[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11004-11013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04330]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21 and 45
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0933; Notice No. 14-01]
RIN 2120-AK20
Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals
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 articles.
The proposed changes would: require production approval holders to
identify an accountable manager who would be responsible for, and have
authority over, their production operations and serve as the primary
contact with the FAA; allow production approval holders to issue
authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and
articles; permit production certificate holders to manufacture and
install interface components; require production approval holders to
ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service
conforms to the production approval holder's requirements and establish
a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that
have been released from or provided by the supplier and subsequently
found not to conform to the production approval holder's requirements;
and remove the requirement that fixed-pitch wooden propellers be marked
using an approved fireproof method. This proposal is necessary to
update our regulations by revising certification and marking
requirements to reflect the current global aeronautical manufacturing
environment, thereby promoting aviation safety.
DATES: Send comments on or before May 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [Insert docket
number from heading] using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Priscilla Steward or Robert Cook, Aircraft
Certification Service, Production Certification Branch, AIR-220,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 385-6367; email:
[email protected] or telephone: (202) 385-6358; email:
[email protected].
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Paul Greer,
AGC-210, Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation,
and Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7930; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Department of Transportation (``the Department) has the
responsibility to develop transportation policies and programs that
contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient
transportation under Title 49, United States Code (49 USC), Subtitle 1,
Sec. 101. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA or ``we/us/our'')
is an agency of the Department. The FAA has general authority to issue
rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum standards for
articles and for the design, material, construction, quality of work,
and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers under 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 article under 49 U.S.C. 44104.
The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations governing the
certification procedures for products and articles and
[[Page 11005]]
its requirements for identification and registration marking. These
changes would improve the quality standards applicable to
manufacturers, which would help ensure that products and articles are
produced as designed and are safe to operate. For these reasons, this
proposed rule would be a reasonable and necessary exercise of our
rulemaking authority and obligations.
List of Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule
BAA--Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement
BASA--Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
EASA--European Aviation Safety Agency
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
IC--Interface Component
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PAH--Production Approval Holder
PC--Production Certificate
PLR--Production Limitation Record
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
STC--Supplemental Type Certificate
TC--Type Certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
In this NPRM, we are proposing changes to certification and marking
requirements for products and articles. Regulations pertaining to
certification requirements for products and articles are in Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21. Marking requirements are
in part 45.
The regulations in part 21 do not require applicants for, or
holders of, a production approval to identify an accountable manager.
This proposal would require applicants and PAHs to identify an
accountable manager. This individual would be responsible for, and have
authority over, a PAH's production operations. This individual would
also serve as a PAH's primary contact with the FAA. Additionally, the
FAA proposes to amend part 21 to require applicants and PAHs to amend,
where applicable, the documents required by Sec. Sec. 21.135, 21.305
and 21.605 to reflect the appointment of an accountable manager. This
proposal would adopt the requirement for an accountable manger
currently contained within part 145 and harmonize part 21 with EASA
regulations.
Currently, part 21 allows for an amendment to a PC holder's PLR so
the PC holder can add a type-certificated product or article. The FAA
proposes to amend part 21 to allow a PC holder to manufacture and
install interface components (IC), under certain conditions and
limitations. An IC would be defined as an article that serves as a
functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an
aircraft engine and a propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. An
interface component would be designated by the holder of the type
certificate (or the supplemental type certificate) who controls the
approved design data for that article.
Additionally, regulations currently specify that a PAH must have
procedures that ensure each supplier-furnished product or article
conforms to its approved design. The regulations also require that when
a nonconforming product or article is released from the supplier, the
supplier must report the nonconformance to the PAH. The FAA proposes to
amend part 21 to clarify that each supplier-provided product, article,
or service would be required to conform to the PAH's requirements.
Production approval holders would also have to establish a supplier-
reporting process for products, articles, or services released from or
provided by the supplier and subsequently found not to conform to their
requirements.
Currently, a person may obtain an airworthiness approval for an
aircraft engine, propeller, or article only from the FAA for a new or
used aircraft engine, propeller, or article. Production approval
holders may not issue these airworthiness approvals under current
regulations. The FAA proposes to amend part 21 to allow PAHs to issue
authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new and used
aircraft engines, propellers, and articles. This will provide PAHs with
privileges similar to those afforded European- and Canadian-approved
manufacturers.
The regulations in part 45 require a propeller, propeller blade, or
propeller hub to be marked using an approved fireproof method. The FAA
proposes to amend part 45 to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers from
the requirement that such markings be fireproof. This exclusion would
allow manufacturers to mark their products in a practical manner that
fully considers the inherent nature of wooden propellers.
II. Background
To date, part 21 has been amended numerous times since it was
codified in 1964. Additionally, the origins of many regulations in part
21 can also be traced to the Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937.
Formerly, most manufacturers of aviation products and articles had
a small, local supplier base. Production certificate holders oversaw
the manufacture of replacement parts, and the international market for
aviation products was relatively small. As a result, for many years the
U.S. had few bilateral agreements with other countries for the export
and import of aviation products, and these agreements were limited in
scope.
Today, aviation products are manufactured world-wide. The number of
suppliers has increased dramatically, and they manufacture a greater
percentage of a given aircraft. Due to the global nature of
manufacturing, forming business partnerships and agreements are common
approaches to lower costs, share risks, and expand reachable markets.
Manufacturers collaborate globally to reduce duplicate requirements for
shared suppliers. The production of replacement parts under PMAs and
the international market for aviation products have also increased
dramatically. In recognition of global considerations regarding trade,
commerce, and other matters, the U.S. has entered into over 30
bilateral agreements with foreign aviation authorities. These
agreements are broad in scope and establish the framework for the
international market.
A. Statement of the Problems
We are proposing changes to regulations governing the certification
procedures for products and articles and part-marking requirements.
These changes would improve the quality standards applicable to
manufacturers, which would help to ensure that products and articles
are produced as designed and are safe to operate. These changes would
also make it easier for manufacturers to produce, obtain, and export
products and articles while continuing to ensure their safety and
quality.
1. Accountable Manager
Under current regulations, a PAH is not required to identify an
accountable manager to serve as the primary contact with the FAA. The
lack of having a primary contact identified often results in schedule
delays and uncertainty for the FAA when conducting oversight
activities. The FAA proposes to have PAHs identify an accountable
manager who would serve as the primary contact with the FAA. Having an
accountable manager would provide a single individual who would
facilitate communication between the PAH and FAA.
Additionally, this best practice is currently required by part 145
for certificated repair stations and is also used within certain other
segments of the industry. In order to obtain a production approval
within EASA countries, a production organization is required to
identify an accountable manager. This proposal continues the FAA's
efforts to harmonize its
[[Page 11006]]
regulations with standards that have been adopted by foreign
authorities.
2. Interface Components
Manufacturers cannot currently manufacture and install certain
articles certificated as part of the airframe onto their type-
certificated engines without an exemption. Engine manufacturers have
petitioned for exemptions from the FAA to produce and install these
articles on their type-certificated engines. These articles and other
articles that serve a functional interface between an aircraft and an
aircraft engine, and also between an aircraft engine and a propeller,
or an aircraft and a propeller, are known as interface components (IC).
The FAA has found that a safety benefit exists by allowing the
installation of airframe components onto an engine during production of
the engine. The safety benefit occurs as a result of avoiding the
disassembly of portions of the engine at the airframe manufacturing
facility, or at an air carrier's maintenance facility, in order to
attach airframe parts to the engine. Accordingly, engine manufacturers
have been granted the authority to produce and install these articles
under the provisions of exemptions. The FAA recognizes the safety
benefit of this procedure and is therefore proposing to codify the
relief provided by these exemptions and expand that relief to address
ICs that have a functional interface between aircraft engines and
propellers, and aircraft and propellers.
This proposal would permit a PC holder to manufacture and install
ICs listed on its production limitation record (PLR) onto its type-
certificated products under specified conditions and limitations.
3. Supplier Control
Supplier control continues to be a significant issue due to the
increasing use of suppliers, both globally and domestically.
Additionally, PAHs are using suppliers to manufacture a greater
percentage of their products and articles. Production approval holders
are using suppliers as assembly providers or as integrators of
products, articles, and services provided by multiple suppliers. These
practices have the effect of necessitating that quality control
procedures be used more extensively throughout the supply chain,
thereby complicating communication and oversight.
Due to the extensive use of suppliers in all phases of the
production process, this proposal would require that each supplier-
provided product, article, or service conform to the PAH's requirements
and not necessarily to an approved design. This proposal would also
require the PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products,
articles, or services that have been released from or provided by the
supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's
requirements.
4. Issuance of Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft Engines,
Propellers, and Articles
Presently, only the FAA can issue an airworthiness approval (e.g.,
FAA Form 8130-3). Industry has requested that a PAH for an aircraft
engine, propeller, or article have the privilege of issuing this
document for items produced under its production approval. The FAA
agrees that significant benefits can be achieved by permitting a PAH to
issue an authorized release document for aircraft engines, propellers,
and articles it has manufactured since the PAH is responsible for
ensuring that each product and article conforms to its approved design
and is in a condition for safe operation. European and Canadian
manufacturers currently may issue such documents. This proposal would
further harmonize our regulations with those of foreign civil aviation
authorities.
5. Marking of Wooden Propellers
Under current regulations, propellers, propeller blades, and hubs
must be marked using an approved fireproof method. Due to the
flammability properties of a solid wooden propeller, mounting a metal
tag may be the only way to provide fireproof identification that would
not likely be lost or destroyed in an accident. However, attaching a
metal tag can break the moisture seal of a propeller, which could
increase the potential for cracking and deterioration of the wood. For
this reason, the FAA proposes to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers
from the requirement that these markings be fireproof. All other
aspects of the marking requirements would remain unchanged.
B. Related Actions
The FAA has proposed revisions to Advisory Circulars (AC) 21-43,
Production Under 14 CFR Part 21, Subparts F, G, K, and O; AC 21-44,
Issuance of Export Airworthiness Approvals Under 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart
L; and AC 45-2, Identification and Registration Marking, to include the
provisions of this proposal. Copies of these revised ACs are included
in the docket.
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Accountable Manager
As noted, the FAA determined in a previous rulemaking, ``Repair
Stations'' (66 FR 41088, August 6, 2001), that it was necessary for a
repair station to have one individual, an accountable manager, who is
responsible for ensuring repair station operations are conducted in
accordance with part 145. Similarly, under this proposal, the FAA would
require each applicant for, or holder of, a PC, PMA, or TSO
authorization to identify an accountable manager.
In conducting our oversight activities, we have experienced delays
and uncertainty by not knowing who at the PAH's organization has the
authority to represent the PAH. There have been cases where persons
have represented themselves to have authority to act on behalf of the
PAH when, in fact, they did not. Such cases have occurred, for example,
when a person has submitted a response to a letter of investigation,
and that person did not have authority from the PAH to provide that
response. Identification of an accountable manager would eliminate the
problems presented by such a situation.
The proposal would require the accountable manager to confirm that
the procedures described in the quality manual are in place and meet
the requirements of the applicable regulations. Evidence of this
confirmation can be shown by signing the quality manual before
submitting it to the FAA. The FAA would not mandate that an individual
in a specific position be identified as the accountable manager.
However, the organization would have to identify a single point of
contact who is knowledgeable of, and accountable for, maintaining the
organization's FAA-approved production operations. This requirement is
not intended to force the PAH to hire a new person to fill this
position within its organization, but rather to identify a person to
serve as the accountable manager.
As also clarified in the 2001 ``Repair Stations'' final rule, it is
not the FAA's intent to impose personal liability on the accountable
manager; that liability will remain with the PAH. The FAA notes that
the term ``accountable manager'' is consistent with EASA terminology
and would continue our harmonization efforts with foreign civil
aviation authorities. The applicant or PAH would identify the
accountable manager by providing that person's name and contact
information to the FAA. Should a new accountable manager be identified
by the PAH, the
[[Page 11007]]
PAH would have to amend the document required by Sec. Sec. 21.135,
21.305, and 21.605, as appropriate, to reflect this change, and notify
the FAA of this amendment, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 21.146(a),
21.316(a), or 21.616(a).
The FAA understands the need for various business models and
organizational structures. Currently, Sec. Sec. 21.135(a), 21.305(a),
and 21.605(a) require a PAH to provide the FAA with a document
describing assigned responsibilities and delegated authority, and the
functional relationship of those responsible for quality to management
and other organizational components. This proposal would also revise
the language in the second sentence of the referenced sections from
``At a minimum'' to ``In addition.'' This change is being made to avoid
any misinterpretation as to what the document must include,
specifically a description of how the organization will ensure
compliance with the provisions of the subparts referenced in Sec. Sec.
21.135, 21.305, and 21.605.
B. Interface Components
Engine manufacturers have petitioned for exemptions from the FAA to
manufacture and install ICs on their type-certificated engines. In
granting exemptions to General Electric (Exemption No. 10079) and Pratt
& Whitney (Exemption No. 10531) to manufacture and install certain
articles certificated as part of an airframe onto their engines, the
FAA found that a safety benefit exists for the installation of airframe
components onto an engine during production of the engine. Copies of
these exemptions are included in the docket.
Aircraft manufacturers and air carriers frequently seek delivery of
engines as a ``complete propulsion system,'' consisting of an engine
and aircraft kits/parts associated with an aircraft from the engine
manufacturer. Delivering a complete propulsion system makes engine
installation safer and more efficient. This pre-installation delivery
prevents redundant disassembly, torque breaks, handling damage, and
additional retesting after the engine ships from the manufacturing
facility.
Under current regulations, a PC holder is allowed to manufacture a
product if it holds for the product a current TC, rights to the
benefits of a TC under a licensing agreement, or an STC as specified in
Sec. 21.132. A manufacturer of a product currently cannot manufacture
and install an IC on that type-certificated product when the IC is not
part of that product's type design. This proposal would define an IC as
an article that serves a functional interface between an aircraft and
an aircraft engine, and also between an aircraft engine and a
propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. Examples of ICs consist of
articles such as engine mounts; various electrical, hydraulic, and
drain brackets; and environmental control system and anti-ice ducts,
along with their associated hardware.
This proposal would also permit a PC holder to manufacture and
install ICs onto its products. Although this proposal would revise
Sec. 21.147 to allow a PC holder for a product to receive an amendment
to its production limitation record (PLR) to permit the manufacture and
installation of ICs, the FAA notes that the holder of design data
identifying the IC installed on the PC holder's product under the
privileges of Sec. 21.147(c) retains all of the continuing
airworthiness responsibilities for the IC. If the PC holder is not the
owner of the IC design or installation data, the PC holder has no
authority to amend the design or installation data of the IC. All
changes to the design or installation data would be made by the design
approval holder. The PC holder would be responsible for all issues
related to quality, manufacturing, and installation of the IC by the PC
holder.
A PLR is issued as part of a PC. Current Sec. 21.142 states that a
PLR lists the TC number and the model of every product that the PC
holder is authorized to manufacture. The PLR does not provide for the
listing of ICs. This proposal would therefore revise Sec. 21.142 to
specify that the PLR would also identify every IC that the PC holder is
authorized to manufacture and install.
The TC holder would work with the PC holder to identify ICs. Once
identified, the PC holder would apply for an amendment of its PLR.
The FAA would develop guidance for PC holders and TC holders to
comply with any conditions and limitations necessary for the individual
PC holder in order to exercise this privilege. Section 21.147(c) would
not place a requirement that all ICs manufactured by a PC holder be
installed prior to shipping. Having these items listed on the PLR would
allow a PC holder to both ship the ICs loose with its product or
individually as spares.
The intent of this proposal is to enhance safety and facilitate
global manufacturing. With this proposed rule change, product customers
may no longer need to partially disassemble a supplied product, thereby
decreasing potential installation errors. The FAA acknowledges that the
benefits of streamlining manufacturing and eliminating duplicative
processes may reduce costs.
C. Supplier Control
The aviation business model has significantly evolved in recent
decades. Production approval holders are increasingly using suppliers
to supplement their activities. Many PAHs no longer manufacture
complete products or articles, but rather assemble aircraft systems and
components produced by their suppliers into a complete product or
article.
As the aviation business model has changed, first-tier suppliers
have functioned more as integrators of major sub-assemblies (such as
wings, nose sections, and complete fuselage sections) than as
manufactures of smaller assemblies or parts (such as altimeters, brake
assemblies, and build-to-print parts). Accordingly, the manufacture of
articles and assemblies has been shifted further down the supply chain.
Another result of the change in the aviation business model is the
increased use of suppliers located in countries outside the U.S. The
demands of customers and the economy have caused production to move
outside the U.S. to accommodate agreements and utilize low-cost labor.
The FAA seeks to clarify its regulations to reflect the modern
manufacturing environment and to reinforce that it is a PAH's
responsibility to ensure that its requirements are communicated
throughout its supply chain.
The term `supplier' is mentioned throughout 14 CFR part 21, and the
term is commonly used within industry. However, there is no definition
of supplier in the current regulations. This proposal would define the
term supplier in proposed Sec. 21.1(b) as a person that provides a
product, article, or service at any tier of the supply chain that is
used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, or installed on, the
product or article. Industry has requested that the FAA provide a
definition of the term `supplier' to clarify those entities the FAA
recognizes as suppliers. Defining supplier should provide PAHs with a
clear understanding of the term and, therefore, better ensure
regulatory compliance.
Currently, Sec. 21.137(c)(1) requires a PAH to have procedures
that ensure each supplier-furnished product or article conforms to its
approved design. This proposal would specify that a supplier must
comply with a PAH's requirements. The FAA recognizes that many
supplier-furnished products do not, in fact, conform to an approved
design when provided to a PAH, and that a supplier may also provide a
PAH
[[Page 11008]]
with a service. This proposal would allow a PAH to accept products,
articles, or services from its suppliers that do not meet the approved
design, yet conform to the PAH's requirements.
Current industry practice is for a PAH to submit a purchase order
to a supplier with the PAH's specific requirements outlined for
manufacturing a product or article, or for providing a service. In many
cases, a PAH does not require a supplier to provide a product, article,
or service that conforms to the approved design requirements for the
finished product or article. For example, the design data for a skin
section of an aircraft may show the final rivet hole dimension, but a
PAH will require a supplier to provide pilot holes of a smaller
diameter. The final diameter of the holes will be achieved during
assembly when the skin is joined to the aircraft.
Another example is when a PAH contracts for a machined part that
requires additional processing that the supplier is not capable of
performing, such as heat treating or plating. In such a case, a PAH's
contract would reflect that it wants the article to conform to the
design data without the additional processing. A PAH would then need to
contract with another supplier for these processes.
In addition, this proposal would require a PAH to establish a
supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that
have been released from a supplier and subsequently found not to
conform (hereafter referred to as a quality escape) to the PAH's
requirements. Currently, Sec. 21.137(c)(2) requires each supplier, at
any tier, to report to the PAH if there has been a quality escape.
Except for first-tier suppliers who report directly to the PAH, this
section does not require suppliers within the supply chain to report to
the next higher tier if there has been a quality escape. This proposal
would require the PAH to define and establish, as part of its quality
system, a process for supplier-reporting of quality escapes. This
process should ensure that those individuals who need to know when a
quality escape has occurred be informed in a timely manner.
The FAA determined it was necessary to clarify Sec. 21.137(c)(2)
because it currently requires 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
FAA recognizes that such a requirement can impose a significant burden
on PAHs. Although the FAA has proposed to include a definition of the
term `supplier' that would include all suppliers within the supply
chain, the proposal would provide PAHs with the ability to develop
procedures to identify those suppliers that would be required to report
quality escapes and to whom they must report. Such procedures would not
necessarily require all suppliers within the supply chain to make such
reports to the PAH. The proposal would permit PAHs to establish a means
of supplier reporting that is more appropriate to its particular
production process. These procedures would be required to be approved
as part of the PAH's quality system.
To comply with proposed Sec. 21.137(c)(2), the FAA expects the
PAH's quality system to specify which suppliers must report, and to
whom, when, and how those reports must be provided. In some cases, the
PAH would want the supplier of certain products, articles, or services
to report a quality escape to both its immediate customer and directly
to the PAH. This reporting could continue up through the supply chain
to the tier where the quality escape has been resolved. A PAH could
communicate its quality escape reporting requirement as a flow-through
requirement to its first-tier suppliers and subsequently through the
supply chain on a purchase order (or equivalent) document.
D. Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and
Articles
An airworthiness approval is a document issued by the FAA for an
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article which certifies that
the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its
approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. This proposal
would revise the definition of airworthiness approval in Sec. 21.1(b)
to indicate that an airworthiness approval document may also be issued
for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article when those
products or articles may not necessarily conform to their approved
designs. Accordingly, the FAA has added the phrase ``unless otherwise
specified'' because under part 21, subpart L, for example, export
airworthiness approvals can be issued for aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers, and articles that do not conform to their approved designs
when such discrepancies are made known to, and accepted by, the
importing country or jurisdiction.
The FAA believes a PAH should be permitted to issue authorized
release documents since the PAH is responsible for ensuring the
airworthiness of each product and article it manufactures. This
proposal would amend Sec. 21.137 by adding a new paragraph (o) to
allow PAHs to issue authorized release documents for new aircraft
engines, propellers, and articles; and for used aircraft engines,
propellers, and articles when rebuilt or altered in accordance with
Sec. 43.3(j).
Production approval holders that intend to issue these documents
must include procedures in their quality systems that provide for the
selection, appointment, training, recordation, removal, and management
of the individuals authorized by the PAH to issue authorized release
documents. The intent of this proposed requirement is to ensure that
only qualified personnel issue these documents. An evaluation of these
individuals' qualifications would need to include an assessment of
their knowledge, background, experience, and training. Qualifications
should be commensurate with the complexity and type of product or
article for which the PAH issues the authorized release documents. When
an authorized release document is being used for the purpose of export,
the production approval holder would be required to comply with the
procedures applicable to the export of new and used aircraft engines,
propellers, and articles specified in Sec. 21.331 and the
responsibilities of exporters specified in Sec. 21.335 of this part.
Including procedures in a PAH's quality system is a conditional
requirement that only applies to a PAH that wants to issue an
authorized release document. Production approval holders not issuing
these documents can continue to obtain approvals from the FAA. The FAA
plans to place guidance regarding the qualifications of the individuals
allowed to issue an authorized release document in guidance material if
this proposal is adopted. This proposal is modeled after the European
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012, Annex I, Part 21,
Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, Parts, and Appliances,
and of Design and Production Organizations.
The intent of this proposal is to recognize a practice permitted by
other authorities and give PAHs in the U.S. the same flexibility and
responsiveness available to their European and Canadian manufacturing
counterparts who already issue authorized release documents. The
proposed changes would harmonize the CFR with regulations of foreign
civil aviation authorities and facilitate the global movement and
acceptance of aircraft engines, propellers, and articles.
All airworthiness certificates would continue to be issued by the
FAA.
[[Page 11009]]
Production approval holders would not be permitted to issue
airworthiness certificates under the provisions of this proposal.
E. Marking of Wooden Propellers
Currently, Sec. 45.11(c) requires each person who produces a
propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under a TC or PC to mark
each product or part using an approved fireproof method. The regulation
does not take into account the inherent difficulty of marking a wooden
propeller with a fireproof method. Under this proposal, Sec. 45.11(c)
would continue to require a fixed-pitch wooden propeller to be marked;
however, the marking would no longer be required to be fireproof. This
relief is not necessary for variable-pitch wooden propellers, as they
are constructed with a metal hub which can be marked with a fireproof
method.
In 2000, 2003, and 2008, the FAA granted Exemptions Nos. 7559,
8394, and 9800 (and an extension with an amendment to Exemption No.
9800 in 2013) to Sensenich Wood Propeller Company, Inc.
(``Sensenich''). These exemptions permitted Sensenich to place the
required identification marking directly on the hub of a wooden
propeller instead of attaching a metal tag with that information.
(Copies of these exemptions are included in the docket.) In its
petition for exemption, Sensenich reported that in accidents involving
damage to wooden propellers, the hub remains intact, thus preserving
the stamped identification. The FAA also noted that because of the
flammability properties of a solid wooden propeller, mounting a metal
tag may be the only way to provide a fireproof identification that will
not likely be lost or destroyed in an accident.
The FAA further noted the possible safety risks inherent in
attaching a metal tag. Attaching a metal tag could: (1) Affect the
environmental resistance of a wooden propeller because the screws would
break the moisture seal, which would increase the potential for
cracking and deterioration of the wooden propeller; (2) increase the
difficulty in attaining propeller balance; and (3) become ineffective
because the metal tag could become loose and fall off, leaving the
propeller with no identification. Therefore, in granting the exemption,
the FAA found that stamping the hub of the propeller with the
identification marks would achieve a level of safety equivalent to that
of the rule. Stamping has been the industry's standard for marking
wooden propellers. Additionally, the FAA recognizes that engravings and
etchings are acceptable methods for marking identification.
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
Overview of Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Costs/benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require Identification of Accountable Minimal costs--requires
Manager. identification of an existing
manager who would be
responsible for, and have
authority over, a PAH's
operations, and who would
serve as a PAH's primary
contact with the FAA.
Allow PC Holders to Manufacture and Codifying the practice,
Install Interface Components. currently allowed by
exemption, would reduce
regulatory compliance costs.
Clarify Supplier Control Requirements.. No additional cost. Proposal
clarifies existing
requirements that PAHs are
responsible for conformity
throughout their supply chains
and gives PAHs flexibility in
establishing a supplier-
reporting process for
nonconforming releases.
Allow PAHs to Issue Authorized Release Voluntary, so inherently cost-
Documents for Aircraft Engines, beneficial.
Propellers and Articles.
Exclude Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers The FAA found the exemption
from Fireproof Marking Requirements. provides an equivalent level
of safety. Codifying the
practice currently allowed by
exemption would reduce
regulatory compliance costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
Production approval holders (PAHs) and TC (type certificate)
holders are potentially affected.
Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule
1. Require Identification of an Accountable Manager
Under this proposal, the FAA would require each applicant for, or
holder of, a Production Certificate (PC), PMA (Parts Manufacturer
Approval), or TSO (Technical Standard Order) authorization to identify
an accountable manager, who would be responsible for, and have
authority over, a PAH's operations, and who would serve as a
[[Page 11010]]
PAH's primary contact with the FAA. This proposal is not intended to
require the PAH to create a new position within its organization and
would not mandate that an individual in a specific position be
identified as the accountable manager. Consequently, the costs, if any,
associated with this requirement are minimal.
2. Allow Production Certificate Holders To Manufacture and Install
Interface Components
PC holders currently cannot install interface components (ICs) on
their type-certificated products without an exemption. Current
regulations governing the production limitation record and the
amendment of PCs restrict the PC holder to the manufacture of products
only (aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers) and do not authorize
installation.\1\ The FAA has granted exemptions to engine
manufacturers, allowing them to manufacture and install airframe
components that interface between the engine and the airframe provided
they own or are licensed to use the IC type design and installation
data. In granting these exemptions, the FAA found that allowing engine
manufacturers to produce and install ICs improved safety and efficiency
by eliminating disassembly, reassembly and retesting, as well as
related scoring of fatigue sensitive parts; damage to critical parts;
and air/fuel/oil leaks.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These regulations were Sec. 21.151 (production limitation
record) and Sec. 21.153 (amendments of production certificates)
before the 2010 changes in the part 21 rule and Sec. 21.142 and
Sec. 21.147 in 2012, after the 2010 changes.
\2\ The production and installation of ICs by engine
manufacturers also increase efficiency by allowing delivery of
quick-change replacement engines to end users such as air carriers
and charter operators. Some piece parts (or kits), such as the
engine buildup unit (EBU), rather than being installed by the PC
holder may be shipped separately to an aircraft manufacturer for the
purpose of just-in-time manufacturing operations, or to an airline
that may want kits on hand for routine maintenance operations or to
replace hardware damaged during operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This provision would codify the practice, currently allowed by
exemption, of allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs, and
would apply to any articles designated by the TC holder that interface
between products, therefore including the interface between propeller
and aircraft engine and between propeller and aircraft, as well as
between aircraft engine and aircraft. Codifying the practice of
allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs implies no change in
safety or efficiency benefits already implied by the practice.
Codifying the practice, however, would reduce regulatory costs since
paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and
granting of exemptions would be eliminated.
3. Supplier Control
With this proposal the FAA intends to clarify existing requirements
that the PAH is responsible for (1) conformity throughout the supply
chain and (2) establishing a supplier reporting process for
nonconforming releases. As there is no definition of supplier in the
current regulations, the proposed rule would define supplier as ``a
person that provides a product, article, or service at any tier in the
supply chain that is used or consumed in the design or manufacture of,
or installed on, a product or article.''
The proposed rule would change the language to Sec. 21.137(c) as
shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current language Proposed language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier Control. Procedures that-- Supplier Control. Procedures
that--
(1) Ensure that each supplier- (1) Ensure that each
furnished product or article conforms supplier-provided product,
to its approved design; and article, or service
conforms to the production
approval holder's
requirements; and
(2) Require each supplier to report to (2) Establish a supplier-
the production approval holder if a reporting process for
product or article has been released products, articles, or
from that supplier and subsequently services that have been
found not to conform to the released from the supplier
applicable design data. and subsequently found not
to conform to the
production approval
holder's requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provision (1) just clarifies the FAA's intent, while provision
(2) gives the PAHs greater flexibility, any additional costs would be
minimal.
4. Allow Production Approval Holders To Issue Authorized Release
Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and Articles
This proposal would allow, but not require, PAHs to issue
authorized release documents using FAA Form 8130-3, ``Authorized
Release Certificate,'' for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles
for which the PAH has a production approval. FAA Form 8130-3 is the
preferred method for issuing an export airworthiness approval
documenting that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to
its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. PAHs
choosing not to issue these authorized release documents would continue
to obtain approvals from the FAA. For aircraft, an export airworthiness
approval would continue to be issued only by the FAA, using Form 8130-
4, ``Export Certificate of Airworthiness.''
Although export airworthiness approvals are required only when
requested by a foreign civil aviation authority, they have become
increasingly valued in the aviation industry. Several U.S.
manufacturers have requested the privilege of issuing authorized
release documents, which is already enjoyed by their European and
Canadian counterparts. As issuance of authorized release documents is
voluntary, this provision would be inherently cost beneficial.
5. Marking of Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers
As noted in the preamble above, the FAA granted an exemption to
Sensenich Wood Propeller Company from the regulations requiring that a
propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an
approved fireproof method. In granting the exemption, the FAA found
that stamping the hub of the propeller with the identification marks
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to the rule. The FAA
maintains that finding in this proposal and, in any case, codifying the
practice, currently allowed by exemption, implies no change in safety
benefits.\3\ Codifying the practice, however, would reduce regulatory
compliance costs since the costs of fireproof stamping and the costs of
paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and
granting of the exemption would be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Since variable-pitch wooden propellers have metal hubs, a
metal tag is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
[[Page 11011]]
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
The provisions of this proposed rule (1) are minimal cost, (2)
would impose no additional costs because the provisions would clarify
only or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary and therefore
inherently cost-beneficial.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments
regarding this determination. Specifically, the FAA requests comments
on whether the proposed rule creates any specific compliance costs
unique to small entities. Please provide detailed economic analysis to
support any cost claims. The FAA also invites comments regarding other
small-entity concerns with respect to the proposed rule.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that the rule's provision allowing PAHs to issue authorized
release documents would be in accord with the Trade Agreements Act as
this provision uses European standards as the basis for United States
regulation. The remaining provisions have a minimal domestic impact
only and therefore no effect on international trade.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 12866
See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' discussion in the ``Regulatory
Notices and Analyses'' section elsewhere in this preamble.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
[[Page 11012]]
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating 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. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR Part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 21
Amendment of production certificates, Issuance of export
airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles,
Organization and Quality system.
14 CFR Part 45
Marking of products.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.1 by revising paragraph (b)(1), redesignating
paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) as (b)(6) through (9), and adding new
paragraph (b)(5) and paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.1 Applicability and definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Airworthiness approval means a document issued by the FAA for
an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article which certifies
that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to
its approved design, unless otherwise specified, and is in a condition
for safe operation.
* * * * *
(5) Interface component means an article that serves as a
functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an
aircraft engine and a propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. An
interface component is designated by the holder of the type certificate
or the supplemental type certificate who controls the approved design
data for that article.
* * * * *
(10) Supplier means a person that provides a product, article, or
service at any tier in the supply chain that is used or consumed in the
design or manufacture of, or installed on a product or article.
0
3. Revise Sec. 21.135 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.135 Organization.
(a) Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate must
provide the FAA with a document describing how its organization will
ensure compliance with the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the
document must identify an accountable manager and describe assigned
responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional
relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other
organizational components.
(b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as
the primary contact with the FAA.
0
4. Amend Sec. 21.137, by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding
paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.137 Quality system.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service
conforms to the production approval holder's requirements; and
(2) Establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles,
or services that have been released from or provided by the supplier
and subsequently found not to conform to the production approval
holder's requirements.
* * * * *
(o) Issuing authorized release documents. Procedures for issuing
authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and
articles
[[Page 11013]]
if the production approval holder intends to issue those documents.
These procedures must provide for the selection, appointment, training,
management, and removal of individuals authorized by the production
approval holder to issue authorized release documents. These documents
may be issued for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles; and
for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles when rebuilt, or
altered, in accordance with Sec. 43.3(j) of this chapter. When an
authorized release document is being used for the purpose of export,
the production approval holder must comply with the procedures
applicable to the export of new and used aircraft engines, propellers,
and articles specified in Sec. 21.331 and the responsibilities of
exporters specified in Sec. 21.335 of this part.
0
5. Revise Sec. 21.142 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.142 Production limitation record.
The FAA issues a production limitation record as part of a
production certificate. The record lists the type certificate number
and model of every product that the production certificate holder is
authorized to manufacture, and identifies every interface component
that the production certificate holder is authorized to manufacture and
install.
0
6. Revise Sec. 21.147 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.147 Amendment of production certificates.
(a) The holder of a production certificate must apply for an
amendment to a production certificate in a form and manner prescribed
by the FAA.
(b) The applicant for an amendment to a production certificate to
add a type certificate or model, or both, must comply with the
applicable requirements of Sec. Sec. 21.137, 21.138, and 21.150.
(c) The applicant for an amendment to a production certificate may
have its production limitation record amended to allow the manufacture
and installation of an interface component, provided--
(1) The design and installation data for the interface component is
owned by, or licensed to, the applicant and made available to the FAA
upon request;
(2) The interface component is manufactured by the applicant;
(3) The applicant's product conforms to its approved type design
and the interface component conforms to its approved type design data;
(4) The assembled product with the installed interface component is
in a condition for safe operation; and
(5) The applicant complies with any other conditions and
limitations the FAA considers necessary.
0
7. Revise Sec. 21.305 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.305 Organization.
(a) Each applicant for or holder of a PMA must provide the FAA with
a document describing how its organization will ensure compliance with
the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the document must identify
an accountable manager and describe assigned responsibilities,
delegated authorities, and the functional relationship of those
responsible for quality to management and other organizational
components.
(b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as
the primary contact with the FAA.
0
8. Revise Sec. 21.605 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.605 Organization.
(a) Each applicant for or holder of a TSO authorization must
provide the FAA with a document describing how its organization will
ensure compliance with the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the
document must identify an accountable manager and describe assigned
responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional
relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other
organizational components.
(b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as
the primary contact with the FAA.
PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING
0
9. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-44105,
44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725, 45302-
45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.
0
10. Amend Sec. 45.11 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 45.11 Marking of products.
* * * * *
(c) Propellers and propeller blades and hubs. Each person who
produces a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under a type
certificate or production certificate must mark each product or part.
Except for a fixed-pitch wooden propeller, the marking must be
accomplished using an approved fireproof method. The marking must--
* * * * *
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2014.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04330 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P