpart B by adding § 21.20(a) to require an applicant for a TC, including an amended or supplemental type certificate (STC), to show compliance with all applicable requirements and to provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown. Current § 21.33(a)(1) specifies that no aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or part thereof may be presented to the Administrator for test unless compliance with paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of that section has been shown. The intent of this proposal is to emphasize that the applicant is responsible for satisfying all applicable requirements.
The FAA has long-standing policy (FAA Order 8110.4, Type Certification Process) that stresses the applicant is responsible for performing an adequate review and assuring that all certification regulations have been complied with in the course of a product design approval project. This proposal would allow the FAA to exercise greater discretion in prioritizing its review of applications, to more effectively assign resources supporting the application process, and to select which aspects of an application to review more closely.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require an applicant for a TC, including an amended or supplemental TC, to provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements
discretion in prioritizing its review of applications, to more effectively assign resources supporting the application process, and to select which aspects of an application to review more closely.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require an applicant for a TC, including an amended or supplemental TC, to provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements. The FAA would still exercise its discretionary function to evaluate an application for compliance, but the statement of compliance would focus the applicant on its responsibility to comply with applicable requirements. A statement of compliance would be subject to the proposed § 21.2 requirements related to fraudulent, intentionally false, or misleading statements.
Section 21.47 Transferability
This proposal would revise this section to change the requirement for the timing of the notification for TC transfers, where the State of Design remains the same, and for TC licensing agreements. Currently, the regulation requires each grantor to notify the FAA within 30 days after the transfer of a certificate or execution or termination of a licensing agreement. This proposal would require notification before the transfer or before executing or terminating a licensing agreement to provide the FAA time to coordinate between affected FAA offices and to inform the prospective applicant of the responsibilities under this subchapter.
This proposal would also revise this section to require a grantor to notify the FAA of TC transfer where the State of Design is changing before the transfer occurs. When the current regulations were written, the FAA did not consider the need to address these types of TC transfers
e between affected FAA offices and to inform the prospective applicant of the responsibilities under this subchapter.
This proposal would also revise this section to require a grantor to notify the FAA of TC transfer where the State of Design is changing before the transfer occurs. When the current regulations were written, the FAA did not consider the need to address these types of TC transfers. However, TC transfers where the State of Design is changing have become commonplace and are
Subpart C—Provisional Type Certificates
Section 21.75 Application
This proposal would revise this section to remove detailed requirements related to where an applicant must apply for a provisional type certificate and, instead, to require filing with the appropriate aircraft certification office. The intent of this proposal is to provide flexibility to the FAA in managing the provisional type certification process and to enable more efficient and effective use of FAA resources. It is consistent with the open application process used for other design approvals.
Subpart D—Changes to Type Certificates
Section 21.97 Approval of Major Changes in Type Design
This proposal would revise paragraph (a) of this section to require an applicant for approval of a major change in type design to—
• Show that the changed product complies with the applicable requirements of this subchapter;
• Provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown; and
• Provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements.
The intent of this proposal is discussed under proposed § 21.20
an applicant for approval of a major change in type design to—
• Show that the changed product complies with the applicable requirements of this subchapter;
• Provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown; and
• Provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements.
The intent of this proposal is discussed under proposed § 21.20.
Subpart E—Supplemental Type Certificates
Section 21.117 Issue of Supplemental Type Certificates
This proposal would amend § 21.117 by removing the words “if he” from paragraph (a) and adding in their place the words “if the FAA finds that the applicant.” The intent of this change is to clarify that issuance of an STC occurs only after the FAA makes a finding of compliance to the applicable regulations.
Section 21.119 Privileges
This proposal would revise § 21.119(c) to clarify that the holder of an STC may obtain a production certificate for the change in the type design approved by that STC only if the STC holder meets the requirements of subpart G pertaining to the issuance of PCs. The FAA plans to issue guidance material concurrent with the final rule aimed at ensuring that any PCs issued meet the requirements of subpart G.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44704(c), the FAA may include in a PC terms required in the interest of safety. These terms may limit the scope of activities authorized by the PC depending on the STC holder's quality system and the complexity of the design changes approved by the STC.
Subpart F—Production Under Type Certificate
Section 21.122 Location of or Change to Manufacturing Facilities
This proposal would amend subpart F by adding § 21.122(a) to clarify and relieve requirements related to location of manufacturing for production under a TC. Amendment 21-25 (Sept. 5, 1969, 34 FR 14068) clarified that subpart F is intended only for domestic production as follows:
Section 21.130 comes under Subpart F which governs the production of products under a TC only
ufacturing Facilities
This proposal would amend subpart F by adding § 21.122(a) to clarify and relieve requirements related to location of manufacturing for production under a TC. Amendment 21-25 (Sept. 5, 1969, 34 FR 14068) clarified that subpart F is intended only for domestic production as follows:
Section 21.130 comes under Subpart F which governs the production of products under a TC only. That subpart contains requirements that are not applicable to aircraft, aircraft engines and propellers manufactured in a foreign country.”
However, this intent is not clearly specified in subpart F. We considered amending subpart F to clarify that it does not apply to manufacturing in a foreign country, but decided instead to allow manufacturing under a TC in a foreign country as long as it causes “no undue burden” on the FAA. This proposal would facilitate global manufacturing under certain circumstances. The FAA would not allow production under a TC in a foreign country for a first-time applicant. However, if an applicant has a PC and produces major aircraft or engine components outside the U.S., the FAA would allow production under a TC for a new model if it determined that there would be no undue burden on the FAA in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter.
This proposal would amend subpart F by adding § 21.122(b) to require FAA approval before making any changes to its manufacturing facilities that would affect the inspection or airworthiness of its products or articles, including changes to the location of any of its manufacturing facilities. These types of changes require FAA approval before they are implemented to ensure that the change is in compliance with this subpart. We are proposing a similar requirement for each type of production approval holder in proposed subparts G, K, and O
at would affect the inspection or airworthiness of its products or articles, including changes to the location of any of its manufacturing facilities. These types of changes require FAA approval before they are implemented to ensure that the change is in compliance with this subpart. We are proposing a similar requirement for each type of production approval holder in proposed subparts G, K, and O.
Section 21.123 Production under type certificate
This proposal would revise the introductory text to include manufacturers of articles to clarify that the holder of a TC is authorized to manufacture articles for its type-certificated products.
Proposed paragraph (a) is based on existing paragraph (b) and removes language requiring technical data and drawings to be maintained at the place of manufacture and replaces it with references to sections where that information is defined more thoroughly. The intent of this proposal is to provide a more logical sequence of requirements and to remove duplicate requirements from the regulations.
Proposed paragraph (b) is based on existing paragraph (a) and would add the requirement that a TC holder must make each article available to the FAA for inspection. This is in addition to the existing requirement to make each product available.
Proposed § 21.123(c) is based on existing § 21.125(b)(10) and would require each manufacturer of a product or article under a TC to maintain completed inspection and test records for specified periods of time. These records would enable the manufacturer to prove to the FAA that it has properly completed and documented all inspections and tests required to ensure compliance with this subpart. This would place a requirement on manufacturers under a TC that already applies to other PAHs. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that manufacturers maintain evidence that indicates conformance or nonconformance of a product or article with regard to required inspections and tests
has properly completed and documented all inspections and tests required to ensure compliance with this subpart. This would place a requirement on manufacturers under a TC that already applies to other PAHs. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that manufacturers maintain evidence that indicates conformance or nonconformance of a product or article with regard to required inspections and tests.
In 1991, the FAA issued Notice 8120.13, Verification of Completeness, Accuracy, and Traceability of Manufacturing and Quality Records. This notice required a one-time evaluation of certain FAA PAHs to assess their record keeping and related internal audit procedures used in the production of civil aviation products and parts under part 21. This evaluation concluded that, although all PAHs were in compliance with the regulations, the current regulations do not ensure that the quality inspection records are
To resolve this issue, this proposal would increase the record retention requirements for all PAHs and for persons producing under a TC from two to five years for the products and articles manufactured under the approval and to at least ten years for critical components identified under proposed § 45.15(c) of this chapter. The intent of this proposal is to retain these records to support any future investigations related to failures, malfunctions, or defects that may occur or be discovered after the producer releases the product or article. This proposal is consistent with current industry best practices. The beginnings of these five-year and ten-year periods for a given product or article would correspond to the issuance of an airworthiness approval for that product or article. We specifically request comments on whether the proposed ten-year minimum record retention requirement is adequate for critical components
roduct or article. This proposal is consistent with current industry best practices. The beginnings of these five-year and ten-year periods for a given product or article would correspond to the issuance of an airworthiness approval for that product or article. We specifically request comments on whether the proposed ten-year minimum record retention requirement is adequate for critical components.
This proposal would add new § 21.123(d) to require each manufacturer of a product or article being manufactured under a TC to allow the FAA to make any inspection or test, including any inspection or test at a supplier facility, necessary to determine compliance with this subchapter. “Allowing” means that the manufacture must—
• Give free and full access to facilities and information relevant to show compliance with this subchapter; and
• Provide appropriate assistance to the FAA to enable us to perform these inspections and tests.
Inspections and tests include audits, inquiries, questions, discussions, monitoring, witnessing, checks, flight and ground tests, and inspections of completed products and articles. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that the FAA has the requisite access to administer applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter.
This proposal would add new § 21.123(e) to require each manufacturer under a TC to obtain an airworthiness approval, FAA Form 8130-3, from an FAA designee for each aircraft engine, propeller, or article produced under that TC as evidence or proof that it conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. The FAA expects the TC holder to obtain this approval from a FAA designee. Only under exceptional circumstances would the FAA issue these approvals. The intent of this proposal is discussed under the description of proposed § 21.146(d) later in this preamble
ler, or article produced under that TC as evidence or proof that it conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. The FAA expects the TC holder to obtain this approval from a FAA designee. Only under exceptional circumstances would the FAA issue these approvals. The intent of this proposal is discussed under the description of proposed § 21.146(d) later in this preamble.
This proposal would remove current § 21.123(c) and (d) and replace them with proposed § 21.123(f) to eliminate production under an APIS and require TC holders to obtain a PC for that product in accordance with subpart G of this part within 6 months after the date of issuance of the TC. Under the current subpart F regulations, the FAA issues an APIS provided certain requirements are met. The APIS is a production approval for producing the same products that can be produced under a PC. Although APIS and PC quality system descriptions use different terms, they contain the same basic controls. For this reason, and the fact that there are very few APIS holders (3 APIS holders as of January 2005), the FAA proposes to eliminate APIS approvals and make all changes effective 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register .
Eighteen months after publication of the final rule, the FAA will rescind all existing APIS approvals. Persons manufacturing under an APIS would be expected to surrender their letter of APIS approval, manufacture under a TC if they choose to continue manufacturing, and have 6 months to obtain a PC under part 21 subpart G.
Section 21.130 Statement of Conformity
Under existing § 21.130, a statement of conformity is required only for products manufactured in the United States. This proposal would extend the applicability of this statement of conformity requirement to products manufactured outside the United States and to all articles. The intent of this proposal is to reflect the global manufacturing environment for aviation products and parts
Conformity
Under existing § 21.130, a statement of conformity is required only for products manufactured in the United States. This proposal would extend the applicability of this statement of conformity requirement to products manufactured outside the United States and to all articles. The intent of this proposal is to reflect the global manufacturing environment for aviation products and parts. We propose to include “articles” to facilitate the issuance of an airworthiness approval required under proposed § 21.123(e) for each aircraft engine, propeller, or article produced under subpart F.
This section currently requires a manufacturer under a TC to provide the FAA a statement that each product conforms to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation. Currently, manufacturers under a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization are not required to provide a statement that the products or articles they manufacture conform to the approved design and are in a condition for safe operation. This proposal would enhance safety by extending the statement of conformity requirements of existing § 21.130 to those producing under a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization, in the form of an airworthiness approval requirement. See proposed §§ 21.146(d), 21.316(d), and 21.616(d), respectively.
The statement required under existing § 21.130 must include, for aircraft, that the aircraft has been flight checked; and for each aircraft engine or variable-pitch propeller, a statement that the engine or propeller has been subjected to a final operational check. This proposal would remove the flight and operational check requirements of existing § 21.130 that are redundant to those currently found in §§ 21.127(a), 21.128, and 21.129, while retaining the conformity statement requirement in proposed § 21.130.
This proposal would also require that the statement of conformity be provided in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA
a final operational check. This proposal would remove the flight and operational check requirements of existing § 21.130 that are redundant to those currently found in §§ 21.127(a), 21.128, and 21.129, while retaining the conformity statement requirement in proposed § 21.130.
This proposal would also require that the statement of conformity be provided in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA. The intent of this proposed change is to place details related to particular FAA forms, form content, and form use in policy documents that are more easily adjusted to reflect future changes in procedures.
Existing § 21.130(c) currently exempts a manufacturer from providing a statement of conformity for products manufactured for the Armed Forces if they have accepted the product. This proposal would remove this exemption. TC holders who manufacture products for the Armed Forces would be required to give the FAA Form 8130-2, Conformity Certificate—Military Aircraft. The intent of this proposal is to make it simpler for a future applicant to obtain a standard airworthiness certificate under existing § 21.183(d) for surplus military aircraft. Having a conformity certificate for that aircraft would satisfy existing § 21.183(d)(1).
Subpart G—Production Certificates
Section 21.137 Quality system
Proposed § 21.137(a) is based on current § 21.143(a)(5) and would require that a manufacturer's quality system include procedures for controlling design data and subsequent changes to ensure that only current, correct, and approved data is used.
Proposed § 21.137(b) would require that the quality system include procedures for controlling quality system documents and data and subsequent changes to ensure that only current, correct, and approved documents and data are used
t a manufacturer's quality system include procedures for controlling design data and subsequent changes to ensure that only current, correct, and approved data is used.
Proposed § 21.137(b) would require that the quality system include procedures for controlling quality system documents and data and subsequent changes to ensure that only current, correct, and approved documents and data are used.
Proposed § 21.137(c) is based on current § 21.143(a)(2) and (b) and § 21.303(h)(1) and (2) and would require manufacturers to establish procedures to control conformity of each supplier-furnished product or article to its approved design before release for installation. For the purposes of this NPRM, a “supplier” is any person or
Proposed paragraph § 21.137(c)(1) would require procedures to ensure that each supplier-furnished product or article conforms to its approved design. The intent of this proposal is to clarify that the PAH is responsible for ensuring the conformity of supplier-furnished items and to emphasize supplier control requirements to strengthen the effectiveness of this segment of the industry.
Proposed paragraph § 21.137(c)(2) would require each supplier to report to the PAH if a product or article has been released from that supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design data. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that the PAH is informed if non-conforming items make it through the quality system so it can initiate appropriate corrective action and reporting.
Proposed § 21.137(d) is based on current § 21.143(a)(3) and would require the quality system to include procedures for controlling manufacturing processes to ensure that each product and article conforms to its approved design. The term, “manufacturing process,” is intended to include special processes such as plating or heat-treating
it can initiate appropriate corrective action and reporting.
Proposed § 21.137(d) is based on current § 21.143(a)(3) and would require the quality system to include procedures for controlling manufacturing processes to ensure that each product and article conforms to its approved design. The term, “manufacturing process,” is intended to include special processes such as plating or heat-treating. Process controls typically include the following: Documented procedures for production, use of suitable production equipment, monitoring and controlling process parameters and product characteristics, accountability of all products during manufacture, and evidence that all manufacturing and inspection operations have been completed.
Proposed § 21.137(e) would require the quality system to include procedures for inspections and tests to ensure that a product or article conforms to its approved design. This proposal is based on existing §§ 21.143(a)(3) and 21.325(b)(1) and is intended to clarify that the purpose of inspections and tests is to verify that each product and article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. In addition, these inspection and test procedures must include a flight test of each aircraft produced, unless that aircraft will be exported as an unassembled aircraft, and a functional test of each aircraft engine and each propeller produced.
Proposed § 21.137(f) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures to ensure that all inspection, measuring, and test equipment used in determining conformity of products and articles to their respective approved designs is calibrated and controlled. Each calibration standard must be traceable to a standard acceptable to the FAA. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that the PAH performs conformity verifications using equipment having the necessary capability and reliability to preclude nonconforming items from being accepted and conforming items from being rejected
rticles to their respective approved designs is calibrated and controlled. Each calibration standard must be traceable to a standard acceptable to the FAA. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that the PAH performs conformity verifications using equipment having the necessary capability and reliability to preclude nonconforming items from being accepted and conforming items from being rejected.
Proposed § 21.137(g) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures for documenting the inspection and test status of products and articles supplied or manufactured to the approved design. The intent of this proposal is to have PAHs maintain evidence to indicate conformity or nonconformity of a product with regard to required inspections and tests.
Proposed § 21.137(h) is new and would require each organization's quality system to include procedures for establishing and maintaining certifying staff responsible for issuing airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, including the issuance of export airworthiness approvals. The intent of proposed § 21.137(h) is to ensure that only qualified personnel issue these airworthiness approvals. An evaluation of certifying staff qualifications would need to include an assessment of the individual's knowledge, background, experience, and training. Qualifications must be commensurate with the complexity and type of product or article to be released. The FAA plans to place guidance regarding certifying staff qualifications in policy documents to be issued if this proposal is adopted. This proposal is based on the European Commission regulations, Annex Part 21, Certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, and of design and production organisations.
Proposed § 21.137(i)(1) is based on current § 21.143(a)(4) and would require the quality system to include procedures to ensure that only products or articles that conform to their approved design are installed on a type-certificated product
ean Commission regulations, Annex Part 21, Certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, and of design and production organisations.
Proposed § 21.137(i)(1) is based on current § 21.143(a)(4) and would require the quality system to include procedures to ensure that only products or articles that conform to their approved design are installed on a type-certificated product. These procedures must provide for identification, documentation, evaluation, segregation, and disposition of a nonconforming product or article. Only authorized individuals with the appropriate qualifications may make determinations regarding the disposition of products and articles. The intent of this proposal is to prevent a nonconforming product or article from being installed on a type-certificated product. This proposal is not intended to prevent, for example, temporary installation of nonconforming products or articles to facilitate assembly or testing (as accepted by the FAA), their use as a shop or training aid, or sale for non-aviation purposes.
Proposed § 21.137(i)(2) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures to ensure that discarded articles are rendered unusable. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that discarded articles are not erroneously placed into service on aircraft.
Proposed § 21.137(j) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures for implementing corrective and preventive actions to eliminate the causes of an actual or potential nonconformity to the approved design, or noncompliance with the approved quality system. This proposal is intended to address issues that may occur before products are shipped to customers. Corrective actions are intended to include root cause analysis and any other analyses necessary to correct known nonconformities and noncompliances with the quality system. Preventive actions require proactive measures to ensure that nonconformities and noncompliances do not occur
d quality system. This proposal is intended to address issues that may occur before products are shipped to customers. Corrective actions are intended to include root cause analysis and any other analyses necessary to correct known nonconformities and noncompliances with the quality system. Preventive actions require proactive measures to ensure that nonconformities and noncompliances do not occur. Corrective and preventive actions would promote continuous improvement of the quality system and the products and articles produced under that quality system.
Proposed § 21.137(k) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures to prevent damage or deterioration of products and articles during handling, storage, preservation, packaging, and delivery. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that a product or article continues to conform to its approved design and remains in a condition for safe operation during handling, storage, preservation, packaging, and delivery.
Proposed § 21.137(l) is a new requirement for PC holders (and by cross reference for holders of PMAs and TSO approvals at proposed §§ 121.307 and 121.607) and would require the quality system to include procedures for identifying, storing, protecting, retrieving, and retaining quality records. Quality system records include records such as inspection and test records, material review board records, and work orders. The intent of this proposal is to require documented evidence of compliance with applicable regulations and the approved quality system. Currently, subparts K and O require that these quality records be retained for two years. Subpart G does not have a quality system record retention requirement.
Proposed § 21.137(m) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures for planning and conducting internal audits for the purpose of assuring compliance with the approved quality system. “Internal” is relative to a PAH's quality system
arts K and O require that these quality records be retained for two years. Subpart G does not have a quality system record retention requirement.
Proposed § 21.137(m) is new and would require the quality system to include procedures for planning and conducting internal audits for the purpose of assuring compliance with the approved quality system. “Internal” is relative to a PAH's quality system. Audits of suppliers, therefore, would fall within the scope of internal audits since a supplier is under the PAH's quality system. FAA certificate management data indicates that facilities with internal audit programs experience a lower probability of nonconformances. The results of these audits would be reported to applicable management personnel and to those personnel responsible for taking corrective actions for deficiencies found during the audit.
Proposed paragraph 21.137(n) is new and would require each manufacturer's quality system to include procedures for receiving and processing feedback from operators on in-service failures, malfunctions, and defects of products or articles. These procedures must describe how the manufacturer will assist the design approval holder (if different) to address in-service problems involving design changes and determine if any changes to the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness are necessary. The intent of this proposal is to provide feedback to ensure operational safety and facilitate continuous improvements to the manufacturer's quality system.
Proposed paragraph 21.137(o) is based on Annex Part 21 of European Union regulations and would require that the quality system include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and initiating appropriate corrective action for products or articles that have been released from the quality system and that do not conform to the applicable design data or quality system requirements (“quality escapes”)
.
Proposed paragraph 21.137(o) is based on Annex Part 21 of European Union regulations and would require that the quality system include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and initiating appropriate corrective action for products or articles that have been released from the quality system and that do not conform to the applicable design data or quality system requirements (“quality escapes”). The intent of this proposal is to ensure that the PAH tracks, evaluates, categorizes, and initiates the appropriate corrective action for all nonconforming articles, including actions to correct deficiencies in the quality system that allowed for the quality escape and to assist the FAA in its certificate management and oversight of a PAH's quality system. This proposal would help promote continuous operational safety and improvement of a PAH's quality system.
Section 21.142 Production Limitation Record
This proposal is based on existing § 21.151 and would clarify that the PC holder, not the applicant for a PC, is the one who is authorized to manufacture the products listed on the production limitation record.
Section 21.146 Responsibility of Holder
This proposal would establish requirements for the holder of a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization in §§ 21.146, 21.316, and 21.616. The holders of production approvals would have the same responsibilities, as described below.
Proposed paragraph (a) would make each PAH responsible for updating the document required by §§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605. This would keep the FAA informed of changes in the PAH's organization and how that organization will ensure compliance with this part.
Proposed paragraph (b) would make each PAH responsible for maintaining its quality system in compliance with the data and procedures approved for that production approval. This is currently required for a holder of a PC in § 21.165(a) and for a holder of a TSO authorization in § 21.607(b). This would be a new requirement for a holder of a PMA
t organization will ensure compliance with this part.
Proposed paragraph (b) would make each PAH responsible for maintaining its quality system in compliance with the data and procedures approved for that production approval. This is currently required for a holder of a PC in § 21.165(a) and for a holder of a TSO authorization in § 21.607(b). This would be a new requirement for a holder of a PMA.
Proposed paragraph (c) would make each PAH responsible for ensuring that each product or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. This is currently required for a holder of a PC in § 21.165(b), a PMA in § 21.303(k), and a TSO authorization in § 21.607(a). This proposal would also retain other current requirements in § 21.165(b) for the holder of a PC related to primary category aircraft assembled from a kit. It would also retain the current requirement in § 21.607(a) for the holder of a TSO authorization that the TSO article meets the applicable TSO.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require an airworthiness approval for each aircraft engine, propeller, or article or each shipment of aircraft engines, propellers, or articles produced under that production approval that conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. This airworthiness approval would be in the form of a completed FAA Form 8130-3. Although current regulations do not require issuance of an airworthiness approval for shipping aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, there has been a growing demand within the U.S. aviation industry to require this form to improve identification and tracking of these items.
The proposed regulation is also consistent with the 1998 recommendations of the Industry Suspected Unapproved Parts Steering Group
ent regulations do not require issuance of an airworthiness approval for shipping aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, there has been a growing demand within the U.S. aviation industry to require this form to improve identification and tracking of these items.
The proposed regulation is also consistent with the 1998 recommendations of the Industry Suspected Unapproved Parts Steering Group. (We have placed a copy of these recommendations in the docket for this rulemaking.) This group determined that the establishment of a standardized, end-to-end, FAA-approved documentation process would—
• Provide a common, easily recognizable form with all aircraft engine, propeller, and article shipments so that the receiver could easily verify the airworthiness of the products, articles, and authority of the producer;
• Make a major contribution towards eliminating unapproved parts;
• Enhance the probability of success in prosecuting a manufacturer of unapproved parts, by challenging unauthorized and fraudulent use of an FAA document; and
• Provide greater confidence for non-U.S. air agencies and domestic users if the form used for export and domestic purposes is standardized for all shipments of aircraft engines, propellers, and articles.
The intent of this proposal is to provide evidence of the airworthiness approval status of an aircraft engine, propeller, and article; and help an installer make accurate airworthiness determinations.
An airworthiness approval is not intended for use within a PAH's quality system; that is, a supplier will not use an airworthiness approval to ship articles to the PAH
, propellers, and articles.
The intent of this proposal is to provide evidence of the airworthiness approval status of an aircraft engine, propeller, and article; and help an installer make accurate airworthiness determinations.
An airworthiness approval is not intended for use within a PAH's quality system; that is, a supplier will not use an airworthiness approval to ship articles to the PAH. Only airworthiness approvals issued under subpart L of this part would be eligible for use as export airworthiness approvals; however, if the PAH issues the original airworthiness approval as an export airworthiness approval under subpart L of this part, that export airworthiness approval would also satisfy the requirement for an airworthiness approval under subpart G, K, or O; that is, only one airworthiness approval document
Proposed paragraph (d) would also make the PAH responsible for issuing these airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles. A holder of a PC, PMA, and TSO authorization already has responsibility under §§ 21.165(b), 21.303(k), and 21.607(a) for determining that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article, as applicable, conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. This proposal would now make the PAH responsible for documenting that determination via an airworthiness approval.
As discussed above for proposed § 21.137(h), the quality system for each PAH would include procedures for establishing and maintaining a certifying staff responsible for issuing these airworthiness approvals. The FAA (or its designees) would retain discretion to issue these airworthiness approvals as appropriate. This proposal is intended to give the PAH the same flexibility and responsiveness available to European and Canadian manufacturers who already issue these approvals
uld include procedures for establishing and maintaining a certifying staff responsible for issuing these airworthiness approvals. The FAA (or its designees) would retain discretion to issue these airworthiness approvals as appropriate. This proposal is intended to give the PAH the same flexibility and responsiveness available to European and Canadian manufacturers who already issue these approvals.
Proposed paragraph (e) would require each holder of a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to maintain complete and current design data for each product and article produced under its production approval. This is currently required for a holder of a PMA in § 21.303(h)(6) and a TSO authorization in § 21.607(c). This change would standardize requirements for all PAHs.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require each holder of a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to retain the document(s) granting that certificate, approval, or authorization, respectively, and make it available to the FAA upon request. The intent of this proposal is to relieve the PAH from the current § 21.161 requirement to display the production certificate, and, instead, allow the holder to retain it in a manner it deems appropriate. In addition, this would standardize requirements for all PAHs.
Proposed paragraph (g) would require each holder of a PC, PMA, or TSO authorization to make available to the FAA information regarding all delegation of authority to suppliers. A holder of a PC already is required to do this under § 21.143(b). These delegations would include, for example, delegations of authority related to performing major inspections, direct ship authorization, and materials review. For the purposes of this NPRM, a direct ship authorization is a written authorization granted by a PAH to a supplier to ship completed and marked articles directly to end users, without the articles being processed through the PAH's own facility. This change would standardize requirements for all PAHs
thority related to performing major inspections, direct ship authorization, and materials review. For the purposes of this NPRM, a direct ship authorization is a written authorization granted by a PAH to a supplier to ship completed and marked articles directly to end users, without the articles being processed through the PAH's own facility. This change would standardize requirements for all PAHs.
Subpart H Airworthiness Certificates
Section 21.183 Issue of Standard Airworthiness Certificates for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, Commuter, and Transport Category Aircraft; Manned Free Balloons; and Special Classes of Aircraft
Currently, to manufacture an aircraft outside the United States and be entitled to a standard airworthiness certificate, that aircraft must be type certificated under § 21.21 and manufactured under a PC extension. At present, an applicant may obtain approval to manufacture under a PC extension only if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter. This proposal would revise § 21.183(c) to entitle a person to a standard airworthiness certificate for an aircraft that is imported to the United States via an export certificate of airworthiness provided the aircraft is type certificated under § 21.21 or § 21.29, the aircraft is manufactured under the authority of another State of Manufacture, and there is no undue burden on the FAA. The State of Manufacture would be required to certify, in accordance with the provisions of an agreement with the United States for import and export of that aircraft that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. The FAA would have to find that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation.
The intent of this proposal is to facilitate global manufacturing
required to certify, in accordance with the provisions of an agreement with the United States for import and export of that aircraft that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. The FAA would have to find that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation.
The intent of this proposal is to facilitate global manufacturing. A bilateral agreement with the State of Manufacture signifies that the FAA has confidence in the aircraft certification system of that country or jurisdiction for products within the scope of that agreement. Therefore, the FAA may accept their airworthiness determinations.
Currently, § 21.183(d)(2) entitles an applicant to a standard airworthiness certificate for a used aircraft if certain requirements are met. One of these requirements is that the aircraft be inspected in accordance with the performance rules for 100-hour inspections set forth in § 43.15 of this chapter. This proposal would revise paragraph (d)(2) to allow aircraft to be inspected in accordance with the performance rules for 100-hour inspections set forth in § 43.15 of this chapter, or an equivalent performance standard acceptable to the FAA. Similarly, this proposal would add paragraph (d)(2)(v) to accept a finding of airworthiness determined by the holder of a license or certificate to perform aircraft maintenance issued by a country or jurisdiction that has an agreement with the United States for the acceptance of used aircraft.
The intent of these proposals is to provide flexibility to accept equivalent inspection standards of a country or jurisdiction and the corresponding airworthiness determinations from those countries and jurisdictions with which the United States has a bilateral agreement. This proposal could also reduce the cost of importing a used aircraft if duplicate inspection requirements are eliminated
ft.
The intent of these proposals is to provide flexibility to accept equivalent inspection standards of a country or jurisdiction and the corresponding airworthiness determinations from those countries and jurisdictions with which the United States has a bilateral agreement. This proposal could also reduce the cost of importing a used aircraft if duplicate inspection requirements are eliminated.
Section 21.185 Issue of Airworthiness Certificates for Restricted Category Aircraft
Currently, to manufacture an aircraft outside the United States and be entitled to a restricted category airworthiness certificate, that aircraft must be type certificated under § 21.25 and manufactured under a PC extension. At present, an applicant may obtain approval to manufacture under a PC extension only if the FAA finds no undue burden on the FAA in administering applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter. This proposal would revise § 21.185(c) to entitle a person to a special airworthiness certificate for a restricted category aircraft that is imported to the United States under an export certificate of airworthiness provided the aircraft is type certificated under § 21.25 or § 21.29, the aircraft is manufactured under the authority of another State of Manufacture, and there is no undue burden on the FAA. The State of Manufacture would be required to certify, in accordance with the provisions of an agreement with the United States for import and export of that aircraft that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. The FAA would have to find that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation.
The intent of this proposal is to facilitate global manufacturing
required to certify, in accordance with the provisions of an agreement with the United States for import and export of that aircraft that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. The FAA would have to find that the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation.
The intent of this proposal is to facilitate global manufacturing. A bilateral agreement with the State of Manufacture signifies that the FAA has confidence in the aircraft certification
Section 21.195 Experimental Certificates: Aircraft To Be Used for Market Surveys, Sales Demonstrations, and Customer Crew Training
Existing paragraph (d) entitles an applicant to an experimental airworthiness certificate if certain requirements are met. One of these requirements, as specified in paragraph (d)(2), is that the applicant must show that the aircraft has been flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type-certificated aircraft that has been modified. This proposal would add language to allow the FAA to reduce these operational requirements when the FAA determines it is safe to do so and harmonize with the corresponding Annex Part 21 of the European Union regulations.
Section 21.197 Special Flight Permits
Under this proposal, existing paragraphs 21.197(c)(1) and (c)(2) would be combined into a single requirement, proposed § 21.197(c)(1), for all carriers certificated under part 119. The requirement for operators to maintain their aircraft under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) would be changed to “an approved program for continuing flight authorization.” This gives operators options for developing their programs, as well as allowing operators that do not have a CAMP, but do have the necessary quality system and infrastructure to support this authorization, to also be eligible
perators to maintain their aircraft under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) would be changed to “an approved program for continuing flight authorization.” This gives operators options for developing their programs, as well as allowing operators that do not have a CAMP, but do have the necessary quality system and infrastructure to support this authorization, to also be eligible.
This proposal would allow certificate holders under existing § 135.411, with an approved program, to be eligible for a continuing authorization to issue special flight permits for the purpose of maintenance. The intent of this proposal is to provide relief to operators who periodically require the issuance of special flight permits, and to the FAA, which would no longer have to issue these permits or oversee Designated Airworthiness Representatives issuing these permits.
The undesignated paragraph between existing 21.197(c)(2) and (3) would be removed, because

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [71 FR 46 Time for Filing Employment Tax Returns and Modifications to the Deposit Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24563.md)
- [71 FR 48 Changes To Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24528.md)
- [71 FR 287 Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations; Rules Relating to Prompt Corrective Action and the Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements; Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-12.md)
- [71 FR 293 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8240.md)
- [71 FR 299 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and 777-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8244.md)
- [71 FR 315 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-1.md)
- [71 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Route (RITTR) T-210; Jacksonville, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-68.md)
- [71 FR 1398 Proposed Establishment of VOR Federal Airway V-623; NJ and NY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-69.md)
- [71 FR 1718 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-136.md)
- [71 FR 3025 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-583.md)
- [71 FR 3027 Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-584.md)
- [71 FR 3254 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-650.md)
- [71 FR 3446 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-701.md)
- [71 FR 3448 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-706.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-8281. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.