11004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

test method and the ANSI Z21.10.3– 

2013 test method. 

2. DOE requests comment on whether 

updates to DOE’s incorporated test 

methods for unfired hot water storage 

tanks are needed. In particular, DOE 

requests comment on whether a single 

test method for R-value should be used 

(and if so, which industry method is 

most appropriate), or whether replacing 

R-value with standby loss as the energy 

efficiency descriptor for unfired hot 

water storage tanks would be preferable. 

If a new metric such as standby loss is 

more appropriate than R-value, DOE 

requests feedback on the best way to 

establish a standby loss test and the 

parameters of such a test method. 

3. DOE requests comment on potential 

test procedure changes to address issues 

with setting the tank thermostat, 

including (but not limited to) either a 

lower mean tank temperature 

requirement or a measurement of outlet 

water temperature rather than mean 

tank temperature. 

4. DOE requests comment on whether 

clarifications are needed to the test 

procedure for thermal efficiency of 

commercial water heaters to indicate 

required flow rates and to account for 

potential changes in thermal energy 

within the water heater from the start of 

the 30-minute test to the end. 

5. DOE seeks comment on appropriate 

test procedures for commercial heat 

pump water heaters. In particular, DOE 

is interested in receiving comments and 

information relating to the industry test 

methods that are available (i.e., 

ASHRAE 118.1–2012 and AHRI 1300) 

and whether any modifications to those 

standards would be needed for adoption 

as the Federal test method. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04304 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

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: 

priscilla.steward@faa.gov or telephone: 

(202) 385–6358; email: robert.cook@

faa.gov. 

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: 

paul.g.greer@faa.gov. 

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, § 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 §§ 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 supplierfurnished 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 11007 

PAH would have to amend the 

document required by §§ 21.135, 21.305, 

and 21.605, as appropriate, to reflect 

this change, and notify the FAA of this 

amendment, in accordance with 

§§ 21.146(a), 21.316(a), or 21.616(a). 

The FAA understands the need for 

various business models and 

organizational structures. Currently, 

§§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 buildto-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 § 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, § 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 supplierreporting 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, § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 21.331 and the responsibilities of 

exporters specified in § 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 11009 

Production approval holders would not 

be permitted to issue airworthiness 

certificates under the provisions of this 

proposal. 

E. Marking of Wooden Propellers 

Currently, § 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, 

§ 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 Manager ....................................... Minimal costs—requires 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 Install Interface Components ..... Codifying the practice, 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 Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers and Articles.Voluntary, so inherently cost-beneficial. 

Exclude Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers from Fireproof Marking Requirements.The FAA found the exemption 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1These regulations were § 21.151 (production 

limitation record) and § 21.153 (amendments of 

production certificates) before the 2010 changes in 

the part 21 rule and § 21.142 and § 21.147 in 2012, 

after the 2010 changes. 

2The 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. 

3Since variable-pitch wooden propellers have 

metal hubs, a metal tag is not necessary. 

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

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 § 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-furnished product or article conforms 

to its approved design; and 

(1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the production approval holder’s requirements; and 

(2) Require each supplier to report to the production approval holder if a product or article has been released from that supplier 

and subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design 

data. 

(2) Establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that have been released from the supplier 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. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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-forprofit 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 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. 

■ 3. Revise § 21.135 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 4. Amend § 21.137, by revising 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding 

paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 21.137 Quality system. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Ensure that each supplierprovided 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 21.331 and the 

responsibilities of exporters specified in 

§ 21.335 of this part. 

■ 5. Revise § 21.142 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 6. Revise § 21.147 to read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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. 

■ 7. Revise § 21.305 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 8. Revise § 21.605 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 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. 

■ 10. Amend § 45.11 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0059; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–075–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–07– 

08, for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 

airplanes. AD 2012–07–08 currently 

requires revising the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section (ALS) of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate new 

structural inspection requirements. 

Since we issued AD 2012–07–08, we 

have determined that more restrictive 

maintenance requirements and 

airworthiness limitations are necessary. 

This proposed AD would require 

revising the maintenance or inspection 

program to incorporate new inspections. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking of structural 

components, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS