53368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, and 45 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25877; Amendment 

Nos. 1–64, 21–92, 43–43, and 45–26] 

RIN 2120–AJ44 

Production and Airworthiness 

Approvals, Part Marking, and 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its 

certification procedures and 

identification requirements for 

aeronautical products and articles. The 

amendments will update and 

standardize those requirements for 

production approval holders (PAHs), 

revise export airworthiness approval 

requirements to facilitate global 

manufacturing, move all part marking 

requirements from part 21 to part 45, 

and amend the identification 

requirements for products and articles. 

The intent of these changes is to 

continue to promote safety by ensuring 

that aircraft, and products and articles 

designed specifically for use in aircraft, 

wherever manufactured, meet 

appropriate minimum standards for 

design and construction. As a result of 

this action, the FAA’s regulations now 

better reflect the current global aircraft 

and aircraft products and articles 

manufacturing environment. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this rule, 

contact Barbara Capron and/or Robert 

Cook, Production Certification Branch, 

AIR–220, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 385–6360 or (202) 385– 

6358; e-mail: barbara.capron@faa.gov or 

robert.cook@faa.gov. For legal questions 

concerning this rule, contact Angela 

Washington, AGC–210, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–7556; e-mail: 

angela.washington@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for this Rulemaking 

Under the laws of the United States, 

the Department of Transportation has 

the responsibility to develop 

transportation policies and programs 

that contribute to providing fast, safe, 

efficient, and convenient transportation 

(49 United States Code, 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 

(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 

(49 U.S.C. 44104). 

The FAA is amending its regulations 

governing the certification procedures 

for products and articles and its 

requirements for identification and 

registration marking. These changes will 

improve the quality standards 

applicable to manufacturers, which help 

ensure that products and articles are 

produced as designed and are safe to 

operate. We are also relocating and 

standardizing our requirements for 

marking articles intended for use in 

aviation. These changes will make it 

easier to determine whether the correct 

articles are installed, which will 

contribute to a greater degree of safety. 

For these reasons, this rule will be a 

reasonable and necessary exercise of our 

rulemaking authority and obligations. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Summary of Amendments 

B. Miscellaneous Requirements 

C. Compliance Dates 

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

IV. Amendments 

I. Background 

Over the last several decades, the 

aircraft manufacturing industry has 

evolved significantly. Years ago, most 

transport category aircraft were 

manufactured in the United States. A 

typical business model consisted of a 

production certificate (PC) holder with 

a relatively small number of suppliers. 

Today, the number of aircraft 

manufacturing suppliers has increased 

dramatically. Conversely, through the 

years, the aircraft industry has seen a 

steady decline in the number of U.S.- 

based transport category aircraft 

manufacturers. Those manufacturers, 

who once predominantly oversaw the 

production of replacement articles for 

their aircraft, now witness the ever 

increasing production of replacement 

and modification articles by 

independent parts manufacturers. 

Suppliers, including parts 

manufacturers, were located mainly in 

the United States decades ago; now, 

they are located all over the world. 

Suppliers are manufacturing greater 

percentages of aircraft products and 

articles. As a result, aircraft are now 

manufactured in an increasingly global 

environment. 

The FAA did not envision such an 

expansion in aircraft manufacturing 

when the certification rules were first 

promulgated in 1964. The industry has 

been the subject of burgeoning 

internationalization in the last several 

decades. Evidence of this fact is that 

now, more than ever before, the United 

States has more bilateral agreements 

with foreign civil airworthiness 

authorities addressing the production, 

import, and export of aircraft. The old 

certification rules are too restrictive to 

accommodate today’s manufacturing 

paradigm. Removing some of those 

restrictions will greatly improve our 

regulatory efficiency. This final rule is 

the FAA’s response to the changing 

dynamics of the aircraft manufacturing 

industry, and this final rule contains 

requirements that reflect the current 

global environment. 

The evolution of the manufacturing 

industry prompted the FAA to publish 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

‘‘Production and Airworthiness 

Approvals, Parts Marking, and 

Miscellaneous Proposals’’ (71 FR 58914, 

October 5, 2006). In that notice, we 

proposed comprehensive changes to 

certification procedures and 

identification requirements for 

aeronautical products and articles. In 

general, we proposed to: (1) Standardize 

quality system requirements for all 

Production Approval Holders (PAH); (2) 

require PAHs, including those 

producing under Type Certificate, to 

mark all articles, including subassemblies and components; (3) require 

PAHs to issue airworthiness approvals 

for aircraft engines, propellers, and 

other aviation articles; (4) require PAHs 

to create a certifying staff to issue those 

approvals; and (5) revise export 

airworthiness approval requirements to 

facilitate global manufacturing. The 

NPRM contains the background and 

rationale for this final rule, and except 

where we have made revisions to the 

proposal in this document, you should 

refer to the NPRM for that information. 

Commenters to the NPRM represented 

aircraft and parts manufacturers; repair 

stations; the U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Advocacy 

(SBA’s Office of Advocacy); industry 

groups; and other civil aviation 

authorities and individuals. While there 

was much support for the general intent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53369 

of the proposed rule changes, the largest 

percentage of the commenters opposed 

the following four specific proposals: 

1. Identification Requirements for Parts, 

Appliances, and Technical Standard 

Order Articles 

The NPRM proposed to require 

manufacturers to mark each component 

of an aircraft engine or propeller, each 

part and component thereof, and each 

appliance and component thereof. Until 

now, the FAA has only required 

marking of the part; not the individual 

components of the part. Over forty 

commenters rejected the proposal, 

stating that the requirement to mark 

each component would be cost 

prohibitive. Also, the proposal would 

necessitate a change in all associated 

drawings and design data to reflect the 

marking requirement. 

2. Mandatory Issuance of Airworthiness 

Approvals for Each Aircraft Engine, 

Propeller, and Article 

The NPRM contained a proposal that 

would have required PAHs to issue an 

airworthiness approval for each aircraft 

engine, propeller, or article produced 

under the production approval that 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation. 

Currently, and under the old rules, an 

airworthiness approval is mandatory for 

products and articles only when those 

products and articles are being 

exported. The FAA has never required 

that airworthiness approvals be issued 

domestically. Commenters stated that 

because a disproportionately larger 

number of aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles are shipped domestically 

than are exported, mandatory issuance 

of airworthiness approvals would 

impose a substantial cost burden on 

manufacturers. 

3. Creation of Certifying Staff To Issue 

Airworthiness Approvals 

We proposed in the NPRM to require 

PAHs to develop procedures for 

establishing and maintaining certifying 

staff that would be responsible for 

issuing airworthiness approvals for 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, 

including the issuance of export 

airworthiness approvals. Presently, only 

the FAA or its designees issue 

airworthiness approvals. Commenters 

opposed this requirement, arguing that 

it would necessitate additional staff 

training and implementation of new 

procedures for manufacturers, thus 

unnecessarily escalating the cost of 

manufacturing. 

4. Standardized Quality System 

Requirements 

In the NPRM, we proposed to 

standardize quality system requirements 

for PAHs so that all PAHs comply with 

the same set of quality system 

requirements, regardless of the product 

or article produced. We received over 65 

comments (including those from the 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy; industry 

groups representing manufacturers, 

airlines, and pilots; and aircraft, aircraft 

engine, and aircraft parts 

manufacturers). An overriding concern 

of the commenters was that the quality 

system requirements, if adopted, would 

be burdensome to implement, 

particularly for small businesses. 

Commenters asserted that the 

requirements would impose substantial 

additional costs on industry with no 

measurable increase in safety. 

In addition to the commenters noted 

above, there were commenters on other 

proposals in the NPRM. We received 

over 100 comment letters (with over 500 

comments) in response to the NPRM. 

After evaluating all comments received, 

we proceeded with this rulemaking 

action. 

II. Discussion of Final Rule 

A. Summary of Amendments 

1. Identification Requirements 

In response to the concerns and issues 

raised, the FAA has reconsidered some 

of its proposals and made several 

substantive changes to the proposed 

regulatory text. Our most significant 

change pertains to the proposal to 

require marking of all component parts 

and appliances. Fifty-two commenters 

(including SBA’s Office of Advocacy; 

industry groups representing 

manufacturers, airlines, and pilots; and 

aircraft, aircraft engine, and aircraft 

parts manufacturers) asserted the 

proposed requirement to mark detail 

parts would be cost prohibitive and 

would provide no verifiable safety 

benefit. Commenters pointed out some 

products or articles consist of hundreds 

or sometimes thousands of detail parts, 

arguing that the costs associated with 

changing the drawings and design data 

could cost small businesses over one 

billion dollars to implement. 

When we performed our initial 

regulatory flexibility assessment (IRFA) 

for the NPRM, we did not recognize the 

extent to which design data would have 

to be changed in order to accommodate 

the proposed marking of detail parts. 

Given that each product or article 

consists of hundreds or thousands of 

sub-tiered drawings, all of which would 

have to be changed, we agree with the 

commenters that we put forth a costprohibitive proposal. Accordingly, the 

final rule does not contain this 

requirement. 

As a result of the many comments in 

opposition to our marking proposal, we 

revised the proposed rule to provide for 

methods of identification more flexible 

than marking. PAHs must mark the 

product or article that they have been 

granted a certificate or approval for in 

accordance with part 45. However, the 

sub-assemblies and component parts of 

that product or article do not have to be 

marked or identified unless they leave 

the PAH’s facility as a separate article 

(e.g., replacement or modification part). 

Sub-assemblies, component parts, or 

replacement articles that leave the 

PAH’s facility as FAA-approved must 

include the manufacturer’s part number 

and name, trademark, symbol, or other 

FAA-approved PAH identification (e.g., 

the production approval number, cage 

code, or Federal supply code for 

manufacturers (FSCM)). A manufacturer 

or person producing under subparts F, 

G, K, or O may choose any method to 

meet this requirement. Methods 

include, but are not limited to, marking 

the article, attaching a tag to the article, 

placing the article in a container, or 

providing a document with the article 

with the information previously 

mentioned. This identification 

requirement codifies current industry 

practice and is less stringent than the 

proposed requirement. 

This identification requirement is not 

driven by a history of aviation accidents 

where inadequate marking or 

identification was necessarily found to 

be a primary cause; rather, it is part of 

a systemic approach to safety. Accident 

investigations and safety management 

system analyses show that accidents are 

rarely caused by one event. Accidents 

are the result of a chain of events. If any 

of the events had not occurred, an 

accident may have been prevented. This 

requirement assists in the traceability of 

articles and helps reduce the 

installation of incorrect articles, thereby 

preventing accidents. 

Because identification of articles is 

simply a byproduct of the marking 

proposal, the FAA has determined that 

it is within the scope of this rulemaking. 

The economic effects of this 

requirement have been evaluated and 

determined to be cost-neutral (i.e., 

having no economic impact). 

In the NPRM, we proposed to revise 

§ 45.15 to specify particular marking 

requirements for parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) and technical standard 

order (TSO) articles. In doing so, we 

removed the former requirements for 

producers of PMA articles to mark those 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53370 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

articles with the designation ‘‘FAA– 

PMA’’ and information stating the 

installation eligibility of the article. As 

proposed, the rule would have required 

PMA holders to mark articles with the 

PMA holder’s name, trademark, symbol, 

or other FAA-approved identification. 

Several commenters (including 

Airline Transport Association (ATA), 

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), 

General Electric Company (GE), the 

Boeing Company, and Snecma) 

questioned the proposal. They stated the 

current requirement to mark PMA 

articles with the letters ‘‘FAA–PMA’’ 

increases traceability and allows 

installers and maintenance providers to 

easily identify the article being 

installed. The European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) stated it had recently 

introduced a requirement for the 

marking of parts not produced under the 

control of a TC or supplementary type 

certificate (STC). The marking clearly 

distinguishes those parts from parts 

produced by a TC or STC holder. EASA 

suggested the FAA and EASA 

coordinate their efforts in developing a 

coherent, consistent, and 

comprehensive part marking policy. 

The FAA does not espouse an opinion 

regarding the premise that marking 

PMA articles as ‘‘FAA–PMA’’ increases 

traceability. However, having a marking 

requirement consistent with the 

requirement of other aviation authorities 

is advantageous and enhances 

harmonization efforts. Furthermore, as 

we reviewed the proposal, we realized 

the removal of ‘‘FAA–PMA’’ would 

result in additional costs to the PMA 

holder. Much like the proposal to mark 

detail parts, the removal of ‘‘FAA– 

PMA’’ would require a manufacturer to 

revise all of its design drawings, making 

it a cost-prohibitive change. 

Accordingly, this final rule retains the 

current ‘‘FAA–PMA’’ marking 

requirements. 

Unless otherwise specified in the 

applicable TSO, § 45.15 now requires 

manufacturers of TSO articles to 

permanently and legibly mark the 

article with the TSO number and letter 

of designation, all markings specifically 

required by the applicable TSO, and the 

serial number or the date of 

manufacture of the article, or both. 

Likewise, each person who 

manufactures a part or component for 

which a replacement time, inspection 

interval, or related procedure is 

specified in the Airworthiness 

Limitations section of a manufacturer’s 

maintenance manual or Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness must 

permanently and legibly mark that part 

or component with a serial number (or 

equivalent). 

An individual commenter expressed 

concern that requiring a manufacturer to 

permanently mark an article may result 

in masking the age of a product. The 

commenter argued that a manufacturer 

could modify an existing appliance and 

issue it a new serial number and date of 

manufacture. The commenter 

recommended the proposal be revised to 

prohibit such activity. We understand 

the commenter’s concern; however, the 

original serial number and date of 

manufacture must be maintained 

throughout the TSO article’s life-cycle. 

We think the regulation is sufficiently 

clear that markings must be permanent. 

Additional markings must not obscure, 

remove, or obliterate the original 

markings. 

GE and Pratt & Whitney stated that 

the phrase ‘‘or equivalent,’’ when used 

to refer to an alternative to marking a 

part or component with a serial number, 

is confusing and should not be in the 

final rule. We disagree. Use of the 

phrase ‘‘or equivalent’’ offers flexibility 

in compliance with the marking 

requirement and provides an assessable 

standard for FAA enforcement of the 

requirement. Therefore, we retained the 

phrase in the final rule. 

Section 45.11 now provides relief to 

aircraft owners and operators for data 

plate location requirements for gliders 

and certain types of aircraft. This rule 

allows the data plate to be secured in an 

accessible location near the aircraft 

entrance. The former rule required the 

data plate be secured to the aircraft 

fuselage exterior, such that it was legible 

to a person on the ground. However, the 

old requirements were impractical. Over 

the last several years, the FAA has 

issued numerous exemptions from 

§ 45.11 for relief from the requirements 

for data plate location. This rule relieves 

the burden on the public and the FAA 

in regards to processing these types of 

exemptions in the future. 

AIA and GE stated that the proposed 

requirement to mark engine modules 

was unclear. They questioned whether 

the module marking should reflect the 

engine’s information or the module’s 

information. Also, GE stated that an 

additional identification plate should be 

added to a module when an STC has 

been incorporated. We have determined 

that the requirement to mark engine 

modules is unnecessary. The rule 

language has been changed to remove 

this requirement. We do not agree that 

additional marking is required when an 

STC is incorporated. While an STC is 

used for the approval of a major change 

in the type design, it does not approve 

the production of parts used in the 

modification. The data plate placed on 

a TC product is based on the 

manufacturer of the product, rather than 

the TC design approval holder (DAH). 

Requiring additional markings for STC 

incorporation would confuse the STC 

holder with the actual manufacturer of 

the STC modification part. It also would 

not provide any safety benefit. STC 

incorporation is marked in aircraft 

logbooks and flight manuals and has 

been shown effective. 

A repair station expressed concern 

about changes to articles driven by 

service bulletins. Articles for which 

service bulletins have been issued often 

require a new or revised marking. Since 

many of these articles are in service, the 

maintenance provider, not the producer, 

makes the required changes. Therefore, 

the commenter requested that the FAA 

create a regulatory provision permitting 

maintenance providers to act as the 

manufacturer’s agent for the purpose of 

remarking the article. 

Changes to articles pursuant to service 

bulletins are governed by the provisions 

of part 43. Those changes, including the 

marking of the articles, are considered 

maintenance activity and are more 

appropriately accomplished pursuant to 

the maintenance provisions of part 43. 

If the FAA finds a part or component 

is too small or otherwise impractical to 

mark with any of the information 

required by this part, the manufacturer 

is required to attach that information to 

the part or component, or its container. 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) commented that an enormous 

workload is imposed on the FAA 

because it must determine whether an 

article is too small or is otherwise 

impractical to mark. AOPA 

recommended that the manufacturer be 

allowed to make that determination. 

The FAA is ultimately responsible for 

determining compliance with regulatory 

requirements, and we must ensure 

consistency in application of the 

standard. Therefore, we will not 

abdicate our responsibility for 

determining whether articles are too 

small or otherwise impractical to mark. 

Marking requirements for all PAHs 

are now consolidated in part 45. These 

requirements apply to all PAHs, as well 

as to persons who produce the products 

or articles for export to the United States 

under the provisions of an agreement 

between the United States and another 

country or jurisdiction. The required 

markings constitute a representation 

that the product or article conforms to 

its approved design. Only the person 

authorized to produce the product or 

article may make this representation. 

However, this rule does not preclude an 

approved supplier to a PAH from 

applying markings in accordance with 

requirements imposed by the PAH; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53371 

neither does it preclude applying inprocess markings throughout the 

manufacturing process. 

AIA, ATA, GE, and Pratt & Whitney 

stated the FAA should permit marking 

by owner operators, certificated repair 

stations, or appropriately certificated 

mechanics performing maintenance 

under part 43. However, part 43 already 

allows owner/operators, certificated 

repair stations, and certificated 

mechanics performing maintenance to 

mark articles, and addressing it in this 

rulemaking would be duplicative and 

unnecessary. 

A parts manufacturer and an 

individual questioned whether using 

barcodes would be an acceptable means 

of complying with the rule, particularly 

in the case of small articles. Barcode 

identification may be used in 

conjunction with, but not in lieu of, the 

marking requirements. Provisions for 

marking small or delicate articles are 

specified in § 45.15(d). 

2. Mandatory Issuance of Airworthiness 

Approvals and Certifying Staff 

Forty-six commenters (including 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy, industry 

groups, aircraft manufacturers, engine 

manufacturers, parts manufacturers, and 

individuals) stated that FAA’s proposal 

to require the issuance of airworthiness 

approvals for each aircraft engine, 

propeller, or article would be cost 

prohibitive. Commenters stated that 

because a disproportionately larger 

number of aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles are shipped domestically 

than are exported, mandatory issuance 

of airworthiness approvals would 

impose a substantial cost burden on 

manufacturers. 

We have further reviewed the 

potential impact of the proposal and 

have determined that the costs would 

disproportionately affect small 

manufacturers. Many small 

manufacturers do not ship their 

products or articles outside the United 

States, nor do they currently issue 

airworthiness approvals. In addition, 

airworthiness approvals are often 

separated from the product or article 

when it is received by the end user, 

nullifying the safety aspect of increased 

traceability. Because we have 

determined that the mandatory issuance 

of airworthiness approvals will not 

increase safety, and there is a high cost 

associated with its implementation, that 

proposal is not included in this final 

rule. 

We also have determined that 

mandating PAHs to establish and 

maintain a certifying staff to issue 

airworthiness approvals would 

necessitate costly staff training, and 

implementation of new procedures 

would be too burdensome for 

manufacturers. Because we have not 

included the proposed requirement for 

mandatory issuance of airworthiness 

approvals for each aircraft engine, 

propeller, and article, the requirement 

for a PAH to establish and maintain a 

certifying staff to issue the approvals is 

therefore not included in this rule. 

3. Quality System Requirements 

This final rule prescribes a PAH’s 

requirements for controlling the quality 

of the product or article it manufactures. 

The FAA has imposed in this final rule 

certain additional PAH quality system 

requirements designed to achieve 

overall improvement of the PAH’s 

quality system. The quality system 

consists of fourteen specific quality 

system requirements. As described 

below, it is important to note that those 

fourteen quality system requirements 

are scalable, depending on the size and 

complexity of the PAH and of the 

product or article produced. Some of 

these requirements were already 

mandatory prior to this rulemaking and 

have been retained. The remaining 

requirements also have already been 

incorporated by industry for years and 

used voluntarily as ‘‘best practices.’’ 

Prior to this rulemaking, holders of 

different production approvals 

complied with, and were audited to, 

differing sets of requirements. For 

instance, if a manufacturer produced a 

PMA part and a TSO article, the 

manufacturer was subject to different 

quality and marking standards for each 

part it produced. Today’s requirements 

are now applicable to PC and PMA 

holders and TSO authorizations alike. 

This final rule relieves PAHs from 

having to maintain, and the FAA from 

having to oversee, multiple PAH 

systems and procedures. Hence, this 

final rule will increase regulatory 

efficiency. 

We received over 65 comments 

(including those from the SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy; industry groups 

representing manufacturers, airlines, 

and pilots; and aircraft, aircraft engine, 

and parts manufacturers). A general 

consensus of the commenters was that 

the proposed quality system 

requirements would be too restrictive, 

burdensome, and costly, especially on 

small businesses. 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy believed 

the FAA’s approach was more 

appropriate for large companies, rather 

than for smaller companies. That 

commenter suggested the FAA consider 

exempting small businesses from the 

quality system requirements or adopt a 

tiered approach based on the size and 

volume of the business. In addition, 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy suggested that 

if the FAA does not intend to require an 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO)- or SAEequivalent regime, then it should delete 

the references to those standards in the 

preamble. In the NPRM, we likened our 

quality system requirements to those 

international quality standards and 

suggested that there is a global trend 

toward implementing them. SBA’s 

Office of Advocacy argued the FAA 

should not impose ISO- or AS-based 

requirements of advocacy, maintaining 

that such a requirement would be 

duplicative because many PAHs have 

already achieved ISO or AS 

certification. 

The FAA derived its quality system 

requirements from a number of sources, 

including previous requirements in 

subparts G and K, as well as industry 

best practices, ISO standards, and other 

aviation authorities’ requirements (e.g., 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), and Transport Canada). These 

requirements do not introduce 

significantly different standards for 

PAHs, small businesses included. 

Because many PAHs currently employ 

these standards as best practices, the 

FAA has determined that compliance 

will not be costly. We have determined 

that the quality system requirements, as 

proposed, are appropriate for all 

manufacturers. 

In response to the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy’s comment suggesting the 

FAA adopt a tiered approach for small 

businesses, the FAA maintains that even 

small businesses have many of these 

practices in place, just on a smaller 

scale than larger aircraft manufacturers. 

We are simply codifying those practices. 

Our requirements are consistent for all 

manufacturers, but they will be scalable 

and commensurate to the size of the 

company and the complexity of the 

product or article produced. For 

example, we would expect a large 

aircraft manufacturer to have a welldeveloped, complex quality system. In 

contrast, a small parts manufacturer 

producing a non-complex article could 

have a less complex quality system. 

However, that system could still 

comply with FAA quality system 

regulations and reflect the needs of the 

PAH without imposing an undue 

burden. The FAA will provide 

additional information on the Internet 

site http://www.faa.gov on how a PAH 

may construct a scalable quality system, 

to include examples. 

In addition to industry best practices, 

these amended quality system 

requirements are now consistent with 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of other aviation 

authorities. As a result, these quality 

system requirements will encourage 

greater international acceptance of 

products and articles and facilitate the 

import and export of those products and 

articles. 

This rule also requires that a 

manufacturer’s quality system include 

procedures for controlling the use of 

design data and subsequent changes to 

ensure that only current, correct, and 

approved data are used. Earlier, we had 

proposed that the system include 

procedures for controlling design data, 

rather than the use of the data. However, 

GE correctly commented that the TC 

holder, not the PAH, controls the design 

data. Accordingly, we revised the rule 

language to accommodate that fact. We 

now require PAHs to have access to 

design data necessary to determine 

conformity and airworthiness for each 

product and article produced under the 

PC. In the case of a PAH who obtained 

approval by test and computation, the 

PAH controls the data. However, a PAH 

who obtained approval by licensing 

agreement might only have access to the 

data through the type design holder. 

This rule now requires manufacturers 

to establish procedures to control 

conformity of each supplier-furnished 

product or article to its approved design 

before release for installation. The PAH 

must establish a quality system that 

ensures the products or articles 

produced are conforming and in a 

condition for safe operation. In that 

regard, we have identified Supplier 

Control as one of the processes for 

which the PAH must establish 

procedures. The PAH is responsible for 

determining the type and scope of 

controls and the frequency of oversight 

necessary to ensure the conformity of 

the products or services provided by its 

supply chain, along with its compliance 

to contract requirements. 

We further require that the quality 

system include procedures for 

inspections and tests to ensure that a 

product or article conforms to its 

approved design. This revision clarifies 

that the purpose of inspections and tests 

is to verify that each product and article 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation. In 

addition, the inspection and test 

procedures must include a flight test of 

each aircraft produced, unless that 

aircraft will be exported as an 

unassembled aircraft, and a functional 

test of each aircraft engine and each 

propeller must be performed. Embraer 

questioned the benefit of performing a 

functional test on a fixed pitch propeller 

because it has no control system. For 

that reason, Embraer proposed we create 

an exception to exclude fixed pitch 

propellers from functional testing; 

however, we disagree. Inspections and 

tests, including functional tests, must be 

performed on fixed pitch propellers. 

These tests are used to validate whether 

performance characteristics and the 

structural integrity meet the design 

requirements. 

The quality system must include 

procedures to ensure that all inspection, 

measuring, and test equipment used to 

determine conformity of products and 

articles is calibrated and controlled. 

Each calibration standard must be 

traceable to a standard acceptable to the 

FAA. Boeing suggested we require 

calibration of inspection, measuring, 

and test equipment only when 

calibration is specified by the type 

design. However, calibration of 

inspection, measuring, and test 

equipment is a function of the quality 

system; it is not addressed in the type 

design. Proper calibration of all 

equipment helps ensure the integrity of 

the manufacturing process. 

This rule now requires that a quality 

system include procedures to ensure 

that discarded articles are rendered 

unusable. This revision helps ensure 

that discarded articles are not 

erroneously placed into service on 

aircraft. AIA, GE, and Boeing proposed 

that the FAA allow PAHs to identify 

articles as ‘‘scrap,’’ rather than the PAH 

rendering discarded articles as 

‘‘unusable’’. The commenters further 

recommended that we define the term 

‘‘scrap’’ in the rule. 

The term ‘‘scrap’’ is an acceptable 

industry term that may be used at the 

PAH’s discretion, but many times, 

PAH’s may use ‘‘scrapped’’ items in a 

new capacity. The term ‘‘scrap’’ does 

not clearly convey that the item may not 

be reused in a type-certificated product. 

For the purposes of this rule, we have 

decided that the term ‘‘unusable’’ 

clearly reflects our intent to ensure that 

an article that has been discarded 

cannot be used. 

In addition, this rule requires that the 

quality system include procedures to 

prevent damage or deterioration of 

products and articles during handling, 

storage, preservation, packaging, and 

delivery. AIA, GE, and Pratt & Whitney 

argued that the PAH cannot ensure the 

condition of articles after they have left 

the PAH’s facility, and they 

recommended that we remove the term 

‘‘delivery’’ from the proposed rule 

language. We agree and have revised the 

regulatory text accordingly. 

Pratt & Whitney also recommended 

revising the rule language to reflect that 

the quality system include procedures 

‘‘intended’’ to prevent damage and 

deterioration of products and articles, as 

opposed to procedures that will prevent 

damage and deterioration. However, the 

FAA is responsible for imposing a 

standard that is measurable. We have 

determined that the standard imposed 

will better prevent damage or 

deterioration. Thus, we have retained 

the rule language as proposed. 

The FAA now requires the quality 

system to include procedures for 

identifying, storing, protecting, 

retrieving, and retaining quality records. 

Quality system records include 

inspection and test records, material 

review board records, and work orders. 

Both production approval applicants 

and PAHs must retain these records for 

at least five years for the products and 

articles manufactured under the 

approval and at least ten years for those 

articles that are identified as critical 

components under § 45.15(c) of this 

chapter. 

GE recommended we increase the 

record retention time to 40 years. An 

individual commenter stated that the 

former record retention requirements 

were adequate. However, the new 

record retention requirements are the 

result of a recommendation from the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC). The ARAC stated 

that it is possible for a product or article 

to remain in production in excess of two 

years before it is released from 

production. Furthermore, that product 

or article would spend some length of 

time in service before any airworthiness 

directives (ADs) were possibly issued 

against it. Therefore, by the time a 

nonconformance or unairworthy 

condition is identified, the 2-year record 

retention period could have passed, 

making it difficult to identify a root 

cause for the condition. We have 

determined that a 5-year record 

retention for products and articles and 

a 10-year record retention for critical 

parts are necessary to facilitate the 

tracking of nonconformances. However, 

a PAH may maintain records longer if it 

chooses. 

Boeing suggested that we require 

record retention periods for products 

and articles only. We disagree. Records 

are objective evidence that a PAH has 

complied with all applicable regulatory 

requirements. Records are part of the 

quality system and are used to validate 

conformity to type design. Therefore, we 

have determined that these records are 

necessary, and the retention period is 

appropriate. 

We now require that the quality 

system include procedures for planning, 

conducting, and documenting internal 

audits to ensure compliance with the 

approved quality. A parts manufacturer 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53373 

suggested the meaning of the term 

‘‘internal’’ is relative to a PAH’s quality 

system; therefore, audits of suppliers 

would fall within the scope of internal 

audits because a supplier is under the 

PAH’s quality system. The commenter 

requested a clarification of the 

definition of ‘‘internal audits’’ as it 

pertains to suppliers. 

The concept of what constitutes 

‘‘internal’’ for the purposes of an audit 

is relative to the PAH’s quality system. 

We think the regulation is sufficiently 

clear. Suppliers are controlled through 

the PAH’s quality system, and 

procedures for suppliers’ audits are 

dictated in § 21.137(c), Supplier control. 

Conversely, § 21.137(l) denotes 

procedures for the conduct of internal 

audits of the effectiveness of the PAH’s 

Supplier Control System. 

4. Replacement and Modification 

Articles 

Former §§ 21.303(a) and (b) addressed 

production requirements for 

replacement and modification parts to 

ensure that only articles that conform to 

their approved design and are in 

condition for safe operation are installed 

in type-certificated aircraft. With certain 

exceptions, the former rule prohibited 

the production of such parts for sale for 

installation on a type-certificated 

product, unless those parts were 

produced pursuant to a PMA. Exempted 

from this requirement were parts 

produced under a TC or PC, parts 

produced by an owner or operator for 

maintaining or altering his own product, 

parts produced under an FAA TSO, and 

standard parts. This final rule 

consolidates those former requirements 

in newly established § 21.9(a), with 

some revisions. Under today’s rule, the 

FAA will now prohibit the production 

of a replacement or modification article 

if the producer knows, or should know, 

that the part is reasonably likely to be 

installed on a type-certificated product 

unless the article part is: 

• Produced under a TC; 

• Produced under an FAA production 

approval; 

• A standard part; 

• A commercial part, as defined in 

§ 21.1; 

• Produced by an owner or operator 

for maintaining or altering that owner or 

operator’s product; or 

• Fabricated by an appropriately 

rated certificate holder with a quality 

system and consumed in the repair or 

alteration of a product in accordance 

with part 43. 

The provisions of § 21.9 apply to the 

producer of any part that may be used 

as a replacement or modification article, 

not just parts that were produced 

specifically as replacement or 

modification articles. In determining 

whether a violation has occurred, one 

factor the FAA will consider is whether 

the article was represented as suitable 

for installation on a type-certificated 

product. Producers of replacement or 

modification articles who represent 

those articles as suitable for installation 

on a type-certificated product may be in 

violation of § 21.9 unless the articles 

were produced under one of the above 

exceptions. 

Representation may include, but is 

not limited to, a producer advertising its 

parts in aviation magazines; 

representing the part with statements 

such as ‘‘aviation quality’’ or ‘‘as 

previously installed on’’; issuing 

aviation parts catalogs; or marketing at 

aviation trade shows and conferences. 

Owners, operators, producers, and 

maintenance providers rely on these 

representations to determine the 

airworthiness of an aircraft, or the 

acceptability of products and articles for 

a given application. Therefore, these 

representations must be truthful. 

Assessing representation of a part is just 

one means of determining whether a 

violation of § 21.9(a) has occurred. 

Absent any such representation, the 

FAA may still find a violation has 

occurred if evidence can be established 

that the producer knows or should 

know that the part is reasonably likely 

to be installed on a type-certificated 

product. 

Finally, newly established § 21.9(c) 

would allow a person to represent an 

article as suitable for installation on a 

type-certificated aircraft if the article 

was declared surplus by the U.S. Armed 

Forces and was intended for use on that 

model of U.S. Armed Forces aircraft. 

We received thirty-seven comments 

on this section. SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy requested additional 

clarification on how the provisions of 

this section of the rule would apply. In 

addition, two individuals stated the rule 

language ‘‘if a person knows, or should 

know, that the part is reasonably likely 

to be installed on a type-certificated 

product’’ is very subjective, and it will 

be difficult to properly and consistently 

enforce. It believed distributors, owner/ 

operators, and manufacturers could be 

subject to legal action due to 

misunderstandings of the rule. The 

expected misunderstandings would 

arise from the likelihood of this final 

rule affecting parts manufacturers not 

subject to FAA regulation before its 

issuance. However, we believe the new 

rule is clearly stated, objective, and 

enforceable. As we apply the standard, 

we will examine all relevant facts and 

circumstances to determine whether a 

person knew or should have known that 

a part he produced was reasonably 

likely to be installed on a typecertificated product. 

Numerous commenters (including 

Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), 

Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), 

and repair stations) stated our proposed 

rule no longer contained language 

prohibiting the production of parts ‘‘for 

sale for installation on a typecertificated product.’’ In addition, the 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy asked the 

FAA to clarify and confirm that the 

existing ability of a repair shop to 

produce a part during maintenance 

activities remains in place. Since the 

NPRM proposed to remove that 

language, several repair stations asked 

us to clarify whether they will still be 

able to produce articles that will be 

consumed in the course of a repair 

without violating § 21.9(a). 

It is not our intent to preclude that 

activity. To address that concern and 

clarify our intent, we established an 

exception in § 21.9(a)(6). This 

exception, which was not proposed in 

the NPRM, allows for the production of 

articles without benefit of a production 

approval when articles are fabricated by 

an appropriately rated certificate holder 

with a quality system and consumed in 

the repair or alteration of a product or 

article in accordance with part 43. 

Maintenance providers who do not have 

a quality system may continue to 

fabricate owner-produced articles for 

installation on type-certificated aircraft 

using the guidelines set forth in Policy 

Memorandum, Definition of ‘‘Owner 

Produced Part,’’ Section 21.303(b)(2), 

August 5, 1993. 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy asked the 

FAA to clarify how the rule would 

impact the distribution of parts and 

existing inventories based on small 

business concerns that the proposed 

rules will forbid anyone from selling 

civil aircraft parts unless they are the 

manufacturer of the part, essentially 

forcing current parts distributors out of 

business. This phrase was used in 

former § 21.303(a). We disagree. Section 

21.9 governs the production, not the 

sale, of articles and does not prohibit 

distributors from selling articles. 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy was also 

concerned that the regulation does not 

contain express provisions concerning 

inventories of existing articles. That 

commenter recommended we clarify 

that any new production requirements 

on articles or products apply only to 

articles manufactured after a certain 

date and that the requirements do not 

render current articles or products in 

inventory unusable. Like the Office of 

Advocacy, ASA believed the rule would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

prohibit the sale of existing inventories, 

and thus, they would lose value. The 

commenters’ concerns are unfounded. 

The requirements of this rule apply to 

products or articles as they are 

manufactured. The provisions of this 

rule do not apply to existing 

inventories. 

Lastly, an individual commenter 

stated modification articles should be 

exempted from a PMA if those articles 

could be installed: (1) As a minor 

alteration with a simple logbook entry 

without approved data, or (2) under a 

field approval with data approved by a 

Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) 

airworthiness inspector or Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER). We 

disagree. Both exceptions would serve 

to weaken our regulatory intent to 

ensure that only articles for which a 

suitability determination has been made 

are installed in type-certificated aircraft. 

An article is not approved unless the 

article is: Produced under a TC; 

produced under an FAA production 

approval; a standard part; a commercial 

part, administered in a manner 

acceptable to the FAA; or produced by 

an owner or operator for maintaining or 

altering that owner or operator’s 

product. 

5. Definition of ‘‘Commercial Parts’’ 

In the NPRM, we proposed to 

establish a definition of commercial 

parts and create a replacement parts 

classification that would facilitate the 

use of parts during maintenance. This 

rulemaking established that 

classification and allows for the 

production of commercial parts, as 

defined by this rulemaking, as 

replacement or modification articles 

without benefit of a production 

approval. Over ten commenters 

(including SBA’s Office of Advocacy, 

the Regional Airline Association (RAA), 

ASA, and Snecma) stated the proposed 

definition of ‘‘commercial parts’’ was 

confusing. SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

asked the FAA to further explain how 

the new provisions would impact 

current practices and the industry’s 

ability to use parts that commonly have 

been referred to as commercial prior to 

this rulemaking. The commenters were 

concerned that only those parts 

designated by the DAH and approved by 

the FAA as commercial would be 

considered as such. They concluded the 

proposal would unduly restrict the use 

of commercial parts on in-service 

aircraft, which is common industry 

practice today. 

In response to these comments, we 

modified the definition of ‘‘commercial 

parts,’’ as it was proposed in the NPRM, 

to better clarify the meaning of the term. 

A commercial part means an article that 

is listed on an FAA-approved 

Commercial Parts List included in the 

DAH’s Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICAs). By creating a 

‘‘commercial parts’’ classification, the 

FAA has constructed a new mechanism 

by which commercial parts may be 

approved for use on type-certificated 

products as replacement or modification 

articles. The FAA has not removed any 

of the processes used prior to this rule 

change for approving articles for 

installation on type-certificated 

products as replacement or modification 

articles. Those processes include 

purchasing the article from the PAH or 

manufacturer producing under a TC 

approved to produce the article; 

produced and installed under the 

provisions of an STC; or produced and 

installed in accordance with the 

provisions of part 43. 

For the purposes of this rulemaking, 

in order for a part to be considered 

commercial, the DAH must submit to 

the FAA a list of parts it has designated 

as commercial pursuant to the 

provisions of § 21.50(c). A part is 

designated as commercial when the 

DAH: (1) Provides data to the FAA 

showing that the failure of the 

commercial part, as installed in the 

product, would not degrade the level of 

safety of the product; (2) shows the part 

is produced only under the commercial 

part manufacturer’s specification and 

marked with only the commercial part 

manufacturer’s markings, and (3) 

provides any other data the FAA 

requires to approve the Commercial 

Parts List. 

As discussed in the NPRM preamble, 

the data requirement concerning the 

failure of the part is necessary to ensure 

that commercial parts, which are not 

subject to the rigorous quality control 

requirements for PAHs, cannot 

jeopardize flight safety if they fail. The 

part marking requirement is necessary 

to ensure that other similar parts, whose 

safety has not been demonstrated, 

cannot be substituted for the part 

identified as commercial. Because this 

is a new regulatory classification of 

parts, we cannot anticipate all the issues 

that may arise as applicants submit 

proposals. We therefore need the third 

‘‘catch-all’’ provision to obtain 

information necessary to verify our 

intent in creating this new classification 

is fulfilled and to ensure there is no 

adverse effect on safety. The DAH must 

include the Commercial Parts List in the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness. The FAA approves the 

commercial parts list, and the parts on 

it are then eligible for use on a type 

certificated product as replacement or 

modification articles. 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy was equally 

concerned that as a result of this new 

commercial parts classification, nonPAH commercial parts manufacturers 

would be held liable for a violation of 

§ 21.9 regarding production of parts if a 

part they manufacture is used on a typecertificated aircraft without being 

declared a commercial part. It stated the 

FAA should be aware that a strict 

reading of the proposed rule seems to 

suggest that once a manufacturer knows 

or has reason to know that a repair or 

maintenance facility is installing its 

product on an aircraft, that 

manufacturer would have a legal 

obligation to obtain the approval of 

either the design holder or the FAA 

(through a PMA or TSO) for that part. 

This would extend the reach of the 

FAA’s rule to a vast universe of 

manufacturers, none of whom are 

included in the FAA’s economic 

analysis. 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy is correct in 

its understanding of the proposed rule, 

in that if non-PAH producers know or 

should know that their articles are 

reasonably likely to be installed on a 

type-certificated product, they cannot 

produce those articles unless they meet 

one of the four exemptions noted in 

§ 21.9. Non-PAH parts producers that 

know their parts are being installed on 

type-certificated products may apply for 

a production approval for the 

production of those parts, or the DAH of 

the product or article on which those 

commercial parts will be installed may 

designate them as commercial. Our 

intent is to create an enforceable 

standard that helps ensure that parts 

that are used on type-certificated 

products are produced under an 

approved quality system or otherwise 

approved for use on that product. 

Several repair stations were unclear 

on whether repair or maintenance 

facilities would still be able to utilize 

the maintenance provisions in § 43.13 to 

install commercial parts on aircraft. 

Commercial parts as defined in this 

rulemaking do not require a production 

approval, and repair stations may 

continue to utilize the provisions of 

§ 43.13 to install parts. Those parts that 

are generally recognized by industry as 

commercial, but have not been 

designated on a Commercial Parts List, 

must be approved for installation in 

accordance with part 43. 

Two individuals stated that the use of 

commercial parts should be approved 

only in applications where their 

function or failure would not degrade 

safety. The FAA agrees with that 

statement, and as we do with other parts 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53375 

approved as part of the type design, we 

will also evaluate commercial parts 

during the type design approval process 

to determine their affect on the safety of 

the product. In order for a DAH to 

designate a part as commercial, the DAH 

must show that failure of the 

commercial part would not degrade the 

safety of the product. 

Snecma and an individual commenter 

recommended that advisory material 

would be helpful in determining when 

or how commercial parts can be used as 

part of a type design, including 

guidance on what a DAH must do to 

obtain approval of its commercial parts. 

A repair station also commented that we 

should provide advisory material on 

when and how commercial parts may be 

used by operators and maintenance 

personnel. The FAA will issue advisory 

material providing guidance on the 

above concerns and on substitution of 

commercial parts during maintenance. 

Lastly, an individual commenter 

noted that the marking requirements for 

commercial parts are not consistent 

with the marking requirements in part 

45. We agree. However, the marking 

requirements in part 45 pertain only to 

those articles manufactured under an 

approved type design or in accordance 

with the provisions of a bilateral 

agreement between the United States 

and another country or jurisdiction for 

the acceptance of products and articles. 

Accordingly, the part 45 marking 

requirements are not applicable. 

6. Location of or Change to 

Manufacturing Facilities 

The FAA is requiring all PAHs to 

obtain FAA approval before making any 

changes in location or physical changes 

to its manufacturing facilities. 

Additionally, PAHs must immediately 

notify us of any changes that may affect 

the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of its products or articles. 

This requirement applies to all PAHs 

and persons producing under a TC only. 

One commenter noted that § 21.122(a) 

appears to allow for production under a 

TC outside the United States. The 

commenter is correct. We considered 

amending subpart F to prohibit 

manufacturing under a TC in a foreign 

country. However, we decided to allow 

manufacturing under a TC in a foreign 

country, as long as it causes ‘‘no undue 

burden’’ for the FAA. 

7. Issuance of Export Airworthiness 

Approvals for Aircraft Engines, 

Propellers, and Articles 

Section 21.331 permits a person to 

obtain, from the FAA, an export 

airworthiness approval for a new or 

used aircraft engine, propeller, or article 

manufactured under this part if it 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation. Also, 

used aircraft, engines, and propellers are 

no longer required to be newly 

overhauled. Finally, prior to issuance of 

an export airworthiness approval for an 

aircraft engine, propeller, or article, the 

special requirements of importing 

countries or jurisdictions must be met. 

AIA, GE, and Pratt & Whitney 

suggested the FAA amend the rule to 

reflect that some products require 

disassembly for shipping purposes after 

the product has been certificated that it 

is ‘‘in a condition for safe operation.’’ 

Airworthiness is determined at the time 

the product is submitted to the FAA in 

an assembled state. We allow for 

disassembly of a product for the 

purpose of shipping to the end-user, but 

the importing authority will require an 

airworthiness determination after 

reassembly and prior to installation on 

the aircraft. 

AIA, Boeing, and GE also suggested 

we revise the rule language to allow a 

PAH to obtain letters of acceptance 

directly from the importing country 

when required for nonconforming 

products ready for export. A 

fundamental principle of our bilateral 

agreements is that letters of acceptance 

are transmitted between authorities, and 

we are not planning to institute a 

change to that policy. Because bilateral 

agreements supersede our regulatory 

requirements, the FAA will continue to 

receive and process letters of acceptance 

from importing authorities. 

AIA, Boeing, and GE further stated it 

would be beneficial for us to define the 

term ‘‘used’’ as it appears in § 21.331. 

They also suggested that we revise 

§ 21.331 to allow the issuance of export 

airworthiness approvals for used 

products that do not meet an approved 

type design, as service time and wear 

prevent conformity to new article 

dimensions. We agree that there should 

be a consistent application of the term 

‘‘used’’ as it relates to aircraft products; 

however, a regulatory definition would 

not be appropriate at this time because 

the term has different meanings in its 

application in a certification context 

versus a maintenance context. As to the 

comment regarding nonconforming 

products, § 21.331 already allows for the 

issuance of an export airworthiness 

approval for used products that do not 

meet an approved type design. 

An individual commenter thought it 

unnecessary to obtain letters of 

acceptance from an importing country 

when shipping nonconforming products 

or articles. We disagree. An importing 

authority has complete discretion on 

whether it will accept nonconforming 

products or articles, and this issue is 

addressed between authorities in 

bilateral agreements and is not dictated 

via domestic regulations. Another 

individual commenter suggested that an 

importing country, rather than the FAA, 

should authorize deviations from the 

regulatory requirements of subpart L for 

products exported. Importing countries 

have no regulatory jurisdiction in the 

United States, and therefore, they have 

no authority to grant a deviation from 

our requirements. We maintain sole 

authority to grant deviations from our 

regulations. 

An individual commenter suggested 

that the rule accommodate the 

movement of articles whose 

airworthiness status is unknown. Again, 

we disagree. The rule is intended to 

accommodate only the export of 

products and articles determined to be 

airworthy. The issuance of an 

airworthiness approval for products and 

articles whose status is unknown would 

be contrary to the fundamental 

airworthiness principles and obligations 

of our bilateral airworthiness 

agreements with other countries and/or 

jurisdictions. 

Section 21.335(a) requires exporters to 

forward to the importing country or 

jurisdiction all documents specified by 

that country or jurisdiction. Paragraph 

(b) requires the exporter to preserve and 

package products and articles as 

necessary to protect them against 

corrosion and damage during transit or 

storage and to state the duration of 

effectiveness of such preservation and 

packaging. AIA, GE, aircraft parts 

manufacturers, and individuals assert 

that because it is difficult, or sometimes 

impossible, to predict how long an 

article may need to be preserved, it may 

be equally difficult to comply with the 

packaging and preservation 

requirements. 

This rule requires that products and 

articles be properly preserved and 

packaged as necessary at the time of 

export. Exporters must state the 

duration of effectiveness, but they are 

not required, as the commenters suggest, 

to exercise control over the end use or 

storage of the parts exported. If a 

product or article does not require any 

preservation or protective packaging in 

order to prevent damage, this rule does 

not apply. 

AIA and GE were concerned that U.S. 

exporters may be required to obtain an 

export airworthiness approval as part of 

the documents specified for export. 

They believed that import and export 

requirements should be the same. The 

commenters are correct. Based on the 

content of our agreement with a 

country, additional documentation, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

including an export airworthiness 

approval from the importing country or 

jurisdiction, may be required. 

AIA mentioned that § 21.335(a), or the 

preamble, should clearly state the 

documentation requirements for export, 

as there is often a variation in 

requirements. The FAA has numerous 

bilateral agreements with countries 

addressing the type, format, and content 

of documentation required for imported 

and exported products and articles. It 

would be impractical to delineate all 

those requirements in our regulations, 

as they are subject to change by the 

importing country. The FAA does 

request the importing authorities to 

periodically update and review its 

special import requirements, and we 

maintain that information in AC 21–2, 

Appendix 2, which is available on our 

Web site. 

8. Definition of ‘‘Standard Parts’’ 

We proposed in the NPRM to expand 

the definition of ‘‘standard parts’’ that 

appeared in former § 21.303(b)(4). The 

proposed definition of ‘‘standard parts’’ 

included a part that conforms to a 

specification established by a foreign 

government agency or a consensus 

standards organization. However, due to 

conflicts between our proposed 

definition with other authorities’ 

definitions of ‘‘standard parts,’’ the FAA 

has decided against revising the 

definition of ‘‘standard parts’’ at this 

time. Instead, we are maintaining the 

original use of the term, which now 

appears in § 21.9(a)(3). 

9. Definitions 

FAA has expanded the part 1 

definition of ‘‘approved,’’ as it relates to 

the approval of products and articles, to 

include approvals issued under the 

provisions of a bilateral agreement 

between the United States and a foreign 

country or jurisdiction. This 

amendment clarifies that data approved 

by a foreign civil aviation authority 

under a bilateral agreement does not 

require further FAA approval. 

Furthermore, the term ‘‘jurisdiction,’’ as 

it appears in the definition, applies to 

entities that are not countries (e.g., the 

European Union (EU)). 

Section 21.1(a)(1) prescribes 

procedural requirements for issuing and 

changing design approvals, production 

approvals, airworthiness certificates, 

and airworthiness approvals. Paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(8) define the terms 

airworthiness approval, article, 

commercial part, design approval, 

product, production approval, State of 

Design, and State of Manufacture. 

We received forty-eight comments on 

this section. National Civil Aviation 

Agency—Brazil (ANAC) asked that we 

define the term ‘‘airworthiness 

certificates.’’ An airworthiness 

certificate is a form issued by the FAA 

or its designee to document whether a 

product meets its type design and is in 

a condition for safe operation. The usage 

of this form in this manner has been 

commonly accepted, and we have 

determined that the term ‘‘airworthiness 

certificate’’ is widely understood and 

requires no further definition. 

ANAC stated that the term 

‘‘jurisdiction,’’ as it appeared in the 

proposed definition of ‘‘State of 

Design,’’ should be defined because an 

airworthiness jurisdiction is sometimes 

different than the company’s legal 

location jurisdiction. We have revised 

the definition of ‘‘State of Design’’ to 

clarify that it means an entity that has 

regulatory authority over an 

organization responsible for the design 

and continued airworthiness of a civil 

aeronautical product or article. The 

concept of ‘‘airworthiness jurisdiction’’ 

is addressed by the reference to 

regulatory authority. 

ANAC further stated that we should 

better clarify the term ‘‘State of 

Manufacture’’ because a product or 

article could have more than one State 

of Manufacture. Accordingly, we have 

revised the definition of ‘‘State of 

Manufacture’’ to clarify that it means 

the country or jurisdiction with 

regulatory authority over the 

organization responsible for the 

production and airworthiness of a civil 

aeronautical product or article. 

An individual commenter mentioned 

the definition of ‘‘airworthiness 

approval’’ should include a reference to 

FAA Forms 8130–3 and 8130–4. The 

commenter also stated that an FAA 

Form 8130–3 should be required for 

standard and commercial parts when 

sold to an owner/operator for 

installation. We disagree with both 

comments. The FAA reserves discretion 

to change or use different FAA forms for 

various functions. Therefore, we rarely 

use form numbers in the regulations. 

The required form and manner of 

regulatory compliance is usually stated 

in policy and guidance material. Also, 

as stated, an airworthiness approval is 

used to document the airworthiness 

status of products and articles. Because 

standard and commercial parts are not 

produced pursuant to an approved type 

design, it would be inappropriate to 

issue an airworthiness certificate for 

those parts. While the FAA does not 

issue airworthiness approvals for these 

parts, they have been subjected to 

evaluation by both the type design 

holder and the FAA to ensure their 

suitability of use in the design. 

Boeing and two individual 

commenters stated that the term 

‘‘article’’ should be used throughout 

Title 14. We have determined that the 

part 21 definition of ‘‘article’’ may be 

inappropriate for use in applications of 

the term in other parts of the 

regulations. Universal application of the 

definition could likely result in 

unintended consequences. However, the 

definition of ‘‘article’’ is appropriate for 

use in this part. 

GE and two individual commenters 

contended that the definition of 

‘‘article’’ should not include 

‘‘processes’’ because generally, there are 

no processes that can be considered 

stand-alone articles. Prior to this 

rulemaking, we have traditionally 

defined ‘‘article’’ to include processes, 

particularly in reference to TSO parts. 

We are retaining that usage in this rule. 

We have determined that this definition 

is appropriate because there are, in fact, 

instances when a stand-alone process, 

such as software, is considered an 

article. When making a determination of 

whether a process is an article, the FAA 

must consider whether that process is a 

deliverable, stand-alone end item. 

AIA, Boeing, and GE stated that we 

should define the term ‘‘supplier’’. In 

general, the term ‘‘supplier’’ is 

understood to mean any person or 

organization contracted to furnish 

products, articles, or related services at 

any tier. However, the term ‘‘supplier’’ 

is well-understood, and there is no need 

to define the term in this rulemaking 

action. 

We have removed from subpart L the 

definitions of Class I, Class II, and Class 

III products and the definition of 

‘‘newly overhauled’’. We now use the 

terms product and article consistently 

throughout part 21. In addition, we no 

longer require a definition of ‘‘newly 

overhauled’’ since all occurrences of the 

term and any associated requirements 

related to it have been removed from the 

regulations. 

B. Miscellaneous Requirements 

The following discussion addresses 

miscellaneous amendments made to 

part 21, many of which are primarily 

procedural or administrative in nature 

and do not constitute major departures 

from the pre-existing part 21 rules. In 

addition, we have made administrative 

changes to the regulatory text to use 

terms consistently and for plain 

language purposes. 

1. Application for Parts Manufacturer 

Approval 

Section 21.303 requires an article to 

conform to its ‘‘approved design,’’ rather 

than conforming to ‘‘drawings in the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53377 

design,’’ as was required by its 

predecessor rule. We have replaced the 

term ‘‘fabrication processes,’’ appearing 

in the former rule, with ‘‘manufacturing 

processes’’ to reflect that PMA holders 

will no longer have a fabrication 

inspection system. PMA holders must 

now comply with the same quality 

system requirements as all other PAHs, 

consistent with the size of the PAH and 

the complexity of the product or article 

produced. PMA applicants must also 

provide a statement certifying that the 

applicant has complied with the 

airworthiness requirements of this 

subchapter. 

We received eleven comments on this 

section. AIA and GE recommended that 

we clarify in the rule the meaning of 

‘‘approved design’’. The commenters 

noted that design data, such as process 

specifications, are more than likely 

referenced on a drawing and may, along 

with the drawing, comprise the 

complete type design data package. 

Specifications and design documents 

may include material properties, 

inspection criteria, non-destructive 

inspection criteria, design practices, 

design parameters, or documents that 

include operational limits. 

We do not agree that a detailed 

definition of ‘‘approved design’’ is 

appropriate in this regulation. In our 

experience, it is widely understood 

among applicants and approval holders 

that an ‘‘approved design’’ means a 

complete design data package 

containing substantiating data (e.g., 

processes, material specification, design 

parameters, and limitations). Our intent 

is to clarify that the approved design 

may consist of more than referenced 

drawings. 

2. Production under Type Certificate 

(TC) 

This rule revises the introductory text 

of § 21.123 to clarify that a TC holder is 

authorized to manufacture articles, not 

just products, for its type-certificated 

products. Paragraph (b) requires the TC 

holder to make each product and article 

available to the FAA for inspection. 

Paragraph (c) requires each 

manufacturer of a product, or article 

thereof, under a TC to maintain 

completed inspection and test records 

for specified periods of time. This rule 

also increases the record retention 

requirements for all PAHs and for 

persons producing under a TC from 2 

years to at least 5 years. For critical 

components identified under § 45.15(c) 

of this chapter, the record retention 

requirement is at least 10 years. 

Paragraph (d) requires each 

manufacturer of a product, or article 

thereof, manufactured under a TC to 

allow the FAA to make any inspection 

or test (including any inspection or test 

at a supplier facility) necessary to 

determine compliance with this 

subchapter. 

Industry groups, aircraft, aircraft 

engine, and parts manufacturers 

expressed four main concerns. AIA, GE, 

and Pratt & Whitney were concerned 

with the applicability of this section to 

existing TC or PC holders. The 

commenters suggested that subpart F 

should only apply to first-time 

applicants. If a person holds a current 

TC and PC for various product models, 

then that person is producing articles 

for any new models under an existing 

quality system. Commenters assert that 

the TC or PC holder should not be 

required to obtain a PC six months after 

the issuance of the new model TC, as 

required by § 21.123, because the person 

already has a PC. We partially agree. If 

the PC holder chooses to manufacture a 

more complex product, the FAA must 

review the quality system to determine 

whether it is adequate to produce 

products or articles that conform to the 

type design and is in a condition for safe 

operation. 

A part manufacturer asked whether a 

TSO article that is incorporated into a 

TC is considered to have been 

manufactured in accordance with the 

type design for the TC. While the TSO 

article is part of the type design, it has 

its own approval process. A TSO article 

is produced using minimum 

performance specifications; those 

specifications constitute the design for 

the TSO article. That design data is 

submitted to the FAA for approval with 

the manufacturer’s quality manual. A 

joint design/production approval is then 

granted under subpart O. 

3. Falsification of Applications, Reports, 

or Records 

Section 21.2 prohibits persons from 

making misleading statements on 

applications for certificates or approvals 

or in any record or report that is kept, 

made, or used to show compliance with 

any requirement of this part. For the 

purposes of this rule, a misleading 

statement requires a material 

representation or omission that is likely 

to mislead a person when that person is 

acting with reasonable diligence under 

the circumstances. The scope of § 21.2 

is now expanded to prohibit fraudulent, 

intentionally false, or misleading 

statements on any record that is kept, 

made, or used to show compliance with 

any requirement of part 21. Also, a 

violation of this rule may be used as the 

basis for denying an approval issued 

under part 21, in addition to suspending 

or revoking an approval. 

We received eight comments on this 

proposed rule. AIA, Boeing, GE, Pratt & 

Whitney, Embraer, and an individual 

commenter were concerned that some 

persons might unknowingly make 

misleading statements and be subject to 

an FAA violation. They stated that we 

should recognize, and the rule should 

reflect, that honest mistakes happen and 

that those mistakes should be given due 

consideration. 

The FAA recognizes that honest 

mistakes happen, and to that end, we 

will collect and evaluate any available 

evidence regarding incorrect 

representations and examine the overall 

impression created by that 

representation. We must reserve the 

right to take action, as appropriate, to 

address material inaccuracies in the 

related application or records, whether 

or not the inaccuracies are intentional. 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

(EAA) requested that we revise the 

preamble language to reflect that 

phrases such as ‘‘direct replacement’’ 

and ‘‘ready to use in your aircraft’’ are 

acceptable, as they have been used for 

years in both certificated and 

experimental aircraft industries. 

However, the FAA will not endorse the 

use of the phrases ‘‘direct replacement’’ 

and ‘‘ready to use in your aircraft’’ to 

suggest that an article is approved for 

installation on a type-certificated 

aircraft unless the statements are 

supported by objective evidence of such 

an approval. 

An individual commenter stated that 

we should clarify that § 21.2 applies to 

noncertificated persons, commercial 

parts producers, standard parts 

producers, and surplus suppliers. Part 

21 governs the certification of products 

or articles, and persons seeking such 

certification would be subject to its 

provisions. 

4. Design Changes 

Section 21.319 governs the 

classification and approval of PMA 

design changes. Prior to this 

rulemaking, part 21 did not formally 

address PMA design changes. Changes 

were accomplished using the design 

change process used for TCs. 

Seven commenters, representing 

industry groups, aircraft manufacturers, 

and engine manufacturers, expressed 

two main concerns. The first concern 

was with the proposed definition of 

‘‘minor change’’. In general, AIA, 

Boeing, and GE believe that limiting the 

applicability of design changes to an 

isolated view of ‘‘parts-only’’ could 

impact safety. For example, under 

§ 21.319(a)(1), a change to the design of 

an article may be classified as minor; 

however, if the change was evaluated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

with consideration of the complete 

aircraft or engine, the classification of 

the change might not be minor. 

We disagree with the commenters and 

have determined that safety will not be 

adversely affected by classifying 

changes to PMA parts as ‘‘minor’’. The 

classification of a change to a PMA 

article as minor under § 21.319 does not 

waive the installer of the requirements 

of compliance to part 21, subpart D for 

the TC holder. This is due to the 

installation of the changed PMA article, 

or the requirements of § 21.113 for any 

person altering a type product with a 

major change in type design. For 

example, if the installation of the 

changed PMA article causes a major 

change to the type product, § 21.113 

requires an STC for installation 

approval. 

To clarify that the PMA change 

classification is only to apply at the 

article level, we modified the definition 

of minor change. Section 21.319(a)(1) 

has been changed to read, ‘‘A ‘minor 

change’ to the design of an article 

produced under a PMA is one that has 

no appreciable effect on the approval 

basis.’’ 

Boeing recommended that we review 

the EASA regulation and associated 

guidance and provide a discussion in 

the rule language to differentiate how 

design changes are approved under 

differing methods of obtaining a PMA. 

The issue of design change 

classifications encompasses individuals 

other than just PMA holders who 

obtained their approvals with licensing 

agreement data. TC holders can license 

their design data to any third person, 

including to PAHs who have no 

intention of seeking a PMA. The PMA 

holder can only evaluate the change to 

its own design approval for its own 

article. If the PMA holder is making a 

design change that affects the product 

on which the article is installed, it 

requires an STC for the product. 

Furthermore, a comparison of our 

proposed regulation regarding design 

changes with EASA regulations and 

guidance is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

5. Changes in Quality System 

Section 21.150 specifies requirements 

regarding changes in the quality system. 

Previously, we required the PC holder to 

notify the FAA of any change that might 

affect the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of the product. This rule 

amends that requirement to now apply 

to ‘‘articles,’’ as well as products. 

Accordingly, we have incorporated this 

requirement in subparts K and O, which 

are applicable to PMA holders and TSO 

authorizations, respectively. Again, this 

rule standardizes requirements for all 

PAHs. 

6. Transferability of a Type Certificate 

Today’s rule requires a TC holder to 

notify the FAA before the transfer, 

execution, or termination of a licensing 

agreement. Such notification allows us 

time to coordinate with our affected 

offices and to inform the prospective 

licensees of their responsibilities. We 

also now require a grantor to notify the 

FAA of TC transfer when the State of 

Design is changing before the transfer 

occurs. Transferring a TC when the 

State of Design is changing requires 

FAA coordination with the aviation 

authority of the prospective State of 

Design to identify requirements in 

support of the transfer and to reduce the 

FAA’s burden in managing the 

certificate. 

Embraer suggested the FAA place 

limits on how much advance notice is 

required before transferring a certificate. 

We have determined that it is more 

efficient to coordinate the transfer of a 

TC before the transfer, rather than after 

it has occurred. Depending on the scope 

of the transferred TC (complex aircraft 

or engine, etc.), the length of transfer 

time may vary. Therefore, 

predetermined time limits could restrict 

the process. 

ANAC suggested we require an 

agreement between States for licensing 

agreements in which the licensee or the 

licensor is in another country. ANAC 

believes such an agreement would make 

the oversight process more efficient. We 

agree. However, bilateral agreements 

between authorities already address 

licensing agreements between States, 

and we need not make this a regulatory 

requirement. We exercise oversight 

responsibilities for licensors in the 

United States. We have no oversight 

responsibility over licensees located in 

other States. 

An individual commenter stated that 

the rule language regarding the 

anticipated date of the agreement in 

§ 21.47(d) requires further explanation. 

That commenter also questioned 

whether the licensing agreement should 

be sent to the Manufacturing Inspection 

District Office (MIDO), rather than the 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), as 

any manufacturing activity based on the 

licensing agreement must be approved 

by the MIDO. The ‘‘anticipated date of 

the transfer’’ is a projection and may be 

speculative at times on the part of the 

licensor. Furthermore, § 21.47(d) applies 

to TC holders. A production approval 

applicant must work with both the ACO 

and its cognizant MIDO. 

7. Special Flight Permits 

Section 21.197(c)(1) allows the 

issuance of special flight permits by part 

119 certificate holders that have an 

approved program for continuing flight 

authorization. It also allows the 

issuance of special flight permits by 

management specification holders 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 91 for aircraft they operate and 

maintain under a continuous 

maintenance program prescribed by 

§ 91.1411. 

The flight permits include conditions 

and limitations for flight and may be 

issued for aircraft that do not meet 

applicable airworthiness standards. 

Formerly, the FAA allowed the issuance 

of special flight permits only by 

operators that maintain their aircraft 

under a continuous airworthiness 

maintenance program (CAMP). This rule 

provides relief to operators who do not 

have a CAMP but periodically require 

the issuance of special flight permits. 

The operator must have the necessary 

quality system and infrastructure to 

support this authorization. 

8. TC Applicant—Compliance with 

Applicable Requirements 

We established § 21.20(a) to require 

an applicant for a TC, including an 

amended TC or STC, to show 

compliance with all applicable 

requirements and to provide the FAA 

the means by which such compliance 

has been shown. It also requires an 

applicant for a TC, including an 

amended TC or STC, to provide a 

statement certifying that the applicant 

has complied with the applicable 

requirements. 

We received four comments on this 

section. Embraer, a repair station, and 

two individual commenters stated that 

it would be difficult for an applicant to 

determine if all of the requirements had 

been met prior to applying for a TC. 

Therefore, further guidance might be 

required. The type certification process 

requires the applicant and the ACO to 

work closely together through the entire 

certification process. The ACO will 

advise applicants of the requirements 

prior to receipt of the certifying 

statement. This rule is intended to 

expedite the type certification approval 

process by ensuring that an applicant’s 

submission package is complete prior to 

the FAA making the compliance 

determination. 

9. Issuance of Standard Airworthiness 

Certificates 

We revised § 21.183(c) to allow a 

person to obtain a standard 

airworthiness certificate for an aircraft 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53379 

that is imported to the U.S. via an 

export certificate of airworthiness, 

provided the aircraft is type certificated 

under § 21.21 or § 21.29, manufactured 

under the authority of another State of 

Manufacture, and there is no undue 

burden on the FAA. The State of 

Manufacture must certify (in accordance 

with the provisions of an agreement 

with the United States for import and 

export of that aircraft), and the FAA 

would have to determine that the 

aircraft conforms to its type design and 

is in a condition for safe operation. 

An individual commenter stated that 

§ 21.183(c) should be revised to apply 

the standards to new aircraft only. 

However, it would be inappropriate to 

apply the rule for new aircraft only 

because there are instances when used 

aircraft may be eligible for a standard 

airworthiness certificate, such as when 

a used aircraft is imported into the 

United States. If an airworthiness 

determination can also be made for 

these aircraft, we have determined that 

used aircraft should be eligible for a 

standard airworthiness certificate. 

That commenter also asserted the 100- 

hour inspection requirements of 

§ 21.183(d)(2) should not be relaxed. 

The commenter believed the only 

exception should be when: (1) An 

aircraft is imported from a country with 

which the United States has a bilateral 

agreement that addresses maintenance, 

and (2) the aircraft is currently 

certificated and operating under an 

acceptable inspection/maintenance 

program. Section 21.183(d)(2) does not 

relax the 100-hour inspection 

requirement. Section 21.183(d)(2) 

merely provides an alternative means of 

determining whether a product is 

acceptable. 

The commenter further asserted that 

the U.S. should only accept a used 

aircraft from a country or jurisdiction 

that is not the State of Manufacture 

when we have a bilateral agreement for 

maintenance with that country or 

jurisdiction. Finally, the commenter 

stated that the U.S. should not accept an 

aircraft for an airworthiness certification 

in a category that requires a TC, unless 

the State of Manufacture for that aircraft 

provides a certification of its status at 

manufacture. 

The intent of § 21.183(d)(2) is to 

provide the ability to accept equivalent 

inspection standards and the 

corresponding airworthiness 

determinations from those countries and 

jurisdictions with which the U.S. has a 

bilateral agreement. This rule 

incorporates current policy, is 

consistent with bilateral practices, and 

may reduce the cost of importing a used 

aircraft when duplicate inspection 

requirements are eliminated. 

10. Approval of Major Changes in Type 

Design 

The FAA now requires an applicant 

for approval of a major change in type 

design to show that the changed product 

complies with the applicable 

requirements. The applicant must 

provide the FAA the means by which 

such compliance has been shown and a 

statement certifying that the applicant 

has complied with the applicable 

requirements. 

11. Quality Manual 

Section 21.138 requires each PC 

applicant to provide a quality manual 

describing its quality system to the FAA 

for approval. This requirement also 

applies to PMA and TSO approval 

holders. The quality manual must 

address the quality system requirements 

of the subpart under which the 

applicant seeks production approval. 

The quality manual should also address 

changes to the quality system, revisions 

to the manual, and a means of tracking 

revisions to the manual. These changes 

must be acceptable to the FAA. In 

addition, this rule requires that the 

quality manual be in the English 

language and retrievable in a form 

acceptable to us so that regardless of the 

media used, the quality manual is easily 

available to the PAH and FAA 

personnel. 

12. Production Limitation Record 

Section 21.142 clarifies that the PC 

holder, not a PC applicant, is authorized 

to manufacture the products listed on 

the production limitation record (PLR). 

A PLR is issued once an applicant 

obtains a PC, allowing the PC holder to 

manufacture the products listed on the 

PLR. 

13. Persons Authorized to Perform 

Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, 

Rebuilding, and Alterations 

The FAA has amended § 43.3(j)(3) by 

removing all references to an aircraft 

production inspection system (APIS). 

This change is consistent with the 

amendments to part 21, subpart F. This 

change also allows a manufacturer to 

perform any inspection required by 

parts 91 or 125 on aircraft it 

manufactured under a TC only or 

currently manufactures under a PC. 

Transport Canada stated that § 43.3(j) 

should be revised to eliminate the 

special maintenance privileges afforded 

to manufacturers so that all persons or 

organizations are subject to the same 

requirements. 

We recognize that this section needs 

clarification to address the performance 

of maintenance and oversight of those 

manufacturers who exercise the 

privileges of § 43.3(j). FAA is currently 

working to address this and other 

maintenance/manufacturing issues. 

14. Statement of Conformity 

The proposed rule requires a TC 

applicant to provide a statement of 

conformity for each aircraft engine or 

propeller presented for TC. This rule 

also removes the flight and operational 

check requirements that were 

previously in § 21.130. Those 

requirements were redundant with the 

requirements in §§ 21.127(a), 21.128, 

and 21.129. We have removed from the 

regulations prescriptive details related 

to particular FAA forms, form content, 

and form. This information is more 

appropriately located in policy 

documents that are more easily 

amended to reflect future changes in 

procedures. 

Previously, § 21.130(c) exempted TC 

holders from providing a statement of 

conformity for products manufactured 

for the Armed Forces if they had 

accepted the product. We have removed 

that exception. Now, TC holders must 

issue an FAA Form 8130–2, Conformity 

Certificate—Military Aircraft, for 

products manufactured for the Armed 

Forces. This amendment facilitates a 

future applicant’s ability to obtain a 

special airworthiness certificate under 

§ 21.183(d) for surplus military aircraft. 

A parts manufacturer questioned the 

additional benefit associated with 

obtaining an FAA Form 8130–2, in 

addition to Form 8130–3, that would 

have been required under our original 

proposal. Because we are no longer 

mandating the issuance of an 

airworthiness approval, the 

commenter’s concern about issuance of 

a Form 8130–3 approval is no longer at 

issue. However, a Form 8130–2 is still 

required for military aircraft used in 

civil applications. The FAA (or the 

DAR) relies on the statement of 

conformity issued by the manufacturer 

as objective evidence that the product or 

article for which the TC was issued 

conforms to its approved type design 

and is in a condition for safe operation. 

15. Privileges 

We have revised § 21.119(c) to clarify 

that the STC holder may obtain a PC for 

the change in the type design approved 

by the STC if the STC holder meets the 

requirements of subpart G, pertaining to 

the issuance of PCs. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

16. Issuance of Airworthiness 

Certificates for Restricted Category 

Aircraft 

We have revised § 21.185(c) to allow, 

under certain conditions, the issuance 

of a special airworthiness certificate for 

restricted category aircraft that are 

imported into the U.S. with an export 

certificate of airworthiness. That aircraft 

must be type certificated under §§ 21.25 

or 21.29 and be manufactured under the 

authority of another State of 

Manufacture. The State of Manufacture 

must certify that the aircraft conforms to 

its type design and is in condition for 

safe operation at the time of export. 

Again, the FAA must find that the 

aircraft conforms to its type design and 

is in condition for safe operation. 

17. Acceptance of Articles 

We have revised § 21.502 by replacing 

the word ‘‘approval’’ with ‘‘acceptance’’ 

to clarify that subpart N governs only 

the import or acceptance of articles into 

the U.S.; not the original design or 

production approvals of articles. This 

revision also requires that an article 

(including an article produced under a 

letter of TSO design approval) be 

marked in accordance with part 45 of 

this chapter to meet the requirements 

for FAA acceptance. 

C. Compliance Dates 

This rule is effective 180 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

compliance date for part 1; part 21, 

subparts H, I, L, and N; and part 45, 

subpart B, §§ 45.11 and 45.13 is 180 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The rule changes in these 

subparts are either cost relieving or have 

no economic impact on industry. The 

changes do not affect, and are not 

affected by, other changes to the rule. 

Therefore, the compliance date is the 

same as the effective date. All other 

portions of the final rule either 

promulgate new requirements or are 

tied to other requirements that have an 

extended compliance date. These rule 

provisions have a compliance date of 18 

months after the rule’s publication in 

the Federal Register. 

Prior to the effective compliance dates 

of this final rule, compliance with any 

portion of this rule that conflicts with 

an existing rule is not allowed. 

However, it is possible to comply with 

the former part 21 requirements and the 

requirements of this rule concurrently. 

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains new information 

collection requirements. As required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted 

the information requirements associated 

with this rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval. An agency may 

not collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor impose an information 

collection requirement, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

As required by the Act, we submitted 

a copy of the new information 

requirements to OMB for its review 

when we published the NPRM. 

Additionally, in the NPRM, we solicited 

comments from the public on the 

proposed new information collection 

requirements. Affected parties, however, 

do not have to comply with the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule until OMB approves the FAA’s 

request for this information collection 

requirement. The FAA will publish a 

separate document notifying you of the 

OMB Control Number and the 

compliance date(s) for the information 

collection requirements of this rule. 

The NPRM (71 FR 58914, October 5, 

2006) summarized the FAA’s analysis of 

the economic impacts of this rule. The 

FAA expected private entities would 

incur reporting and recordkeeping costs 

when applying for and operating under 

this rule and solicited comments on 

minimizing the cost and burden of the 

collection. 

Based on comments to the docket that 

costs were prohibitive and benefits 

small, the FAA withdrew proposals that 

required airworthiness approvals for all 

(domestic and overseas) shipments of 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles; 

certifying staff to issue the approvals; 

and marking requirements for all aircraft 

products and articles. These changes 

removed $327.1 million or 99.2 percent 

of the original undiscounted (gross) 

cost, and $187.6 million or 99.1 percent 

of the original present value total cost. 

We also removed the provision in 

§ 21.331 to allow PAHs to issue their 

own export airworthiness approvals. 

The issuance of an export airworthiness 

approval by the manufacturer would 

violate the terms of our bilateral 

agreements with other countries and 

jurisdictions. A fundamental premise of 

all bilaterals is that exported parts must 

be accompanied by an airworthiness 

approval issued by the relevant 

authority or its authorized designee. We 

estimated undiscounted cost savings of 

$95.5 million over 10 years, and present 

value cost savings of $54.8 million from 

this rule change in the NPRM. The net 

cost relief from changes to the NPRM to 

the rule amount to $231.6 million in 

undiscounted costs and $132.8 million 

in present value costs. 

The average total annual cost burden 

and average total annual hour burden 

discussed in the NPRM do not take into 

consideration that section 3, Quality 

System manual and section 4, 

Organization, have costs that are frontloaded at a ratio of 80 percent in the first 

two years. Adjustments have been made 

to account for that front-loading. 

Estimates of the Hour Burden of the 

Collection Information 

The requirements for hour burden of 

the information collection associated 

with this rule fall into the following 

categories: 

• Reporting of Failures, Malfunctions, 

and Defects; 

• Commercial Parts; 

• PC Quality System (internal audits); 

• PC Quality System (in-service 

feedback); 

• PMA Application (statement of 

compliance); 

• PMA Quality System; 

• PMA Quality Manual; 

• TSO Organization. 

The total annual hour burden for this 

rule is estimated to be approximately 

2,589 hours. 

Benefits of this Rulemaking 

• The rule becomes effective in 2009. 

However, the FAA does not propose to 

make this information collection 

effective until approximately 12 months 

after the rule’s effective date. 

• The costs savings a private entity 

will attain under this rule will exceed 

the costs imposed by this rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with 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 enhanced two ICAO definitions 

in these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53381 

1The current value of the equivalent life saved is 

$5.8 million, and under that value, benefits would 

be even higher. 

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, this 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). 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined this final rule has 

benefits that justify its costs, and it is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 because it raises novel 

policy issues contemplated under that 

executive order. Accordingly, OMB has 

reviewed this rule. The rule is also 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

final rule, if adopted, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade and will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. These analyses, available in the 

final regulatory evaluation supporting 

this rule, are summarized below. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

For more information, we suggest 

readers go to the full regulatory 

evaluation. A copy is in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impact of this rule. It also 

includes summaries of the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis, 

international trade impact assessment, 

and the unfunded mandate assessment. 

For more information, we suggest 

readers go to the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Total Benefits and Costs of this Rule 

We find the modest costs of this rule 

to be overwhelmed by very large cost 

savings and some safety benefits. We 

estimate the undiscounted 10-year costs 

of this rule to be about $2.1 million, the 

undiscounted 10-year cost savings to be 

about $126 million, and the 

undiscounted 10-year safety benefits to 

be about $10.1 million. We estimate the 

present value (2009 dollars) costs of this 

rule to be about $1.7 million, the 

present value cost savings to be about 

$88.4 million, and the present value 

safety benefits to be about $7.1 million. 

Consequently, we estimate this rule to 

be highly cost-beneficial with 

undiscounted 10-year net benefits of 

about $134 million and present value 

net benefits of about $93.8 million. 

Persons Potentially Affected by this 

Rule 

This rule primarily directly affects all 

type certificate (TC) and production 

approval holders (PAHs), including 

holders of PCs, TSOs, and PMAs. 

Regional air cargo carriers and exporters 

of used aircraft and used engines, 

propellers, and other articles (primarily 

distributors and individuals) are also 

directly affected by this rule. 

Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

• As the rule mandates procedural 

changes with small front-loaded costs, 

we use a 10-year period of analysis, 

2009 through 2018. 

• This rule will become a final rule in 

2009. The FAA intends to make costneutral or cost-relieving subparts and 

sections of this rule that are stand-alone 

changes effective 180 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. For 

purposes of our cost-benefit analysis, we 

assume safety benefits and benefits of 

cost-relieving changes will begin in 

2009. The remaining portions of the rule 

(with positive costs) will be effective 12 

months after the rule’s effective date. 

We assume one-time costs will occur in 

2010 and continuing costs will begin in 

2010. 

• The discount rate is 7 percent 

(Office of Management & Budget, 

Circular A–94, ‘‘Guidelines and 

Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis 

of Federal Programs’’, October 29, 1992, 

p. 8). 

• We obtained the number of PAHs 

by PAH type from the FAA’s Certificate 

Management Information System 

(CMIS) database. 

• PAHs are defined as ‘‘small’’ or 

‘‘large’’ using U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards. 

(See table of Small Business Size 

Standards Matched to North American 

Industry Classification System Codes, 

July 21, 2006.) 

• We estimated the number of small 

(and large) PAHs using a 45 percent 

sample of all PAH data from the FAA’s 

Small Airplane and Rotorcraft 

Directorates. 

• The fully burdened wage rate for 

engineers and quality system 

professionals is $80 an hour. 

• The fully burdened wage rate for 

pilots in the regional air cargo industry 

is $55 an our (RACCA). 

• We obtained data on aircraft and 

aircraft engine exports from the Trade 

Policy Information System (TPIS) 

database (International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce). 

• Importing countries accept large 

transport category airplanes based on a 

bridge inspection document (Industry 

expert from the Aeronautical Repair 

Station Association (ARSA)). 

• Exporters of used aircraft and used 

engines compete away 90 percent of the 

cost savings to overseas buyers. 

• Forty percent of U.S. engine exports 

are used engines (based on the 

percentage of used aircraft exports 

shown by TPIS database). 

• Aircraft engine overhauls occur 

every five years (FAA expert from the 

Office of Aviation Safety, Flight 

Standards Service (AFS)). 

• Eighty percent of importing 

countries accept used large jet engines 

without a complete overhaul (ARSA 

industry expert). 

• We obtained information on aircraft 

accidents caused by inadequate quality 

control from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

accident reports and the FAA’s Aviation 

Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 

(ASIAS) database for air claims. 

• The value of a statistical fatality 

averted is $3 million (Economic Values 

for FAA Investment and Regulator 

Decisions, a Guide, p. 2–2, Aviation 

Specialist Group, Inc., for Office of 

Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA, 

Washington, DC, December 31, 2004).1

• The legal and medical costs for 

fatalities and injuries are obtained from 

Economic Values for FAA Investment 

and Regulator Decisions, pp. 2–2 to 

2–4. 

• This rule will prevent 50 percent of 

future accidents caused by inadequate 

quality control. 

• Data on costs of compliance with 

this rule were obtained from FAA data 

and industry representatives. 

Changes From the NPRM to the Final 

Rule 

Based on comments to the docket that 

costs were prohibitive and benefits 

small, the FAA has withdrawn major 

proposals requiring airworthiness 

approvals for all (domestic and 

overseas) shipments of aircraft engines, 

propellers, and articles; certifying staff 

to issue these approvals; and marking 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53382 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements for all aircraft products 

and articles. These changes remove 

$327.1 million or 99.2 percent of the 

original undiscounted (gross) cost, and 

$187.6 million or 99.1 percent of the 

original present value total cost. 

We have also, however, removed the 

provision in § 21.331 that would have 

allowed PAHs to issue their own export 

airworthiness approvals. The issuance 

of an export airworthiness approval by 

the manufacturer would violate the 

terms of our bilateral agreements with 

other countries and jurisdictions. A 

fundamental premise of all bilaterals is 

that exported parts must be 

accompanied by an airworthiness 

approval issued by the relevant 

authority or its authorized designee. In 

the NPRM, we estimated undiscounted 

cost savings of $95.5 million and 

present value cost savings of $54.8 

million from this rule change. 

Consequently, the net cost relief from 

changes to the NPRM amount to $231.6 

million in undiscounted costs and 

$132.8 million in present value costs. 

Benefits of this Rulemaking 

The benefits of the rule include 

estimated cost savings from three rule 

changes that relieve regulatory burden 

and estimated safety benefits. As the 

table shows, we estimate the 

undiscounted 10-year cost savings from 

these rule changes to be about $126.0 

million and the present value cost 

savings to be about $88.4 million. Safety 

benefits from this rule will arise to the 

extent that it prevents accidents caused 

by inadequate quality control. As the 

table shows, we estimate the 

undiscounted 10-year safety benefits of 

this to be about $10.1 million and the 

present value (2009 dollars) safety 

benefits to be about $7.1 million. As the 

table shows, summing the cost savings 

and the safety benefits yields 

undiscounted total 10-year benefits of 

about $95.5 million and total present 

value (2009$) benefits of about $95.5 

million. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY TABLE OF BENEFITS BY RULE SECTION

Section No. Section description Present value cost 

savings/benefits 

Undiscounted cost 

savings/benefits 

§ 21.197 ...................................... Special flight permits ...................................................................... $4,596,668 $6,661,500 

§ 21.329(c) deleted ..................... Annual type inspection no longer required for used A/C to receive export airworthiness certificate.6,719,695 9,567,330 

§ 21.331 (§ 21.329(e) deleted) .... New overhaul no longer required for used engine to receive export airworthiness approval.77,122,043 109,804,440 

Total Cost Savings ......................................................................... 88,438,406 126,033,270 

Safety Benefits ............................................................................... 7,067,034 10,061,867 

Total Benefits of the Rule ............................................................... 95,505,440 136,095,137 

Costs of This Rulemaking 

The Final Regulatory Evaluation for 

this rule examines the impact of an FAA 

final rule that will make extensive 

changes to its part 21 certification 

procedures and identification 

requirements for aeronautical products 

and articles. These changes will: 

• Standardize several requirements 

for PAHs, including requirements for a 

quality system and quality manual to 

reflect industry best practices; 

• Revise export airworthiness 

approval requirements to facilitate 

global manufacturing and trade; 

• Move all part marking requirements 

from part 21, Certification Procedures 

for Products and Parts, to part 45, 

Identification and Registration Marking; 

and 

• Add a new classification of parts 

called ‘‘commercial parts.’’ 

The intent of these changes is to 

promote safety by ensuring that, 

whether manufactured locally or 

abroad, aircraft products and articles 

meet applicable standards. These 

changes will update the regulations to 

reflect the current global environment 

for the manufacture and trade of aircraft 

products and articles and, more 

generally, to improve regulatory 

efficiency. 

Most of these changes standardize, 

clarify, or simplify rule language, while 

other rule changes are already industry 

practice. Consequently, they impose no 

new costs and possibly have qualitative 

positive benefits by increasing the 

efficiency of the regulatory process. Of 

the dozens of rule changes, only eight 

have net positive costs, not including 

probable qualitative benefits. Our 

estimates are shown in the table. As the 

table shows, we estimate undiscounted 

10-year costs to be about $2.1 million 

and present value (2009 dollars) costs to 

be about $1.7 million. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY TABLE OF COSTS BY RULE SECTION

Section No. Section description Present value costs Undiscounted costs 

§ 21.3(f) ....................................... Reporting of failures, malfunctions, and defects ............................ $4,614 $6,942 

§ 21.9(a)(4) ................................. Commercial parts ........................................................................... 499,890 790,596 

§ 21.137(l) ................................... PC Quality system (internal audits) ................................................ 11,813 12,640 

§ 21.137(m) ................................. PC Quality system (in-service feedback) ....................................... 39,626 42,400 

§ 21.303(a)(5) ............................. PMA Application (statement of compliance) .................................. 276,262 295,600 

§ 21.307 ...................................... PMA Quality system ....................................................................... 415,551 444,640 

§ 21.308 ...................................... PMA Quality manual ....................................................................... 424,374 454,080 

§ 21.605 ...................................... TSO Organization ........................................................................... 22,430 24,000 

Total Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 1,694,560 2,070,898 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53383 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

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 Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis of this rule, published in the 

Federal Register (72 FR 6968, February 

14, 2007), found a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We received numerous 

comments to the docket that the costs of 

the rule were prohibitive, and 

particularly so for small firms. The 

greatest concern was with our 

requirements for (1) airworthiness 

approvals for all (domestic and 

overseas) shipments of aircraft engines, 

propellers, and articles and (2) marking 

requirements for all aircraft products 

and articles. In response to these 

comments, the FAA has withdrawn 

these major proposals. These changes 

remove $187.6 million, or 99.1 percent 

of the original present value (gross) cost. 

As a consequence, for all firms in our 

sample of small firms affected by the 

rule, the annualized cost of the rule 

relative to estimated average annual 

revenues is less than 0.1 percent. 

Several comments to the docket 

argued that we have greatly 

underestimated the cost for PMA 

holders—especially small holders—to 

comply with the requirement for a 

quality system (§ 21.307) and quality 

manual (§ 21.308), particularly the 

internal audit provision. According to 

these comments, additional staff will be 

required at a cost, in the case of a oneperson shop, of up to $60,000 a year. 

Our reference to ISO standards and 

other preamble language may have 

misled these commenters. We intend 

that the requirements be scalable 

relative to firm size and product 

complexity. The complexity of the 

quality system and the size of the 

quality manual depend on the size of 

the PAH and the complexity of the 

product or articles manufactured. A 

small PMA producing a simple article 

requires only a simple quality system— 

Some of the quality system 

requirements might even be ‘‘not 

applicable.’’ In the case of a one-person 

shop producing a simple article, the 

internal audit provision might be not 

applicable or, if deemed applicable, 

might be satisfied with an audit every 

four years. The corresponding quality 

manual might consist of only three or 

four pages. 

Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 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 it would have only 

a domestic impact and therefore would 

not create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

We have assessed the potential effect of 

this rule and determined it complies 

with the Trade Agreements Act, as it 

will promote international trade by: 

• Revising export airworthiness 

certificate and approval requirements to 

no longer require used aircraft to 

undergo an annual type inspections and 

to no longer require used engines and 

propellers to be newly overhauled; and 

• Changing language in order to 

harmonize with bilateral agreements 

and European Union (EU) regulations. 

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 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) 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 

$136.1 million. This rule does not 

contain such a mandate. The 

requirements of Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 

the NPRM, we requested comments on 

whether the proposed rule should apply 

differently to intrastate operations in 

Alaska. We did not receive any 

comments, and we have determined, 

based on the administrative record of 

this rulemaking, that there is no need to 

make any regulatory distinctions 

applicable to intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53384 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 308(b) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because while it is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using 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. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this final 

rule, including economic analyses and 

technical reports, from the Internet 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

referenced in paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 45 

Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations parts 1, 21, 43, and 

45 as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Approved’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Approved, unless used with reference 

to another person, means approved by 

the FAA or any person to whom the 

FAA has delegated its authority in the 

matter concerned, or approved under 

the provisions of a bilateral agreement 

between the United States and a foreign 

country or jurisdiction. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.2 by adding the 

abbreviations PMA and TSO in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols. 

* * * * * 

PMA means parts manufacturer 

approval. 

* * * * * 

TSO means technical standard order. 

* * * * * 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, 

ARTICLES, AND PARTS 

■ 4. 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. 

PART 21 [AMENDED] 

■ 5. Amend part 21 by: 

■ a. Removing the word 

‘‘Administrator’’ and adding in its place 

the word ‘‘FAA’’ wherever it appears; 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and 

adding in its place the word ‘‘must’’ 

wherever it appears; and 

■ c. Removing the phrase ‘‘type 

certificate only’’ and adding in its place 

the phrase ‘‘type certificate’’ wherever it 

appears. 

■ 6. Revise § 21.1 to read as follows: 

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) This part prescribes— 

(1) Procedural requirements for 

issuing and changing— 

(i) Design approvals; 

(ii) Production approvals; 

(iii) Airworthiness certificates; and 

(iv) Airworthiness approvals; 

(2) Rules governing applicants for, 

and holders of, any approval or 

certificate specified in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section; and 

(3) Procedural requirements for the 

approval of articles. 

(b) For the purposes of this part— 

(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 and is 

in a condition for safe operation; 

(2) Article means a material, part, 

component, process, or appliance; 

(3) Commercial part means an article 

that is listed on an FAA-approved 

Commercial Parts List included in a 

design approval holder’s Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness required by 

§ 21.50; 

(4) Design approval means a type 

certificate (including amended and 

supplemental type certificates) or the 

approved design under a PMA, TSO 

authorization, letter of TSO design 

approval, or other approved design; 

(5) Product means an aircraft, aircraft 

engine, or propeller; 

(6) Production approval means a 

document issued by the FAA to a 

person that allows the production of a 

product or article in accordance with its 

approved design and approved quality 

system, and can take the form of a 

production certificate, a PMA, or a TSO 

authorization; 

(7) State of Design means the country 

or jurisdiction having regulatory 

authority over the organization 

responsible for the design and 

continued airworthiness of a civil 

aeronautical product or article; 

(8) State of Manufacture means the 

country or jurisdiction having 

regulatory authority over the 

organization responsible for the 

production and airworthiness of a civil 

aeronautical product or article. 

■ 7. Amend § 21.2 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (b) to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53385 

§ 21.2 Falsification of applications, 

reports, or records. 

(a) A person may not make or cause 

to be made— 

(1) Any fraudulent, intentionally 

false, or misleading statement on any 

application for a certificate or approval 

under this part; 

(2) Any fraudulent, intentionally 

false, or misleading statement in any 

record or report that is kept, made, or 

used to show compliance with any 

requirement of this part; 

* * * * * 

(b) The commission by any person of 

an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of 

this section is a basis for— 

(1) Denying issuance of any certificate 

or approval under this part; and 

(2) Suspending or revoking any 

certificate or approval issued under this 

part and held by that person. 

■ 8. Amend § 21.3 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(2), (e)(3), 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 21.3 Reporting of failures, malfunctions, 

and defects. 

(a) The holder of a type certificate 

(including amended or supplemental 

type certificates), a PMA, or a TSO 

authorization, or the licensee of a type 

certificate must report any failure, 

malfunction, or defect in any product or 

article manufactured by it that it 

determines has resulted in any of the 

occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) The holder of a type certificate 

(including amended or supplemental 

type certificates), a PMA, or a TSO 

authorization, or the licensee of a type 

certificate must report any defect in any 

product or article manufactured by it 

that has left its quality system and that 

it determines could result in any of the 

occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Failures, malfunctions, or defects 

that the holder of a type certificate 

(including amended or supplemental 

type certificates), PMA, TSO 

authorization, or the licensee of a type 

certificate determines— 

(i) Were caused by improper 

maintenance or use; 

(ii) Were reported to the FAA by 

another person under this chapter; or 

(iii) Were reported under the accident 

reporting provisions of 49 CFR part 830 

of the regulations of the National 

Transportation Safety Board. 

(2) Failures, malfunctions, or defects 

in products or articles— 

(i) Manufactured by a foreign 

manufacturer under a U.S. type 

certificate issued under § 21.29 or under 

an approval issued under § 21.621; or 

(ii) Exported to the United States 

under § 21.502. 

(e) * * * 

(3) Must include as much of the 

following information as is available 

and applicable: 

(i) The applicable product and article 

identification information required by 

part 45 of this chapter; 

(ii) Identification of the system 

involved; and 

(iii) Nature of the failure, malfunction, 

or defect. 

(f) If an accident investigation or 

service difficulty report shows that a 

product or article manufactured under 

this part is unsafe because of a 

manufacturing or design data defect, the 

holder of the production approval for 

that product or article must, upon 

request of the FAA, report to the FAA 

the results of its investigation and any 

action taken or proposed by the holder 

of that production approval to correct 

that defect. If action is required to 

correct the defect in an existing product 

or article, the holder of that production 

approval must send the data necessary 

for issuing an appropriate airworthiness 

directive to the appropriate aircraft 

certification office. 

■ 9. Amend § 21.5 by revising paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight 

Manual. 

(a) With each airplane or rotorcraft 

not type certificated with an Airplane or 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual and having no 

flight time before March 1, 1979, the 

holder of a type certificate (including 

amended or supplemental type 

certificates) or the licensee of a type 

certificate must make available to the 

owner at the time of delivery of the 

aircraft a current approved Airplane or 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend subpart A by adding § 21.8 

to read as follows: 

§ 21.8 Approval of articles. 

If an article is required to be approved 

under this chapter, it may be 

approved— 

(a) Under a PMA; 

(b) Under a TSO; 

(c) In conjunction with type 

certification procedures for a product; or 

(d) In any other manner approved by 

the FAA. 

■ 11. Amend subpart A by adding § 21.9 

to read as follows: 

§ 21.9 Replacement and modification 

articles. 

(a) If a person knows, or should know, 

that a replacement or modification 

article is reasonably likely to be 

installed on a type-certificated product, 

the person may not produce that article 

unless it is— 

(1) Produced under a type certificate; 

(2) Produced under an FAA 

production approval; 

(3) A standard part (such as a nut or 

bolt) manufactured in compliance with 

a government or established industry 

specification; 

(4) A commercial part as defined in 

§ 21.1 of this part; 

(5) Produced by an owner or operator 

for maintaining or altering that owner or 

operator’s product; or 

(6) Fabricated by an appropriately 

rated certificate holder with a quality 

system, and consumed in the repair or 

alteration of a product or article in 

accordance with part 43 of this chapter. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, a 

person who produces a replacement or 

modification article for sale may not 

represent that part as suitable for 

installation on a type-certificated 

product. 

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, a 

person may not sell or represent an 

article as suitable for installation on an 

aircraft type-certificated under 

§§ 21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 unless that 

article— 

(1) Was declared surplus by the U.S. 

Armed Forces, and 

(2) Was intended for use on that 

aircraft model by the U.S. Armed 

Forces. 

§ 21.15 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 21.15 by removing the 

words ‘‘Aircraft Certification Office’’ in 

paragraph (a) and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘aircraft certification office’’. 

■ 13. Amend subpart B by adding 

§ 21.20 to read as follows: 

§ 21.20 Compliance with applicable 

requirements. 

The applicant for a type certificate, 

including an amended or supplemental 

type certificate, must— 

(a) Show compliance with all 

applicable requirements and must 

provide the FAA the means by which 

such compliance has been shown; and 

(b) Provide a statement certifying that 

the applicant has complied with the 

applicable requirements. 

§ 21.21 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend § 21.21 by removing the 

words ‘‘the Federal Aviation 

Regulations’’ and add in their place the 

words ‘‘this subchapter’’ wherever they 

appear. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 21.27 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 21.27 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘the Federal 

Aviation Regulations’’ in paragraph (c) 

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘this 

subchapter’’; and 

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘FAR’’ from each 

place it appears in the table in 

paragraph (f) and add in its place the 

words ‘‘14 CFR’’. 

■ 16. Revise § 21.29 to read as follows: 

§ 21.29 Issue of type certificate: import 

products. 

(a) The FAA may issue a type 

certificate for a product that is 

manufactured in a foreign country or 

jurisdiction with which the United 

States has an agreement for the 

acceptance of these products for export 

and import and that is to be imported 

into the United States if— 

(1) The applicable State of Design 

certifies that the product has been 

examined, tested, and found to meet— 

(i) The applicable aircraft noise, fuel 

venting, and exhaust emissions 

requirements of this subchapter as 

designated in § 21.17, or the applicable 

aircraft noise, fuel venting, and exhaust 

emissions requirements of the State of 

Design, and any other requirements the 

FAA may prescribe to provide noise, 

fuel venting, and exhaust emission 

levels no greater than those provided by 

the applicable aircraft noise, fuel 

venting, and exhaust emission 

requirements of this subchapter as 

designated in § 21.17; and 

(ii) The applicable airworthiness 

requirements of this subchapter as 

designated in § 21.17, or the applicable 

airworthiness requirements of the State 

of Design and any other requirements 

the FAA may prescribe to provide a 

level of safety equivalent to that 

provided by the applicable 

airworthiness requirements of this 

subchapter as designated in § 21.17; 

(2) The applicant has provided 

technical data to show the product 

meets the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section; and 

(3) The manuals, placards, listings, 

and instrument markings required by 

the applicable airworthiness (and noise, 

where applicable) requirements are 

presented in the English language. 

(b) A product type certificated under 

this section is considered to be type 

certificated under the noise standards of 

part 36 of this subchapter and the fuel 

venting and exhaust emission standards 

of part 34 of this subchapter. 

Compliance with parts 36 and 34 of this 

subchapter is certified under paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section, and the 

applicable airworthiness standards of 

this subchapter, or an equivalent level 

of safety, with which compliance is 

certified under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 

this section. 

§ 21.33 [Amended] 

■ 17. Amend § 21.33(a) introductory 

text by removing the words ‘‘the Federal 

Aviation Regulations’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘this 

subchapter’’. 

§ 21.45 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend § 21.45 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘or certified’’ 

from paragraph (b) and add in their 

place the words ‘‘on certificated’’; and 

■ b. Remove the reference ‘‘§§ 21.133 

through 21.163’’ from paragraph (c) and 

add in its place the words ‘‘subpart G of 

this part’’. 

■ 19. Revise § 21.47 to read as follows: 

§ 21.47 Transferability. 

(a) A holder of a type certificate may 

transfer it or make it available to other 

persons by licensing agreements. 

(b) For a type certificate transfer in 

which the State of Design will remain 

the same, each transferor must, before 

such a transfer, notify in writing the 

appropriate aircraft certification office. 

This notification must include the 

applicable type certificate number, the 

name and address of the transferee, and 

the anticipated date of the transfer. 

(c) For a type certificate transfer in 

which the State of Design is changing, 

a type certificate may only be 

transferred to or from a person subject 

to the authority of another State of 

Design if the United States has an 

agreement with that State of Design for 

the acceptance of the affected product 

for export and import. Each transferor 

must notify the appropriate aircraft 

certification office before such a transfer 

in a form and manner acceptable to the 

FAA. This notification must include the 

applicable type certificate number; the 

name, address, and country of residence 

of the transferee; and the anticipated 

date of the transfer. 

(d) Before executing or terminating a 

licensing agreement that makes a type 

certificate available to another person, 

the type certificate holder must notify in 

writing the appropriate aircraft 

certification office. This notification 

must include the type certificate 

number addressed by the licensing 

agreement, the name and address of the 

licensee, the extent of authority granted 

the licensee, and the anticipated date of 

the agreement. 

■ 20. Amend § 21.50 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 21.50 Instructions for continued 

airworthiness and manufacturer’s 

maintenance manuals having airworthiness 

limitations sections. 

* * * * * 

(b) The holder of a design approval, 

including either the type certificate or 

supplemental type certificate for an 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller for 

which application was made after 

January 28, 1981, must furnish at least 

one set of complete Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness to the owner 

of each type aircraft, aircraft engine, or 

propeller upon its delivery, or upon 

issuance of the first standard 

airworthiness certificate for the affected 

aircraft, whichever occurs later. The 

Instructions must be prepared in 

accordance with §§ 23.1529, 25.1529, 

25.1729, 27.1529, 29.1529, 31.82, 33.4, 

35.4, or part 26 of this subchapter, or as 

specified in the applicable 

airworthiness criteria for special classes 

of aircraft defined in § 21.17(b), as 

applicable. If the holder of a design 

approval chooses to designate parts as 

commercial, it must include in the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness a list of commercial parts 

submitted in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (c) of this 

section. Thereafter, the holder of a 

design approval must make those 

instructions available to any other 

person required by this chapter to 

comply with any of the terms of those 

instructions. In addition, changes to the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness shall be made available 

to any person required by this chapter 

to comply with any of those 

instructions. 

(c) To designate commercial parts, the 

holder of a design approval, in a manner 

acceptable to the FAA, must submit: 

(1) A Commercial Parts List; 

(2) Data for each part on the List 

showing that: 

(i) The failure of the commercial part, 

as installed in the product, would not 

degrade the level of safety of the 

product; and 

(ii) The part is produced only under 

the commercial part manufacturer’s 

specification and marked only with the 

commercial part manufacturer’s 

markings; and 

(3) Any other data necessary for the 

FAA to approve the List. 

■ 21. Revise § 21.53(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.53 Statement of conformity. 

(a) Each applicant must provide, in a 

form and manner acceptable to the FAA, 

a statement that each aircraft engine or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53387 

propeller presented for type certification 

conforms to its type design. 

* * * * * 

§ 21.73 [Amended] 

■ 22. Amend § 21.73(b) by removing the 

words ‘‘Any manufacturer of aircraft 

manufactured in a foreign country with 

which the United States has an 

agreement’’ and adding in their place 

the words ‘‘Any manufacturer of aircraft 

in a State of Manufacture subject to the 

provisions of an agreement with the 

United States’’. 

■ 23. Revise § 21.75 to read as follows: 

§ 21.75 Application. 

Each applicant for a provisional type 

certificate, for an amendment thereto, or 

for a provisional amendment to a type 

certificate must apply to the appropriate 

aircraft certification office and provide 

the information required by this 

subpart. 

■ 24. Revise § 21.97(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.97 Approval of major changes in type 

design. 

(a) An applicant for approval of a 

major change in type design must— 

(1) Provide substantiating data and 

necessary descriptive data for inclusion 

in the type design; 

(2) Show that the changed product 

complies with the applicable 

requirements of this subchapter, and 

provide the FAA the means by which 

such compliance has been shown; and 

(3) Provide a statement certifying that 

the applicant has complied with the 

applicable requirements. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Revise § 21.113 to read as follows: 

§ 21.113 Requirement for supplemental 

type certificate. 

(a) If a person holds the TC for a 

product and alters that product by 

introducing a major change in type 

design that does not require an 

application for a new TC under § 21.19, 

that person must either apply to the 

appropriate aircraft certification office 

for an STC or apply to amend the 

original type certificate under subpart D 

of this part. 

(b) If a person does not hold the TC 

for a product and alters that product by 

introducing a major change in type 

design that does not require an 

application for a new TC under § 21.19, 

that person must apply to the 

appropriate aircraft certification office 

for an STC. 

(c) The application for an STC must 

be made in the form and manner 

prescribed by the FAA. 

§ 21.117 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 21.117 by removing the 

words ‘‘if he’’ from paragraph (a) and 

adding in their place the words ‘‘if the 

FAA finds that the applicant’’. 

■ 27. Revise § 21.119(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.119 Privileges. 

* * * * * 

(c) Obtain a production certificate in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subpart G of this part for the change in 

the type design approved by the 

supplemental type certificate. 

■ 28. Amend subpart F by adding 

§ 21.122 to read as follows: 

§ 21.122 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

(a) An applicant may obtain a 

production certificate for manufacturing 

facilities located outside of the United 

States if the FAA finds no undue burden 

in administering the applicable 

requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this 

subchapter. 

(b) The type certificate holder must 

obtain FAA approval before making any 

changes to the location of any of its 

manufacturing facilities. 

(c) The type certificate holder must 

immediately notify the FAA, in writing, 

of any change to the manufacturing 

facilities that may affect the inspection, 

conformity, or airworthiness of its 

product or article. 

■ 29. Revise § 21.123 to read as follows: 

§ 21.123 Production under type certificate. 

Each manufacturer of a product being 

manufactured under a type certificate 

must— 

(a) Maintain at the place of 

manufacture all information and data 

specified in §§ 21.31 and 21.41; 

(b) Make each product and article 

thereof available for inspection by the 

FAA; 

(c) Maintain records of the completion 

of all inspections and tests required by 

§§ 21.127, 21.128, and 21.129 for at least 

5 years for the products and articles 

thereof manufactured under the 

approval and at least 10 years for critical 

components identified under § 45.15(c) 

of this chapter; 

(d) Allow the FAA to make any 

inspection or test, including any 

inspection or test at a supplier facility, 

necessary to determine compliance with 

this subchapter; 

(e) Mark the product in accordance 

with part 45 of this chapter, including 

any critical parts; 

(f) Identify any portion of that product 

(e.g., sub-assemblies, component parts, 

or replacement articles) that leave the 

manufacturer’s facility as FAA approved 

with the manufacturer’s part number 

and name, trademark, symbol, or other 

FAA-approved manufacturer’s 

identification; and 

(g) Except as otherwise authorized by 

the FAA, obtain a production certificate 

for that product in accordance with 

subpart G of this part within 6 months 

after the date of issuance of the type 

certificate. 

§ 21.125 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 30. Remove and reserve § 21.125. 

■ 31. Revise § 21.130 to read as follows: 

§ 21.130 Statement of Conformity. 

Each holder or licensee of a type 

certificate who manufactures a product 

under this subpart must provide, in a 

form and manner acceptable to the FAA, 

a statement that the product for which 

the type certificate has been issued 

conforms to its type certificate and is in 

a condition for safe operation. 

■ 32. Revise subpart G to read as 

follows: 

Subpart G—Production Certificates 

Sec. 

21.131 Applicability. 

21.132 Eligibility. 

21.133 Application. 

21.135 Organization. 

21.137 Quality system. 

21.138 Quality manual. 

21.139 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

21.140 Inspections and tests. 

21.141 Issuance. 

21.142 Production limitation record. 

21.143 Duration. 

21.144 Transferability. 

21.145 Privileges. 

21.146 Responsibility of holder. 

21.147 Amendment of production 

certificates. 

21.150 Changes in quality system. 

Subpart G—Production Certificates 

§ 21.131 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes— 

(a) Procedural requirements for 

issuing production certificates; and 

(b) Rules governing holders of those 

certificates. 

§ 21.132 Eligibility. 

Any person may apply for a 

production certificate if that person 

holds, for the product concerned— 

(a) A current type certificate, 

(b) A supplemental type certificate, or 

(c) Rights to the benefits of that type 

certificate or supplemental type 

certificate under a licensing agreement. 

§ 21.133 Application. 

Each applicant must apply for a 

production certificate in a form and 

manner prescribed by the FAA. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 21.135 Organization. 

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. At 

a minimum, the document must 

describe assigned responsibilities and 

delegated authority, and the functional 

relationship of those responsible for 

quality to management and other 

organizational components. 

§ 21.137 Quality system. 

Each applicant for or holder of a 

production certificate must establish 

and describe in writing a quality system 

that ensures that each product and 

article conforms to its approved design 

and is in a condition for safe operation. 

This quality system must include: 

(a) Design data control. Procedures for 

controlling design data and subsequent 

changes to ensure that only current, 

correct, and approved data is used. 

(b) Document control. Procedures for 

controlling quality system documents 

and data and subsequent changes to 

ensure that only current, correct, and 

approved documents and data are used. 

(c) Supplier control. Procedures that— 

(1) Ensure that each supplierfurnished product or article conforms to 

its approved design; 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. 

(d) Manufacturing process control. 

Procedures for controlling 

manufacturing processes to ensure that 

each product and article conforms to its 

approved design. 

(e) Inspecting and testing. Procedures 

for inspections and tests used to ensure 

that each product and article conforms 

to its approved design. These 

procedures must include the following, 

as applicable: 

(1) A flight test of each aircraft 

produced unless that aircraft will be 

exported as an unassembled aircraft. 

(2) A functional test of each aircraft 

engine and each propeller produced. 

(f) Inspection, measuring, and test 

equipment control. Procedures to ensure 

calibration and control of all inspection, 

measuring, and test equipment used in 

determining conformity of each product 

and article to its approved design. Each 

calibration standard must be traceable to 

a standard acceptable to the FAA. 

(g) Inspection and test status. 

Procedures for documenting the 

inspection and test status of products 

and articles supplied or manufactured 

to the approved design. 

(h) Nonconforming product and 

article control. (1) Procedures to ensure 

that only products or articles that 

conform to their approved design are 

installed on a type-certificated product. 

These procedures must provide for the 

identification, documentation, 

evaluation, segregation, and disposition 

of nonconforming products and articles. 

Only authorized individuals may make 

disposition determinations. 

(2) Procedures to ensure that 

discarded articles are rendered 

unusable. 

(i) Corrective and preventive actions. 

Procedures for implementing corrective 

and preventive actions to eliminate the 

causes of an actual or potential 

nonconformity to the approved design 

or noncompliance with the approved 

quality system. 

(j) Handling and storage. Procedures 

to prevent damage and deterioration of 

each product and article during 

handling, storage, preservation, and 

packaging. 

(k) Control of quality records. 

Procedures for identifying, storing, 

protecting, retrieving, and retaining 

quality records. A production approval 

holder must retain these records for at 

least 5 years for the products and 

articles manufactured under the 

approval and at least 10 years for critical 

components identified under § 45.15(c) 

of this chapter. 

(l) Internal audits. Procedures for 

planning, conducting, and documenting 

internal audits to ensure compliance 

with the approved quality system. The 

procedures must include reporting 

results of internal audits to the manager 

responsible for implementing corrective 

and preventive actions. 

(m) In-service feedback. Procedures 

for receiving and processing feedback 

on in-service failures, malfunctions, and 

defects. These procedures must include 

a process for assisting the design 

approval holder to— 

(1) Address any in-service problem 

involving design changes; and 

(2) Determine if any changes to the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness are necessary. 

(n) Quality escapes. Procedures for 

identifying, analyzing, and initiating 

appropriate corrective action for 

products or articles that have been 

released from the quality system and 

that do not conform to the applicable 

design data or quality system 

requirements. 

§ 21.138 Quality manual. 

Each applicant for or holder of a 

production certificate must provide a 

manual describing its quality system to 

the FAA for approval. The manual must 

be in the English language and 

retrievable in a form acceptable to the 

FAA. 

§ 21.139 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

(a) An applicant may obtain a 

production certificate for manufacturing 

facilities located outside of the United 

States if the FAA finds no undue burden 

in administering the applicable 

requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this 

subchapter. 

(b) The production certificate holder 

must obtain FAA approval before 

making any changes to the location of 

any of its manufacturing facilities. 

(c) The production certificate holder 

must immediately notify the FAA, in 

writing, of any change to the 

manufacturing facilities that may affect 

the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of its product or article. 

§ 21.140 Inspections and tests. 

Each applicant for or holder of a 

production certificate must allow the 

FAA to inspect its quality system, 

facilities, technical data, and any 

manufactured products or articles and 

witness any tests, including any 

inspections or tests at a supplier facility, 

necessary to determine compliance with 

this subchapter. 

§ 21.141 Issuance. 

The FAA issues a production 

certificate after finding that the 

applicant complies with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

§ 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 the model of 

every product that the production 

certificate holder is authorized to 

manufacture. 

§ 21.143 Duration. 

A production certificate is effective 

until surrendered, suspended, revoked, 

or the FAA otherwise establishes a 

termination date. 

§ 21.144 Transferability. 

The holder of a production certificate 

may not transfer the production 

certificate. 

§ 21.145 Privileges. 

(a) The holder of a production 

certificate may— 

(1) Obtain an aircraft airworthiness 

certificate without further showing, 

except that the FAA may inspect the 

aircraft for conformity with the type 

design; or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53389 

(2) In the case of other products, 

obtain approval from the FAA for 

installation on type-certificated aircraft. 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

§ 147.3 of this chapter, the holder of a 

production certificate for a primary 

category aircraft, or for a normal, utility, 

or acrobatic category aircraft of a type 

design that is eligible for a special 

airworthiness certificate in the primary 

category under § 21.184(c), may— 

(1) Conduct training for persons in the 

performance of a special inspection and 

preventive maintenance program 

approved as a part of the aircraft’s type 

design under § 21.24(b), provided a 

person holding a mechanic certificate 

with appropriate airframe and 

powerplant ratings issued under part 65 

of this chapter gives the training; and 

(2) Issue a certificate of competency to 

persons successfully completing the 

approved training program, provided 

the certificate specifies the aircraft make 

and model to which the certificate 

applies. 

§ 21.146 Responsibility of holder. 

The holder of a production certificate 

must— 

(a) Amend the document required by 

§ 21.135 as necessary to reflect changes 

in the organization and provide these 

amendments to the FAA. 

(b) Maintain the quality system in 

compliance with the data and 

procedures approved for the production 

certificate; 

(c) Ensure that each completed 

product or article for which a 

production certificate has been issued, 

including primary category aircraft 

assembled under a production 

certificate by another person from a kit 

provided by the holder of the 

production certificate, presented for 

airworthiness certification or approval 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation; 

(d) Mark the product or article for 

which a certificate or approval has been 

issued. Marking must be in accordance 

with part 45 of this chapter, including 

any critical parts; 

(e) Identify any portion of the product 

or article (e.g., sub-assemblies, 

component parts, or replacement 

articles) that leave the manufacturer’s 

facility as FAA approved with the 

manufacturer’s part number and name, 

trademark, symbol, or other FAA 

approved manufacturer’s identification; 

(f) Have access to type design data 

necessary to determine conformity and 

airworthiness for each product and 

article produced under the production 

certificate; 

(g) Retain its production certificate 

and make it available to the FAA upon 

request; and 

(h) Make available to the FAA 

information regarding all delegation of 

authority to suppliers. 

§ 21.147 Amendment of production 

certificates. 

The holder of a production certificate 

must apply for an amendment to a 

production certificate in a form and 

manner prescribed by the FAA. 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. 

§ 21.150 Changes in quality system. 

After the issuance of a production 

certificate— 

(a) Each change to the quality system 

is subject to review by the FAA; and 

(b) The holder of a production 

certificate must immediately notify the 

FAA, in writing, of any change that may 

affect the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of its product or article. 

■ 33. Amend § 21.183 by revising 

paragraphs (c), (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory 

text, and (d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 21.183 Issue of standard airworthiness 

certificates for normal, utility, acrobatic, 

commuter, and transport category aircraft; 

manned free balloons; and special classes 

of aircraft. 

* * * * * 

(c) Import aircraft. An applicant for a 

standard airworthiness certificate for an 

import aircraft is entitled to that 

certificate if— 

(1) The aircraft is type certificated in 

accordance with § 21.21 or § 21.29 and 

produced under the authority of another 

State of Manufacture; 

(2) The State of Manufacture certifies, 

in accordance with the export 

provisions of an agreement with the 

United States for import of that aircraft, 

that the aircraft conforms to the type 

design and is in condition for safe 

operation; and 

(3) The FAA finds that the aircraft 

conforms to the type design and is in 

condition for safe operation. 

(d) * * * 

(1) The applicant presents evidence to 

the FAA that the aircraft conforms to a 

type design approved under a type 

certificate or a supplemental type 

certificate and to applicable 

Airworthiness Directives; 

(2) The aircraft (except an 

experimentally certificated aircraft that 

previously had been issued a different 

airworthiness certificate under this 

section) has been inspected in 

accordance with the performance rules 

for 100-hour inspections set forth in 

§ 43.15 of this chapter, or an equivalent 

performance standard acceptable to the 

FAA, and found airworthy by— 

* * * * * 

(3) The FAA finds after inspection, 

that the aircraft conforms to the type 

design, and is in condition for safe 

operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Revise § 21.185(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.185 Issue of airworthiness certificates 

for restricted category aircraft. 

* * * * * 

(c) Import aircraft. An applicant for 

the original issue of a special 

airworthiness certificate for a restricted 

category import aircraft is entitled to 

that certificate if— 

(1) The aircraft is type-certificated in 

accordance with § 21.25 or § 21.29 and 

produced under the authority of another 

State of Manufacture; 

(2) The State of Manufacture certifies, 

in accordance with the export 

provisions of an agreement with the 

United States for import of that aircraft 

that the aircraft conforms to the type 

design and is in condition for safe 

operation; and 

(3) The FAA finds that the aircraft 

conforms to the type design and is in 

condition for safe operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Revise § 21.195(d)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.195 Experimental certificates: Aircraft 

to be used for market surveys, sales 

demonstrations, and customer crew 

training. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) The applicant shows that the 

aircraft has been flown for at least 50 

hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a 

type certificated aircraft which has been 

modified. The FAA may reduce these 

operational requirements if the 

applicant provides adequate 

justification. 

■ 36. Revise § 21.197(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.197 Special flight permits. 

* * * * * 

(c) Upon application, as prescribed in 

§§ 91.1017 or 119.51 of this chapter, a 

special flight permit with a continuing 

authorization may be issued for aircraft 

that may not meet applicable 

airworthiness requirements, but are 

capable of safe flight for the purpose of 

flying aircraft to a base where 

maintenance or alterations are to be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

performed. The permit issued under this 

paragraph is an authorization, including 

conditions and limitations for flight, 

which is set forth in the certificate 

holder’s operations specifications. The 

permit issued under this paragraph may 

be issued to— 

(1) Certificate holders authorized to 

conduct operations under part 119 of 

this chapter, that have an approved 

program for continuing flight 

authorization; or 

(2) Management specification holders 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 91, subpart K of this chapter for 

those aircraft they operate and maintain 

under a continuous airworthiness 

maintenance program prescribed by 

§ 91.1411 of this chapter. 

§ 21.223 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend § 21.223 by removing the 

word ‘‘control’’ from paragraph (c). 

§ 21.225 [Amended] 

■ 38. Amend § 21.225 by removing the 

word ‘‘control’’ from paragraph (b). 

§ 21.231 [Amended] 

■ 39. Amend § 21.231(a)(6) by removing 

the words ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)’’ and adding 

in their place the words ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(5)’’. 

§ 21.251 [Amended] 

■ 40. Amend § 21.251(b)(4)(iii) and 

(b)(4)(iv) as follows: 

a. Remove the words ‘‘(FAA Form 

8130–3)’’ in both paragraphs; and 

b. Remove the words ‘‘Airworthiness 

approval tags’’ and add in their place 

the words ‘‘Airworthiness approvals’’ in 

both paragraphs. 

§ 21.253 [Amended] 

■ 41. Amend § 21.253 by removing the 

words ‘‘(FAA Form 312)’’ from 

paragraph (a)(1). 

■ 42. Revise § 21.267(d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.267 Production certificates. 

* * * * * 

(d) After placing the manufacturing 

and quality system data required by 

§ 21.137 with the data required by 

§ 21.293(a)(1)(ii), a statement certifying 

that this has been done. 

§ 21.271 [Amended] 

■ 43. Amend § 21.271(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘(FAA Form 8130–3)’’. 

■ 44. Revise § 21.293(a)(2) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 21.293 Current records. 

(a) * * * 

(2) For 5 years— 

* * * * * 

■ 45. Revise subpart K to read as 

follows: 

Subpart K—Parts Manufacturer Approvals 

Sec. 

21.301 Applicability. 

21.303 Application. 

21.305 Organization. 

21.307 Quality system. 

21.308 Quality manual. 

21.309 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

21.310 Inspections and tests. 

21.311 Issuance. 

21.313 Duration. 

21.314 Transferability. 

21.316 Responsibility of holder. 

21.319 Design changes. 

21.320 Changes in quality system. 

Subpart K—Parts Manufacturer 

Approvals 

§ 21.301 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes— 

(a) Procedural requirements for 

issuing PMAs; and 

(b) Rules governing holders of PMAs. 

§ 21.303 Application. 

(a) The applicant for a PMA must 

apply in a form and manner prescribed 

by the FAA, and include the following: 

(1) The identity of the product on 

which the article is to be installed. 

(2) The name and address of the 

manufacturing facilities at which these 

articles are to be manufactured. 

(3) The design of the article, which 

consists of— 

(i) Drawings and specifications 

necessary to show the configuration of 

the article; and 

(ii) Information on dimensions, 

materials, and processes necessary to 

define the structural strength of the 

article. 

(4) Test reports and computations 

necessary to show that the design of the 

article meets the airworthiness 

requirements of this subchapter. The 

test reports and computations must be 

applicable to the product on which the 

article is to be installed, unless the 

applicant shows that the design of the 

article is identical to the design of a 

article that is covered under a type 

certificate. If the design of the article 

was obtained by a licensing agreement, 

the applicant must provide evidence of 

that agreement. 

(5) An applicant for a PMA based on 

test reports and computations must 

provide a statement certifying that the 

applicant has complied with the 

airworthiness requirements of this 

subchapter. 

(b) Each applicant for a PMA must 

make all inspections and tests necessary 

to determine— 

(1) Compliance with the applicable 

airworthiness requirements; 

(2) That materials conform to the 

specifications in the design; 

(3) That the article conforms to its 

approved design; and 

(4) That the manufacturing processes, 

construction, and assembly conform to 

those specified in the design. 

§ 21.305 Organization. 

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. At a minimum, the 

document must describe assigned 

responsibilities and delegated authority, 

and the functional relationship of those 

responsible for quality to management 

and other organizational components. 

§ 21.307 Quality system. 

Each applicant for or holder of a PMA 

must establish a quality system that 

meets the requirements of § 21.137. 

§ 21.308 Quality manual. 

Each applicant for or holder of a PMA 

must provide a manual describing its 

quality system to the FAA for approval. 

The manual must be in the English 

language and retrievable in a form 

acceptable to the FAA. 

§ 21.309 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

(a) An applicant may obtain a PMA 

for manufacturing facilities located 

outside of the United States if the FAA 

finds no undue burden in administering 

the applicable requirements of Title 49 

U.S.C. and this subchapter. 

(b) The PMA holder must obtain FAA 

approval before making any changes to 

the location of any of its manufacturing 

facilities. 

(c) The PMA holder must 

immediately notify the FAA, in writing, 

of any change to the manufacturing 

facilities that may affect the inspection, 

conformity, or airworthiness of its PMA 

article. 

§ 21.310 Inspections and tests. 

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a 

PMA must allow the FAA to inspect its 

quality system, facilities, technical data, 

and any manufactured articles and 

witness any tests, including any 

inspections or tests at a supplier facility, 

necessary to determine compliance with 

this subchapter. 

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by 

the FAA, the applicant or holder— 

(1) May not present any article to the 

FAA for an inspection or test unless 

compliance with § 21.303(b)(2) through 

(4) has been shown for that article; and 

(2) May not make any change to an 

article between the time that 

compliance with § 21.303(b)(2) through 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53391 

(4) is shown for that article and the time 

that the article is presented to the FAA 

for the inspection or test. 

§ 21.311 Issuance. 

The FAA issues a PMA after finding 

that the applicant complies with the 

requirements of this subpart and the 

design complies with the requirements 

of this chapter applicable to the product 

on which the article is to be installed. 

§ 21.313 Duration. 

A PMA is effective until surrendered, 

withdrawn, or the FAA otherwise 

terminates it. 

§ 21.314 Transferability. 

The holder of a PMA may not transfer 

the PMA. 

§ 21.316 Responsibility of holder. 

Each holder of a PMA must— 

(a) Amend the document required by 

§ 21.305 as necessary to reflect changes 

in the organization and provide these 

amendments to the FAA; 

(b) Maintain the quality system in 

compliance with the data and 

procedures approved for the PMA; 

(c) Ensure that each PMA article 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation; 

(d) Mark the PMA article for which an 

approval has been issued. Marking must 

be in accordance with part 45 of this 

chapter, including any critical parts; 

(e) Identify any portion of the PMA 

article (e.g., sub-assemblies, component 

parts, or replacement articles) that leave 

the manufacturer’s facility as FAA 

approved with the manufacturer’s part 

number and name, trademark, symbol, 

or other FAA approved manufacturer’s 

identification; 

(f) Have access to design data 

necessary to determine conformity and 

airworthiness for each article produced 

under the PMA; 

(g) Retain each document granting 

PMA and make it available to the FAA 

upon request; and 

(h) Make available to the FAA 

information regarding all delegation of 

authority to suppliers. 

§ 21.319 Design changes. 

(a) Classification of design changes. 

(1) A ‘‘minor change’’ to the design of 

an article produced under a PMA is one 

that has no appreciable effect on the 

approval basis. 

(2) A ‘‘major change’’ to the design of 

an article produced under a PMA is any 

change that is not minor. 

(b) Approval of design changes. (1) 

Minor changes to the basic design of a 

PMA may be approved using a method 

acceptable to the FAA. 

(2) The PMA holder must obtain FAA 

approval of any major change before 

including it in the design of an article 

produced under a PMA. 

§ 21.320 Changes in quality system. 

After the issuance of a PMA— 

(a) Each change to the quality system 

is subject to review by the FAA; and 

(b) The holder of the PMA must 

immediately notify the FAA, in writing, 

of any change that may affect the 

inspection, conformity, or airworthiness 

of its article. 

■ 46. Revise subpart L to read as 

follows: 

Subpart L—Export Airworthiness Approvals 

Sec. 

21.321 Applicability. 

21.325 Export airworthiness approvals. 

21.327 Application. 

21.329 Issuance of export certificates of 

airworthiness. 

21.331 Issuance of export airworthiness 

approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles. 

21.335 Responsibilities of exporters. 

Subpart L—Export Airworthiness 

Approvals 

§ 21.321 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes— 

(a) Procedural requirements for 

issuing export airworthiness approvals; 

and 

(b) Rules governing the holders of 

those approvals. 

§ 21.325 Export airworthiness approvals. 

(a) An export airworthiness approval 

for an aircraft is issued in the form of 

an export certificate of airworthiness. 

This certificate does not authorize 

operation of that aircraft. 

(b) The FAA prescribes the form and 

manner in which an export 

airworthiness approval for an aircraft 

engine, propeller, or article is issued. 

(c) If the FAA finds no undue burden 

in administering the applicable 

requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this 

subchapter, an export airworthiness 

approval may be issued for a product or 

article located outside of the United 

States. 

§ 21.327 Application. 

Any person may apply for an export 

airworthiness approval. Each applicant 

must apply in a form and manner 

prescribed by the FAA. 

§ 21.329 Issuance of export certificates of 

airworthiness. 

(a) A person may obtain from the FAA 

an export certificate of airworthiness for 

an aircraft if— 

(1) A new or used aircraft 

manufactured under subpart F or G of 

this part meets the airworthiness 

requirements under subpart H of this 

part for a— 

(i) Standard airworthiness certificate; 

or 

(ii) Special airworthiness certificate in 

either the ‘‘primary’’ or the ‘‘restricted’’ 

category; or 

(2) A new or used aircraft not 

manufactured under subpart F or G of 

this part has a valid— 

(i) Standard airworthiness certificate; 

or 

(ii) Special airworthiness certificate in 

either the ‘‘primary’’ or the ‘‘restricted’’ 

category. 

(b) An aircraft need not meet a 

requirement specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, as applicable, if— 

(1) The importing country or 

jurisdiction accepts, in a form and 

manner acceptable to the FAA, a 

deviation from that requirement; and 

(2) The export certificate of 

airworthiness lists as an exception any 

difference between the aircraft to be 

exported and its type design. 

§ 21.331 Issuance of export airworthiness 

approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles. 

(a) A person may obtain from the FAA 

an export airworthiness approval to 

export a new aircraft engine, propeller, 

or article that is manufactured under 

this part if it conforms to its approved 

design and is in a condition for safe 

operation. 

(b) A new aircraft engine, propeller, or 

article need not meet a requirement of 

paragraph (a) of this section if— 

(1) The importing country or 

jurisdiction accepts, in a form and 

manner acceptable to the FAA, a 

deviation from that requirement; and 

(2) The export airworthiness approval 

lists as an exception any difference 

between the aircraft engine, propeller, 

or article to be exported and its 

approved design. 

(c) A person may obtain from the FAA 

an export airworthiness approval to 

export a used aircraft engine, propeller, 

or article if it conforms to its approved 

design and is in a condition for safe 

operation. 

(d) A used aircraft engine or propeller 

need not meet a requirement of 

paragraph (c) of this section if— 

(1) The importing country or 

jurisdiction accepts, in a form and 

manner acceptable to the FAA, a 

deviation from that requirement; and 

(2) The export airworthiness approval 

lists as an exception any difference 

between the used aircraft engine or 

propeller to be exported and its 

approved design. 

§ 21.335 Responsibilities of exporters. 

Unless otherwise agreed to by the 

importing country or jurisdiction, each 

exporter must— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(a) Forward to the importing country 

or jurisdiction all documents specified 

by that country or jurisdiction; 

(b) Preserve and package products and 

articles as necessary to protect them 

against corrosion and damage during 

transit or storage and state the duration 

of effectiveness of such preservation and 

packaging; 

(c) Remove or cause to be removed 

any temporary installation incorporated 

on an aircraft for the purpose of export 

delivery and restore the aircraft to the 

approved configuration upon 

completion of the delivery flight; 

(d) Secure all proper foreign entry 

clearances from all the countries or 

jurisdictions involved when conducting 

sales demonstrations or delivery flights; 

and 

(e) When title to an aircraft passes or 

has passed to a foreign purchaser— 

(1) Request cancellation of the U.S. 

registration and airworthiness 

certificates from the FAA, giving the 

date of transfer of title, and the name 

and address of the foreign owner; 

(2) Return the Registration and 

Airworthiness Certificates to the FAA; 

and 

(3) Provide a statement to the FAA 

certifying that the U.S. identification 

and registration numbers have been 

removed from the aircraft in compliance 

with § 45.33. 

■ 47. Revise subpart N to read as 

follows: 

Subpart N—Acceptance of Aircraft Engines, 

Propellers, and Articles for Import 

Sec. 

21.500 Acceptance of aircraft engines and 

propellers. 

21.502 Acceptance of articles. 

Subpart N—Acceptance of Aircraft 

Engines, Propellers, and Articles for 

Import 

§ 21.500 Acceptance of aircraft engines 

and propellers. 

An aircraft engine or propeller 

manufactured in a foreign country or 

jurisdiction meets the requirements for 

acceptance under this subchapter if— 

(a) That country or jurisdiction is 

subject to the provisions of an 

agreement with the United States for the 

acceptance of that product; 

(b) That product is marked in 

accordance with part 45 of this chapter; 

and 

(c) The holder or licensee of a U.S. 

type certificate for that product 

furnishes with each such aircraft engine 

or propeller imported into the United 

States, an export airworthiness approval 

issued in accordance with the 

provisions of that agreement certifying 

that the individual aircraft engine or 

propeller— 

(1) Conforms to its U.S. type 

certificate and is in condition for safe 

operation; and 

(2) Has been subjected by the 

manufacturer to a final operational 

check. 

§ 21.502 Acceptance of articles. 

An article (including an article 

produced under a letter of TSO design 

approval) manufactured in a foreign 

country or jurisdiction meets the 

requirements for acceptance under this 

subchapter if— 

(a) That country or jurisdiction is 

subject to the provisions of an 

agreement with the United States for the 

acceptance of that article; 

(b) That article is marked in 

accordance with part 45 of this chapter; 

and 

(c) An export airworthiness approval 

has been issued in accordance with the 

provisions of that agreement for that 

article for import into the United States. 

■ 48. Revise subpart O to read as 

follows: 

Subpart O—Technical Standard Order 

Approvals 

Sec. 

21.601 Applicability and definitions. 

21.603 Application. 

21.605 Organization. 

21.607 Quality system. 

21.608 Quality manual. 

21.609 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

21.610 Inspections and tests. 

21.611 Issuance. 

21.613 Duration. 

21.614 Transferability. 

21.616 Responsibility of holder. 

21.618 Approval for deviation. 

21.619 Design changes. 

21.620 Changes in quality system. 

21.621 Issue of letters of TSO design 

approval: import articles. 

Subpart O—Technical Standard Order 

Approvals 

§ 21.601 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) This subpart prescribes— 

(1) Procedural requirements for 

issuing TSO authorizations; 

(2) Rules governing the holders of 

TSO authorizations; and 

(3) Procedural requirements for 

issuing letters of TSO design approval. 

(b) For the purposes of this subpart— 

(1) A TSO issued by the FAA is a 

minimum performance standard for 

specified articles used on civil aircraft; 

(2) A TSO authorization is an FAA 

design and production approval issued 

to the manufacturer of an article that has 

been found to meet a specific TSO; 

(3) A letter of TSO design approval is 

an FAA design approval for an article 

that has been found to meet a specific 

TSO in accordance with the procedures 

of § 21.621; 

(4) An article manufactured under a 

TSO authorization, an FAA letter of 

acceptance as described in § 21.613(b), 

or an article manufactured under a letter 

of TSO design approval described in 

§ 21.621 is an approved article for the 

purpose of meeting the regulations of 

this chapter that require the article to be 

approved; and 

(5) An article manufacturer is the 

person who controls the design and 

quality of the article produced (or to be 

produced, in the case of an application), 

including any related parts, processes, 

or services procured from an outside 

source. 

§ 21.603 Application. 

(a) An applicant for a TSO 

authorization must apply to the 

appropriate aircraft certification office 

in the form and manner prescribed by 

the FAA. The applicant must include 

the following documents in the 

application: 

(1) A statement of conformance 

certifying that the applicant has met the 

requirements of this subpart and that 

the article concerned meets the 

applicable TSO that is effective on the 

date of application for that article. 

(2) One copy of the technical data 

required in the applicable TSO. 

(b) If the applicant anticipates a series 

of minor changes in accordance with 

§ 21.619, the applicant may set forth in 

its application the basic model number 

of the article and the part number of the 

components with open brackets after it 

to denote that suffix change letters or 

numbers (or combinations of them) will 

be added from time to time. 

(c) If the application is deficient, the 

applicant must, when requested by the 

FAA, provide any additional 

information necessary to show 

compliance with this part. If the 

applicant fails to provide the additional 

information within 30 days after the 

FAA’s request, the FAA denies the 

application and notifies the applicant. 

§ 21.605 Organization. 

Each applicant for or holder of a TSO 

authorization must provide the FAA 

with a document describing how the 

applicant’s organization will ensure 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart. At a minimum, the document 

must describe assigned responsibilities 

and delegated authority, and the 

functional relationship of those 

responsible for quality to management 

and other organizational components. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53393 

§ 21.607 Quality system. 

Each applicant for or holder of a TSO 

authorization must establish a quality 

system that meets the requirements of 

§ 21.137. 

§ 21.608 Quality manual. 

Each applicant for or holder of a TSO 

authorization must provide a manual 

describing its quality system to the FAA 

for approval. The manual must be in the 

English language and retrievable in a 

form acceptable to the FAA. 

§ 21.609 Location of or change to 

manufacturing facilities. 

(a) An applicant may obtain a TSO 

authorization for manufacturing 

facilities located outside of the United 

States if the FAA finds no undue burden 

in administering the applicable 

requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this 

subchapter. 

(b) The TSO authorization holder 

must obtain FAA approval before 

making any changes to the location of 

any of its manufacturing facilities. 

(c) The TSO authorization holder 

must immediately notify the FAA, in 

writing, of any change to the 

manufacturing facilities that may affect 

the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of its product or article. 

§ 21.610 Inspections and tests. 

Each applicant for or holder of a TSO 

authorization must allow the FAA to 

inspect its quality system, facilities, 

technical data, and any manufactured 

articles and witness any tests, including 

any inspections or tests at a supplier 

facility, necessary to determine 

compliance with this subchapter. 

§ 21.611 Issuance. 

If the FAA finds that the applicant 

complies with the requirements of this 

subchapter, the FAA issues a TSO 

authorization to the applicant 

(including all TSO deviations granted to 

the applicant). 

§ 21.613 Duration. 

(a) A TSO authorization or letter of 

TSO design approval is effective until 

surrendered, withdrawn, or otherwise 

terminated by the FAA. 

(b) If a TSO is revised or canceled, the 

holder of an affected FAA letter of 

acceptance of a statement of 

conformance, TSO authorization, or 

letter of TSO design approval may 

continue to manufacture articles that 

meet the original TSO without obtaining 

a new acceptance, authorization, or 

approval but must comply with the 

requirements of this chapter. 

§ 21.614 Transferability. 

The holder of a TSO authorization or 

letter of TSO design approval may not 

transfer the TSO authorization or letter 

of TSO design approval. 

§ 21.616 Responsibility of holder. 

Each holder of a TSO authorization 

must— 

(a) Amend the document required by 

§ 21.605 as necessary to reflect changes 

in the organization and provide these 

amendments to the FAA. 

(b) Maintain a quality system in 

compliance with the data and 

procedures approved for the TSO 

authorization; 

(c) Ensure that each manufactured 

article conforms to its approved design, 

is in a condition for safe operation, and 

meets the applicable TSO; 

(d) Mark the TSO article for which an 

approval has been issued. Marking must 

be in accordance with part 45 of this 

chapter, including any critical parts; 

(e) Identify any portion of the TSO 

article (e.g., sub-assemblies, component 

parts, or replacement articles) that leave 

the manufacturer’s facility as FAA 

approved with the manufacturer’s part 

number and name, trademark, symbol, 

or other FAA approved manufacturer’s 

identification; 

(f) Have access to design data 

necessary to determine conformity and 

airworthiness for each article produced 

under the TSO authorization. The 

manufacturer must retain this data until 

it no longer manufactures the article. At 

that time, copies of the data must be 

sent to the FAA; 

(g) Retain its TSO authorization and 

make it available to the FAA upon 

request; and 

(h) Make available to the FAA 

information regarding all delegation of 

authority to suppliers. 

§ 21.618 Approval for deviation. 

(a) Each manufacturer who requests 

approval to deviate from any 

performance standard of a TSO must 

show that factors or design features 

providing an equivalent level of safety 

compensate for the standards from 

which a deviation is requested. 

(b) The manufacturer must send 

requests for approval to deviate, 

together with all pertinent data, to the 

appropriate aircraft certification office. 

If the article is manufactured under the 

authority of a foreign country or 

jurisdiction, the manufacturer must 

send requests for approval to deviate, 

together with all pertinent data, through 

the civil aviation authority of that 

country or jurisdiction to the FAA. 

§ 21.619 Design changes. 

(a) Minor changes by the 

manufacturer holding a TSO 

authorization. The manufacturer of an 

article under an authorization issued 

under this part may make minor design 

changes (any change other than a major 

change) without further approval by the 

FAA. In this case, the changed article 

keeps the original model number (part 

numbers may be used to identify minor 

changes) and the manufacturer must 

forward to the appropriate aircraft 

certification office, any revised data that 

are necessary for compliance with 

§ 21.603(b). 

(b) Major changes by the 

manufacturer holding a TSO 

authorization. Any design change by the 

manufacturer extensive enough to 

require a substantially complete 

investigation to determine compliance 

with a TSO is a major change. Before 

making a major change, the 

manufacturer must assign a new type or 

model designation to the article and 

apply for an authorization under 

§ 21.603. 

(c) Changes by persons other than the 

manufacturer. No design change by any 

person (other than the manufacturer 

who provided the statement of 

conformance for the article) is eligible 

for approval under this part unless the 

person seeking the approval is a 

manufacturer and applies under 

§ 21.603(a) for a separate TSO 

authorization. Persons other than a 

manufacturer may obtain approval for 

design changes under part 43 or under 

the applicable airworthiness regulations 

of this chapter. 

§ 21.620 Changes in quality system. 

After the issuance of a TSO 

authorization— 

(a) Each change to the quality system 

is subject to review by the FAA; and 

(b) The holder of the TSO 

authorization must immediately notify 

the FAA, in writing, of any change that 

may affect the inspection, conformity, or 

airworthiness of its article. 

§ 21.621 Issuance of letters of TSO design 

approval: import articles. 

(a) The FAA may issue a letter of TSO 

design approval for an article— 

(1) Designed and manufactured in a 

foreign country or jurisdiction subject to 

the export provisions of an agreement 

with the United States for the 

acceptance of these articles for import; 

and 

(2) For import into the United States 

if— 

(i) The State of Design certifies that 

the article has been examined, tested, 

and found to meet the applicable TSO 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
53394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

or the applicable performance standards 

of the State of Design and any other 

performance standards the FAA may 

prescribe to provide a level of safety 

equivalent to that provided by the TSO; 

and 

(ii) The manufacturer has provided to 

the FAA one copy of the technical data 

required in the applicable performance 

standard through its State of Design. 

(b) The FAA issues the letter of TSO 

design approval that lists any deviation 

granted under § 21.618. 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

■ 49. The authority citation for part 43 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44703, 44705, 44707, 44711, 44713, 44717, 

44725. 

§ 43.2 [Amended] 

■ 50. Amend § 43.2(a)(2) by removing 

the reference to ‘‘§ 21.305 of this 

chapter’’ and adding in its place ‘‘part 

21 of this chapter’’. 

■ 51. Revise § 43.3(j)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 43.3 Persons authorized to perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, and alterations. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(3) Perform any inspection required 

by part 91 or part 125 of this chapter on 

aircraft it manufactured under a type 

certificate, or currently manufactures 

under a production certificate. 

PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND 

REGISTRATION MARKING 

■ 52. Revise the authority citation for 

part 45 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. 

PART 45—[AMENDED] 

■ 53. Amend part 45 by: 

■ a. Removing the word 

‘‘Administrator’’ and the words 

‘‘Administrator of the FAA’’ and adding 

in their place the word ‘‘FAA’’ wherever 

they appear; and 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and 

adding in its place the word ‘‘must’’ 

wherever it appears. 

■ 54. Amend § 45.1 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) and removing 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 45.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(a) Marking products and articles 

manufactured under— 

(1) A type certificate; 

(2) A production approval as defined 

under part 21 of this chapter; and 

(3) The provisions of an agreement 

between the United States and another 

country or jurisdiction for the 

acceptance of products and articles; and 

(b) Nationality and registration 

marking of U.S. registered aircraft. 

Subpart B—Marking of Products and 

Articles 

■ 55. Revise the heading of subpart B to 

read as set forth above. 

■ 56. Amend subpart B by adding 

§ 45.10 to read as follows: 

§ 45.10 Marking. 

No person may mark a product or 

article in accordance with this subpart 

unless— 

(a) That person produced the product 

or article — 

(1) Under part 21, subpart F, G, K, or 

O of this chapter; or 

(2) For export to the United States 

under the provisions of an agreement 

between the United States and another 

country or jurisdiction for the 

acceptance of products and articles; and 

(b) That product or article conforms to 

its approved design, and is in a 

condition for safe operation; and, for a 

TSO article; that TSO article meets the 

applicable performance standards. 

■ 57. Revise § 45.11 to read as follows: 

§ 45.11 Marking of products. 

(a) Aircraft. A manufacturer of aircraft 

covered under § 21.182 of this chapter 

must mark each aircraft by attaching a 

fireproof identification plate that— 

(1) Includes the information specified 

in § 45.13 using an approved method of 

fireproof marking; 

(2) Must be secured in such a manner 

that it will not likely be defaced or 

removed during normal service, or lost 

or destroyed in an accident; and 

(3) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(d) through (h) of this section, must be 

secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior 

so that it is legible to a person on the 

ground, and must be either adjacent to 

and aft of the rear-most entrance door or 

on the fuselage surface near the tail 

surfaces. 

(b) Aircraft engines. A manufacturer 

of an aircraft engine produced under a 

type certificate or production certificate 

must mark each engine by attaching a 

fireproof identification plate. Such 

plate— 

(1) Must include the information 

specified in § 45.13 using an approved 

method of fireproof marking; 

(2) Must be affixed to the engine at an 

accessible location; and 

(3) Must be secured in such a manner 

that it will not likely be defaced or 

removed during normal service, or lost 

or destroyed in an accident. 

(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 using an approved 

fireproof method. The marking must— 

(1) Be placed on a non-critical surface; 

(2) Contain the information specified 

in § 45.13; 

(3) Not likely be defaced or removed 

during normal service; and 

(4) Not likely be lost or destroyed in 

an accident. 

(d) Manned free balloons. A 

manufacturer of manned free balloons 

must mark each balloon by attaching the 

identification plate described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. The plate 

must be secured to the balloon envelope 

and must be located, if practicable, 

where it is legible to the operator when 

the balloon is inflated. In addition, the 

basket and heater assembly must be 

permanently and legibly marked with 

the manufacturer’s name, part number 

(or equivalent), and serial number (or 

equivalent). 

(e) Aircraft manufactured before 

March 7, 1988. The owner or operator 

of an aircraft manufactured before 

March 7, 1988 must mark the aircraft by 

attaching the identification plate 

required by paragraph (a) of this section. 

The plate must be secured at an 

accessible exterior or interior location 

near an entrance, if the model 

designation and builder’s serial number 

are also displayed on the exterior of the 

aircraft fuselage. The model designation 

and builder’s serial number must be— 

(1) Legible to a person on the ground, 

(2) Located either adjacent to and aft 

of the rear-most entrance door or on the 

fuselage near the tail surfaces, and 

(3) Displayed in such a manner that 

they are not likely to be defaced or 

removed during normal service. 

(f) For powered parachutes and 

weight-shift-control aircraft, the 

identification plate required by 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

secured to the exterior of the aircraft 

fuselage so that it is legible to a person 

on the ground. 

(g) The identification plate described 

in paragraph (a) of this section may be 

secured to the aircraft at an accessible 

location near an entrance for— 

(1) Aircraft produced for— 

(i) Operations under part 121 of this 

chapter, 

(ii) Commuter operations (as defined 

in § 119.3 of this chapter), or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53395 

(iii) Export. 

(2) Aircraft operating under part 121 

of this chapter and under an FAAapproved continuous airworthiness 

maintenance program; or 

(3) Aircraft operating in commuter air 

carrier operations (as defined in § 119.3 

of this chapter) under an FAA-approved 

continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program. 

(h) Gliders. Paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) 

of this section do not apply to gliders. 

§ 45.13 [Amended] 

■ 58. Amend § 45.13 by removing the 

text ‘‘and (b)’’ from paragraph (a) 

introductory text and adding in their 

place the text ‘‘through (c)’’ and by 

removing the words ‘‘of this part’’ from 

paragraph (c). 

§ 45.14 [Removed] 

■ 59. Remove § 45.14. 

■ 60. Revise § 45.15 to read as follows: 

§ 45.15 Marking requirements for PMA 

articles, TSO articles, and Critical parts. 

(a) PMA articles. The manufacturer of 

a PMA article must permanently and 

legibly mark— 

(1) Each PMA article, with the PMA 

holder’s name, trademark, symbol, or 

other FAA approved identification and 

part number; and 

(2) The letters ‘‘FAA–PMA’’. 

(b) TSO articles. The manufacturer of 

a TSO article must permanently and 

legibly mark — 

(1) Each TSO article with the TSO 

holder’s name, trademark, symbol, or 

other FAA approved identification and 

part number; and 

(2) Each TSO article, unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable TSO, with 

the TSO number and letter of 

designation, all markings specifically 

required by the applicable TSO, and the 

serial number or the date of 

manufacture of the article or both. 

(c) Critical parts. Each person who 

manufactures a part for which a 

replacement time, inspection interval, 

or related procedure is specified in the 

Airworthiness Limitations section of a 

manufacturer’s maintenance manual or 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness must permanently and 

legibly mark that part with a serial 

number (or equivalent) unique to that 

part in addition to the other applicable 

requirements of this section. 

(d) If the FAA finds a part or article 

is too small or otherwise impractical to 

mark with any of the information 

required by this part, the manufacturer 

must attach that information to the part 

or its container. 

§ 45.16 [Amended] 

■ 61. Amend § 45.16 by removing the 

last sentence of the section. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 

2009. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–24821 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2