52250 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21 and 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2003–14825; Amendment 

No. 21–88] 

RIN 2120–AH90 

Standard Airworthiness Certification of 

New Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends FAA 

regulations for issuing airworthiness 

certificates to certain new aircraft 

manufactured in the United States. 

These changes are necessary because 

under the current regulations, certain 

new aircraft are eligible for a standard 

airworthiness certificate without 

meeting the requirements of a type 

certificate (TC) and without having been 

manufactured under an FAA production 

approval. These changes are intended to 

ensure that new aircraft manufactured 

in the United States and issued a 

standard airworthiness certificate are 

type certificated and manufactured 

under an FAA production approval. 

This final rule also incorporates 

requirements contained in laws recently 

passed by Congress. These changes 

ensure that any person who 

manufactures or alters an aircraft, 

aircraft engine, or propeller based on a 

TC or supplemental type certificate 

(STC) either holds the certificate or has 

permission from the certificate holder. 

This amendment also includes language 

that allows a person to manufacture one 

new aircraft based on a TC without 

holding the TC or having a licensing 

agreement from the TC holder, provided 

manufacture of the aircraft began before 

August 5, 2004. 

DATES: These amendments become 

effective October 2, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Hayworth, Airworthiness Certification 

Branch, AIR–230, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–8449. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the 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. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the 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 FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code (49 

U.S.C.). Subtitle I, § 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart III, § 44701(a)(5). Under that 

section the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. 

Additionally, § 44704(a)(3) 

specifically mandates that ‘‘if the holder 

of a TC agrees to permit another person 

to use the certificate to manufacture a 

new aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, 

or appliance, the holder shall provide 

the other person with written evidence, 

in a form acceptable to the FAA, of that 

agreement. Such other person may 

manufacture a new aircraft, aircraft 

engine, propeller, or appliance based on 

a TC only if such other person is the 

holder of the TC or has permission from 

the holder.’’ Paragraph (a)(4) of that 

section includes a limitation for aircraft 

manufactured before August 5, 2004 and 

states that ‘‘paragraph (3) shall not 

apply to a person who began the 

manufacture of an aircraft before August 

5, 2004, and who demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator that 

such manufacture began before August 

5, 2004.’’ That paragraph further states 

‘‘a person is permitted to invoke this 

exception with regard to the 

manufacture of one aircraft.’’ 

Similarly, § 44704(b)(3) mandates that 

if the holder of an STC agrees to permit 

another person to use the certificate to 

modify a product, the holder must 

provide the person with written 

evidence acceptable to the FAA of that 

agreement. That paragraph also 

mandates that a person may only change 

a product based on an STC if the person 

requesting the change is the holder of 

the STC or has permission for the holder 

to make the change. 

By prescribing requirements for 

manufacturers of new aircraft, aircraft 

engines, and propellers, and for persons 

altering any product, this regulation is 

within the scope of the Administrator’s 

general authority and fulfills the 

statutory mandates set forth in 

§ 44704(a) and (b). 

Background 

FAA Concerns Regarding Standard 

Airworthiness Certification of Certain 

New Aircraft 

This final rule responds to a concern 

that under the current regulations, 

certain new aircraft are eligible for 

standard airworthiness certification 

without meeting the requirements of a 

TC and without having been 

manufactured under an FAA production 

approval. The issuance of a standard 

airworthiness certificate for a particular 

aircraft indicates that the FAA has made 

a finding that the aircraft conforms to its 

type design and is in condition for safe 

operation. The FAA relies heavily on a 

manufacturer’s production certificate 

(PC) quality control system. 

The vast majority of aircraft issued 

standard airworthiness certificates have 

been produced in accordance with the 

FAA’s system of type certification, 

production certification, and 

airworthiness certification. This system 

ensures an aircraft conforms to a type 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52251 

1Until recently, only a few newly manufactured 

aircraft have been issued standard airworthiness 

certificates without beging manufactured under a 

production approval. 

design and is in condition for safe 

operation. It also helps to ensure the 

accurate production of multiple aircraft 

of the same design in accordance with 

applicable airworthiness standards. 

Through type certification, the FAA 

examines the basic design of the aircraft 

against the applicable airworthiness 

standards. The FAA issues a type 

certificate (TC) for an aircraft only after 

it has determined that the aircraft design 

meets applicable airworthiness 

standards. A PC is issued after the FAA 

has made a finding that the quality 

control system of a manufacturer will 

permit it to produce duplicate versions 

of an aircraft that conform to an 

approved type design. 

The certification process provides 

numerous benefits. Any deviation from 

the approved type design that is found 

during a conformity inspection can be 

evaluated by comparison to TC data. 

This evaluation can readily determine 

whether an individual aircraft meets all 

the airworthiness standards identified 

by the TC. Additionally, PC holders can 

evaluate the cumulative effect of design 

changes over time and determine 

whether a changed aircraft presented for 

original airworthiness certification 

continues to comply with the 

airworthiness standards identified in 

the TC. 

Currently, new aircraft presented for 

standard airworthiness certification 

under § 21.183(d) do not have the same 

level of production oversight as newly 

manufactured aircraft produced under 

the FAA’s system of type and 

production certification.1 An applicant 

for an airworthiness certificate under 

§ 21.183(d) must make a detailed 

aircraft-by-aircraft showing to support 

the entitlement to an individual 

airworthiness certificate. This places a 

great burden on both the applicant and 

the FAA. 

Recently, some manufacturers have 

engaged in the serial production of new 

aircraft and obtained standard 

airworthiness certification of these 

aircraft under § 21.183(d) without 

holding either a TC or PC. Frequently 

these manufacturers do not have 

authorization from the original TC 

holder to use the TC to manufacture the 

aircraft. These aircraft have been built to 

match a type design under a previously 

approved TC; however, since these 

builders do not hold a TC, they may not 

have access to the supporting data 

originally used to show compliance to 

the airworthiness standards. In addition, 

the FAA does not have any assurance 

preceding issuance of the standard 

airworthiness certificate that an 

individual aircraft conforms to a type 

design since it was not produced under 

a PC. Each aircraft produced must 

therefore be individually evaluated, 

compared to type design data, and 

determined to be in condition for safe 

operation. This process is frequently 

difficult, labor intensive, and time 

consuming. 

Building new aircraft intended for 

standard airworthiness certification 

under § 21.183(d) is not consistent with 

the current regulatory framework for 

obtaining standard airworthiness 

certificates for new aircraft. This rule 

will ensure the proper assignment of 

type certificate and production approval 

holder responsibilities to manufacturers 

of new aircraft. Type and production 

certificates for manufacturing new 

products are fundamental to the 

regulatory framework for the issuance of 

a standard airworthiness certificate. 

Congressional Action Regarding the Use 

of TCs and STCs 

This rule also incorporates new 

requirements regarding the use of TCs 

and STCs mandated by Congress in the 

Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–264; 110 Stat. 3213); 

Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Vision 

100) (Pub. L. 108–176; 117 Stat 2490); 

and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFTEA–LU) (Pub. L. 

109–59; 119 Stat. 11441). 

Congress enacted these statutes in 

response to the concerns of TC and STC 

holders that persons were 

manufacturing and altering products 

based on the data contained in these 

certificates without possessing any 

rights to the use of the certificates. The 

FAA historically has not inquired 

whether an applicant for an 

airworthiness certificate has the rights 

to the use of the type certificate on 

which the aircraft’s design was based. 

Additionally, the agency has not 

inquired whether an applicant for an 

STC has the rights to the technical data 

used to obtain an STC or to alter a 

product. 

Congress first addressed the issue of 

STC use in the Federal Aviation 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 by adding 

paragraph (b)(3) to 49 U.S.C. 

44704(b)(3). That action requires 

holders of STCs to provide persons 

permitted to use those certificates to 

modify a product with written evidence 

acceptable to the FAA of that agreement. 

To preclude persons from performing 

alterations on products using STC data 

that they did not have rights to, 

Congress also imposed a requirement 

mandating that a person may only 

change a product based on an STC if the 

person requesting the change is the 

holder of the STC or has permission 

from the holder to make the change. 

Congress, at the time, did not 

specifically address the issue of whether 

one must possess rights to a TC in order 

to manufacture a product. 

As a result of concerns that persons 

were manufacturing new aircraft for 

certification based on data contained in 

TCs to which they did not have rights, 

Congress again revised § 44704 in 2003. 

In Vision 100 Congress added paragraph 

(a)(3) to § 44704 specifically mandating 

that ‘‘if the holder of a TC agrees to 

permit another person to use the 

certificate to manufacture a new aircraft, 

aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, 

the holder shall provide the other 

person with written evidence, in a form 

acceptable to the FAA, of that 

agreement. Such other person may 

manufacture a new aircraft, aircraft 

engine, propeller, or appliance based on 

a TC only if such other person is the 

holder of the TC or has permission from 

the holder.’’

In response to subsequent concerns 

that this action would preclude the 

certification of aircraft currently 

manufactured by individuals who did 

not have rights to the TCs on which 

their aircraft were based, Congress, in 

SAFETEA–LU, enacted an exception for 

aircraft whose manufacture began before 

August 5, 2004. The new provision 

provides a limited exception to the 

earlier statutory requirement and 

permits ‘‘a person who began the 

manufacture of an aircraft before August 

5, 2004, and who demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the FAA that such 

manufacture began before August 5, 

2004’’ to manufacture a new aircraft 

without holding the rights to its TC. 

That paragraph further limited the 

exception by stating that ‘‘a person is 

permitted to invoke this exception with 

regard to the manufacture of one 

aircraft.’’

Prior Proposals 

This amendment is based on a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7829) and a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM) published in the 

Federal Register on November 10, 2005 

(70 FR 68374). 

In the NPRM we proposed to revise 

our regulations to: 

• Prohibit the manufacture of new 

aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers 

based on a TC unless the person 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52252 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturing the product holds the TC 

for the product (or has a licensing 

agreement) and an FAA production 

approval. 

• Prohibit the issuance of standard 

airworthiness certificates for new 

aircraft that have not been manufactured 

under an FAA production approval or 

type certificated under Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

§ 21.29. 

• Require TC holders who allow 

persons to manufacture products based 

on those certificates to provide the 

manufacturers with written licensing 

agreements. 

• Require STC holders who allow 

persons to alter products based on those 

certificates to provide those persons 

with written evidence of the 

agreements. 

These changes reflect the FAA’s 

intent to preclude the issuance of 

standard airworthiness certificates for 

new aircraft that have not been 

produced under an FAA production 

approval or an approval issued by a 

foreign Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). 

They also reflect the statutory mandates 

set forth in Vision 100 and the Federal 

Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 

regarding the use of TCs and STCs. 

In the SNPRM we proposed to revise 

our original proposal to include an 

exception to the statutory mandate 

contained in Vision 100 requiring 

persons who manufacture a new aircraft 

based on a TC to hold the TC for the 

aircraft or have a licensing agreement to 

use the TC. This exception is set forth 

in section 811 of SAFTEA–LU. This law 

was enacted on August 10, 2005, 

approximately six months after 

publication of our original proposal. In 

the SNPRM we specifically revised our 

proposal to conform to the new law and 

included a provision to permit a person 

to manufacture one new aircraft for 

certification without holding the type 

certificate for the product (or a licensing 

agreement) and an FAA production 

approval. The person must, however, 

have begun the manufacture of the 

aircraft before August 5, 2004 to obtain 

airworthiness certification of the 

aircraft. 

Both notices contain explanatory 

material describing the basis and 

rationale for this rule. The discussion in 

the NPRM specifically addresses three 

topic areas: the issuance of standard 

airworthiness certificates to used 

aircraft and surplus military aircraft; the 

use of TCs to manufacture new aircraft, 

aircraft engines, and propellers; and the 

use of STCs as the basis for alterations. 

The SNPRM discusses our proposed 

exception from the requirement that the 

manufacturer of a new aircraft based on 

a TC be the holder of the TC, or have 

the permission of the TC holder. Except 

where we have modified the proposal in 

this rule or specifically expanded on the 

background elsewhere in this preamble, 

the material contained in the NPRM and 

SNPRM supports this final rule. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on April 18, 2005, and we 

received comments from 46 

commenters. Most of the commenters 

had objections to at least one of the 

proposed changes. Four commenters 

were opposed to the entire proposal and 

five commenters supported the 

proposal. A number of commenters also 

suggested rulemaking actions not 

addressed by the proposal. 

The comment period for the SNPRM 

closed on December 12, 2005. We 

received no comments on that SNPRM. 

Manufacture of New Aircraft, Aircraft 

Engines, and Propellers 

Section 21.6 is a new section that sets 

forth restrictions on the manufacture of 

new aircraft, aircraft engines, and 

propellers. That section has been 

adopted as proposed, except that a 

revision was made to clarify that the 

rule does not require imported products 

to be produced under an FAA 

production approval. 

As adopted, § 21.6(a) prohibits a 

person from manufacturing a new 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 

based on a TC unless the person—

• Is the holder of the TC, or has a 

licensing agreement from the holder of 

the TC to manufacture the product; and 

• Meets the requirements of subpart F 

or G of part 21. 

Our reference to subparts F and G in 

the regulation means that the person 

manufacturing the product has to 

comply with our regulations governing 

production under a TC only or a PC, 

respectively, when manufacturing a new 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 

based on a TC. Although not specifically 

discussed in the NPRM, we note that 

this requirement applies to all typecertificated aircraft regardless of the 

category of TC issued. This requirement 

therefore applies to type-certificated 

aircraft that may be issued other than 

standard airworthiness certificates (e.g., 

aircraft with primary or restricted 

category TCs). 

There are two exceptions to the 

general requirement set forth in 

§ 21.6(a). The first exception is set forth 

in § 21.6(b) and allows a person to 

manufacture one new aircraft without 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(a), provided that person can provide 

evidence acceptable to the FAA that he 

or she began manufacturing the aircraft 

before August 5, 2004. As proposed in 

the SNPRM, § 21.6(b) addressed the 

manufacturing of these ‘‘grandfathered’’

aircraft, but did not provide a means for 

them to be certificated. To correct this 

oversight and permit those aircraft to be 

certificated, we have added new 

paragraph (h) to § 21.183. That 

paragraph permits these aircraft to 

receive a standard airworthiness 

certificate subject to conditions that 

mirror those of § 21.183(d). 

We note that the exception for a 

person who began to manufacture an 

aircraft before August 5, 2004 applies 

only to aircraft, not to aircraft engines or 

propellers. This provision is based on 

the language of section 811 of 

SAFETEA–LU, which refers only to 

aircraft. 

A person seeking to manufacture a 

new aircraft under this exception will 

have to demonstrate to the FAA that 

manufacturing began before August 5, 

2004. Documents that could prove 

manufacturing began before August 5, 

2004 include items such as receipts for 

the purchase of parts or materials, dated 

photographs, and dated information 

received from the FAA related to the 

manufacturing or certification process 

for the specific aircraft. This 

information must be provided to the 

FAA no later than the time of 

application for an original airworthiness 

certificate. 

The second exception to § 21.6(a) is 

contained in paragraph (c) which states 

that the requirements of § 21.6 do not 

apply to new aircraft imported under 

the provisions of §§ 21.183(c), 21.184(b), 

or 21.185(c); and new aircraft engines or 

propellers imported under the 

provisions of § 21.500. These products 

are manufactured under the regulatory 

authority of countries other than the 

United States. Although the FAA did 

not propose this exception in the NPRM 

or SNPRM, its inclusion is necessary to 

clarify the FAA’s intent not to change 

existing requirements for new aircraft, 

aircraft engines, and propellers 

imported to the United States. This 

exception is discussed in detail in the 

section below. 

Imported Aircraft, Aircraft Kits, and 

Major Assemblies 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) and Monocoupe 

Club (MCC) were concerned that the 

proposed rule was unclear as to whether 

foreign manufacturers who hold a TC 

for imported products under § 21.29 

would be required to hold a U.S. PC. 

These commenters believe that 

manufacturers who assemble foreignmade aircraft kits or major assemblies in 

the United States, in some instances, 

without a PC, would now be required to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52253 

2The term ‘‘orphaned,’’ with respect to a TC or 

STC, is not found in our regulations. We believe 

that commenters are using the term to refer to the 

situation where a TC or STC holder no longer exists 

or cannot be located. 

3Currently, § 21.183 (a) and (b) apply to 

manufacturers of new aircraft produced under a PC 

or TC only, respectively. Section 183(c) applies to 

importers of aircraft that are type certificated under 

§ 21.29 and imported from the country in which 

they were manufactured. The FAA did not propose 

to revise these paragraphs. 

hold a U.S. PC. Such a requirement 

could increase the cost of an aircraft to 

purchasers. Commenters requested that 

the FAA clarify that the practice of 

assembling imported aircraft kits and 

major assemblies, without necessarily 

holding a PC, will be allowed to 

continue. 

The FAA concurs with the comment 

and has added § 21.6(c) to clarify our 

intent. Foreign manufacturers holding a 

§ 21.29 TC for the import of their 

products into the United States are not 

required to hold any form of FAA 

production approval (i.e., PC or 

Approved Production and Inspection 

System (APIS)). The regulatory 

responsibility for the fabrication, 

assembly, test, and final determination 

of airworthiness of product issued a TC 

under § 21.29 rests with the Civil 

Aviation Authority (CAA) of the country 

in which the product was 

manufactured, not the FAA. 

In some instances, the CAA of the 

country of manufacture may allow these 

production activities to occur outside 

their country (i.e., even within the 

United States, when agreed to by the 

FAA), but only under a production 

approval issued and overseen by that 

responsible CAA. Completed products 

are then exported to the United States 

with an Export Certificate of 

Airworthiness attesting to their 

conformity to the § 21.29 TC, that they 

are in a condition for safe operation, and 

are eligible for a standard airworthiness 

certificate. The FAA did not intend to 

impose additional requirements on 

foreign manufacturers of aircraft 

imported into the United States under 

§ 21.183(c). 

Manufacture of Older Aircraft Based on 

‘‘Orphaned’’ TCs 

Three individual commenters believe 

this proposal fails to address and make 

allowance for the manufacture of older 

aircraft based on an ‘‘orphaned’’ TC.2

The commenters are correct that a 

person may not ‘‘manufacture’’ an 

aircraft, as opposed to ‘‘restoring’’ or 

‘‘remanufacturing’’ an aircraft 

(discussed below), unless the person 

holds a TC or license to it. Under the 

final rule, new aircraft may receive a 

standard airworthiness certificate under 

existing § 21.183(a), (b), or (c) and the 

limited circumstances in new paragraph 

(h). 

The FAA recognizes that a person 

wishing to manufacture a new aircraft 

based on an ‘‘orphaned’’ TC may be 

unable to locate the holder of the TC to 

obtain a licensing agreement. However, 

the statute clearly prohibits the 

manufacture of any new aircraft based 

on an existing TC without obtaining 

permission of the TC holder and makes 

no provision for the inability of the 

potential manufacturer to locate the TC 

holder. 

TC and STC Holder Responsibilities 

Section 21.55 requires a TC holder 

who agrees to permit another person to 

use that TC to manufacture a new 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller to 

provide that person with a written 

licensing agreement acceptable to the 

FAA. Section 21.120 requires an STC 

holder who allows another person to 

use that STC to alter an aircraft, aircraft 

engine, or propeller to provide that 

person with written permission 

acceptable to the FAA. Both of these 

sections were adopted in response to 

Congressional mandates and have been 

adopted as proposed. 

The Aircraft Industries Association 

(AIA), Aeronautical Repair Station 

Association (ARSA), and General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA) believe that the language in 

proposed §§ 21.6 and 21.55 should be 

synchronized with the language in 

proposed § 21.120. The commenters 

asserted that the proposed language, 

which currently refers to ‘‘licensing 

agreement’’ and ‘‘written permission,’’

should be consistent with the language 

used in the legislation. The commenters 

believe the language used in the 

proposed regulations should be 

identical regardless of the type of design 

approval (TC or STC). 

In addition, General Electric 

Transportation Aircraft Engines (GE) 

believes that the focus in the NPRM on 

the term ‘‘licensing agreement’’ was 

inappropriate because a licensing 

agreement is a business arrangement 

that does not have an impact on 

operational safety. GE recommended the 

FAA focus on ensuring a link between 

production and design organizations to 

document responsibilities for transfer of 

up-to-date airworthiness data and 

operational safety. 

The FAA notes that 49 U.S.C. 

44704(a)(3) states that ‘‘if the holder of 

a TC agrees to permit another person to 

use the certificate to manufacture a new 

aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or 

appliance, the holder shall provide the 

person with written evidence, in a form 

acceptable to the Administrator, of that 

agreement.’’ Current FAA regulations 

require persons who exercise the rights 

to the benefits of a TC to either hold the 

TC or have a licensing agreement from 

the TC holder. The FAA considers the 

requirement for a person to have a 

licensing agreement to manufacture an 

aircraft based on a TC to be consistent 

with the language of the statute. 

The FAA considers use of the term 

‘‘licensing agreement’’ appropriate to 

maintain consistency with existing 

regulations that specify the privileges of 

TC holders and their licensees. With 

respect to STCs, the FAA believes use 

of the less formal term ‘‘written 

permission’’ provides the flexibility 

necessary to accommodate the wide 

variability in the type of work 

undertaken when altering a product. For 

these reasons, the FAA is not changing 

the proposal in response to these 

comments. 

The FAA notes that an acceptable 

written licensing agreement should 

contain: A statement of the agreement 

specifying the product(s) to be 

manufactured; the model number; and 

the name of the person(s) who is being 

given consent to use the type certificate. 

The TC holder may include more 

information, such as the effective date of 

the agreement, how long the TC may be 

used, or other terms and conditions to 

ensure compliance with part 21. 

The FAA also notes that an acceptable 

permission statement should contain: A 

statement specifying the product(s) to be 

altered; the STC number; and the name 

of the person(s) to whom consent is 

being given to use the STC. The STC 

holder may also include more 

information, such as the effective date of 

the permission and how many times the 

STC may be used. 

Standard Airworthiness Certification of 

Used Aircraft and Surplus Aircraft of 

the U.S. Armed Forces 

Section 21.183 currently establishes 

four methods to obtain a standard 

airworthiness certificate, the first three 

of which are not affected by this final 

rule.3 The fourth method to obtain a 

standard airworthiness certificate 

applies to existing aircraft, including 

those manufactured from spare and 

surplus parts, and is set forth in 

§ 21.183(d). 

In the NPRM the FAA proposed that 

paragraph (d) be revised to apply only 

to used aircraft and surplus military 

aircraft. That paragraph has been 

revised in this final rule to apply only 

to used aircraft and surplus aircraft of 

the U.S. Armed Forces. As adopted, this 

section precludes standard 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

airworthiness certification of new 

aircraft manufactured in the U.S. by 

persons who do not hold a TC (or 

license to it) and a production approval. 

Aside from those aircraft that can be 

certificated under the limited exception 

of § 21.183(h), aircraft manufactured 

from spare and surplus parts must now 

be manufactured in accordance with the 

requirements of § 21.183(a), (b) or (c) in 

order to receive a standard 

airworthiness certificate. 

The FAA has replaced the term 

‘‘surplus military aircraft’’ with 

‘‘surplus aircraft of the U.S. Armed 

Forces’’ to clarify our original intent to 

preclude the standard airworthiness 

certification of foreign surplus military 

aircraft under the provisions of this 

paragraph. 

Classification of New and Used Aircraft 

ARSA and the Professional Airways 

Systems Specialists-Manufacturing 

Inspection District Office (PASS–MIDO) 

requested the FAA clarify how we make 

a distinction between ‘‘new’’ and 

‘‘used’’ aircraft in proposed § 21.183(d). 

For the purpose of issuing a standard 

airworthiness certificate under § 21.183, 

the FAA interprets ‘‘used aircraft’’ to 

mean aircraft with time in service for 

other than production flight testing, 

including aircraft type certificated 

under § 21.29, but not eligible for 

certification under § 21.183(c), and U.S.- 

manufactured civil aircraft that were 

exported and later returned to the 

United States for FAA certification. 

Except for surplus aircraft of the U.S. 

Armed Forces, aircraft that do not meet 

the definition of ‘‘used aircraft’’

specified above are considered ‘‘new 

aircraft.’’

Classification of Destroyed and 

Demolished Aircraft 

The Experimental Aircraft 

Association (EAA), International 

Birddog Association (IBDA), GAMA, 

AAA, AOPA, MCC, and ten individual 

commenters believe that if the FAA 

excludes aircraft classified as destroyed 

or demolished by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

from the term ‘‘used aircraft,’’ they 

would no longer be eligible for a 

standard airworthiness certificate. The 

commenters stated that there have been 

many aircraft that insurance companies 

or the NTSB have identified as 

destroyed or demolished that were later 

reassembled or rebuilt using spare and 

surplus parts. This is particularly true 

for antique and surplus military aircraft. 

Commenters recommended that the 

FAA modify the proposed rule by 

adding language that protects the 

legitimate restoration of used aircraft 

that may have been classified as 

destroyed or demolished by the NTSB. 

Based on the number of comments, 

the FAA has reconsidered its position of 

excluding aircraft identified as 

destroyed or demolished from the term 

‘‘used aircraft.’’ All previous references 

to aircraft identified by the NTSB as 

destroyed, and references to aircraft 

damaged to the extent that it would be 

impracticable or unsafe to repair, are not 

included in this final rule. At this time 

the FAA will continue to rely on the 

existing process for deregistering totally 

destroyed or scrapped aircraft found in 

§ 47.41. This section requires the holder 

of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration 

to return it to the FAA Aircraft Registry 

when an aircraft is totally destroyed or 

scrapped. This action terminates the 

aircraft airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with the requirements of 

existing § 21.181(a)(1). That section 

specifies that an aircraft’s standard 

airworthiness certificate is effective only 

if the aircraft is registered in the United 

States. 

Effect of the Proposal on Persons 

Currently Manufacturing New Aircraft 

for Certification Under § 21.183(d) 

Although the FAA received no 

comments on the November 10, 2005 

SNPRM that proposed to include a 

provision from the recently enacted 

SAFETEA–LU, an individual 

commenter on the NPRM believes that 

the proposed rule would adversely 

affect many individuals who began 

building aircraft from spare and surplus 

parts as allowed by FAA regulations 

before enactment of Vision 100. He 

stated that individuals are currently in 

the process of building aircraft based on 

TCs, without the TC holders’

permission, using new and approved 

parts and that they have a considerable 

amount of time and money invested in 

these aircraft. The commenter believes 

these aircraft meet and exceed all 

applicable safety standards. The 

commenter further believes that 

changing the rules without a 

‘‘grandfather clause’’ to protect those 

working on their projects is unfair 

treatment under the law. 

As discussed above, § 21.6(b) provides 

an exception from the requirement to 

have written permission from the TC 

holder. That paragraph allows a person 

to manufacture one new aircraft based 

on a TC without holding the TC or 

having a licensing agreement from the 

TC holder provided the manufacturing 

began before August 5, 2004. The 

exception contained in § 21.6(b) was 

proposed in the November 10, 2005 

SNPRM and incorporates the statutory 

provision from SAFETEA–LU that 

specifically addresses the commenter’s 

concern. Additionally, the FAA has 

added new § 21.183(h) to provide a 

means for these aircraft to be eligible for 

the issuance of a standard airworthiness 

certificate in accordance with 

provisions largely identical to those 

found in existing § 21.183(d). 

Airworthiness Certification of Manned 

Free Balloons Under § 21.183(d) 

PASS–MIDO believes the proposed 

regulation would prevent an owner of a 

manned free balloon from presenting 

the balloon to the FAA for standard 

airworthiness certification under 

§ 21.183(d) whenever the owner 

replaces the balloon envelope. This 

would result in a loss of approximately 

one million dollars a year in balloon 

envelope production. The commenter 

believes that this impact was not 

factored into the economic assessment 

of the NPRM. Although each manned 

free balloon component is produced 

under an FAA production approval, the 

owner completes the final assembly of 

the balloon basket, envelope, and burner 

without a PC and prior to obtaining a 

standard airworthiness certificate. The 

commenter asserted that, under this 

proposal, balloons assembled in this 

manner could not receive a standard 

airworthiness certificate. 

The FAA recognizes that 

manufacturers have been directed in the 

past to ship balloon envelopes to 

owners with an Airworthiness Approval 

Tag (FAA Form 8130–3), but without a 

standard airworthiness certificate. To 

address this practice and 

misunderstanding of current regulations 

and policy, the FAA issued an 

Information Memorandum dated August 

5, 2005 on the subject. The 

memorandum clarified the policy for 

certification of manned free balloons 

and the delivery of a balloon envelope 

when the balloon envelope is the only 

component ordered from a 

manufacturer. Under current FAA 

policy a manned free balloon may be 

issued a standard airworthiness 

certificate under existing § 21.183(a) or 

(b) after the envelope has been flighttested with a burner and basket. The 

envelope, along with the standard 

airworthiness certificate and the 

logbook, may be shipped without the 

burner and basket. The envelope may 

then be assembled to a different burner 

and basket in accordance with the TC. 

An appropriately certificated person 

may accomplish the interchange of the 

basket and burner as a preventive 

maintenance task. Balloons assembled 

with imported envelopes may obtain 

standard airworthiness certification 

under existing § 21.183(c). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52255 

Performance of Aircraft Maintenance 

and Alterations Based on TCs and STCs 

In the NPRM the FAA proposed to 

revise § 91.403(d) to preclude a person 

from altering an aircraft based on an 

STC unless the owner or operator of the 

aircraft is the holder of the STC or has 

written permission from the holder. 

This change was made in response to a 

Congressional mandate and has been 

adopted as proposed. Additionally, the 

FAA proposed to require any owner or 

operator of an aircraft who receives 

written permission to alter an aircraft 

based on an STC to retain that written 

permission until the alteration is 

superseded and to transfer the 

document with the aircraft at the time 

the aircraft is sold. Based on the 

concerns of commenters and a review of 

the costs of compliance with the 

proposal, the FAA has chosen not to 

adopt that proposed requirement. 

STC Record Retention and Transfer 

Requirements 

The ARSA and GE, as well as two 

individual commenters, were opposed 

to proposed § 91.403(d). These 

commenters stated that the proposal is 

unmanageable, cost prohibitive, and of 

questionable value. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

in part and is therefore not including 

the proposed record retention and 

transfer requirements in this final rule. 

However, § 91.403(d) retains language 

based on the statutory requirement that 

persons altering an aircraft based on an 

STC must ensure that the owner or 

operator of the aircraft holds the STC or 

has written permission from the STC 

holder. 

‘‘Remanufacture,’’ ‘‘Restoration,’’

Maintenance, and Alteration of Older 

Aircraft Based on ‘‘Orphaned’’ TCs and 

STCs 

The Aviation Foundation of America 

(AFA), AOPA, and MCC as well as 

seven individual commenters believe 

this proposal fails to address and make 

allowance for the ‘‘remanufacture,’’

‘‘restoration,’’ and maintenance of older 

aircraft based on an ‘‘orphaned’’ TC or 

STC. Commenters recommended that 

the FAA revise proposed §§ 21.6(a) and 

91.403(d) to allow for the 

‘‘remanufacture,’’ ‘‘restoration,’’ and 

maintenance of older aircraft based on 

orphaned TCs and STCs. 

Similarly, the AAA, AOPA, and MCC, 

as well as six individual commenters 

believe this proposal fails to address 

and make allowance for the alteration of 

older aircraft based on ‘‘orphaned’’

STCs. 

There are a number of issues raised by 

these comments. The first concerns the 

meaning of the terms ‘‘remanufacture’’

and ‘‘restoration.’’ The second concerns 

obtaining permission from the TC or 

STC holder for performing maintenance 

or preventive maintenance. The third is 

availability of data for use during 

maintenance and preventive 

maintenance. 

In addressing the first issue, the FAA 

notes that the commenters use the terms 

‘‘remanufacture’’ and ‘‘restoration,’’

which are not found in our regulations. 

Based on the agency’s understanding of 

the common usage of these terms, the 

FAA considers ‘‘remanufacture’’ and 

‘‘restoration’’ to be included under the 

terms maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or rebuilding. 

Section 1.1 states ‘‘Maintenance 

means inspection, overhaul, repair, 

preservation, and the replacement of 

parts, but excludes preventive 

maintenance.’’ It also states ‘‘Preventive 

maintenance means simple or minor 

preservation operations and the 

replacement of small standard parts not 

involving complex assembly 

operations.’’ Preventive maintenance 

tasks are listed in paragraph (c) of 

Appendix A to 14 CFR part 43. 

To be considered rebuilt, § 43.2(b) 

requires that the product, appliance or 

component part be ‘‘disassembled, 

cleaned, inspected, repaired as 

necessary, reassembled, and tested to 

the same tolerances and limits as a new 

item, using either new or used parts that 

conform to new part tolerances and 

limits or to approved oversize or 

undersized dimensions.’’ We note that 

under existing § 43.3, only the 

manufacturer may rebuild an aircraft, 

aircraft engine, propeller or appliance it 

manufactured under a TC, PC, Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA), 

Technical Standard Order Authorization 

(TSOA), or Product and Process 

Specification. 

To address the second issue, the FAA 

notes that once a product has been 

manufactured and has received its 

original airworthiness approval, 

permission from the owner to use TC or 

STC data is not required for 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or rebuilding of the product under our 

regulations. For this reason, neither the 

final rule nor the underlying statute 

affects persons performing these actions. 

Therefore, based on the agency’s 

understanding of the common usage of 

these terms, this rule does not affect the 

re-manufacture, rebuilding, or 

restoration of an aircraft. 

Third, the FAA recognizes that a 

person performing maintenance or 

preventive maintenance has a need for 

TC or STC data to support the continued 

airworthiness of a product. The FAA 

agrees that the inability to locate the 

holder of a TC or STC may adversely 

affect a person’s ability to obtain the 

necessary TC or STC data. This final 

rule does not address this issue as it is 

beyond the scope of both the original 

and supplemental proposals. 

Under the statute, a person must hold 

an STC or have written permission from 

the holder of the STC in order to alter 

a product based on that STC. This 

requirement is specified in § 91.403(d). 

The FAA recognizes that a person 

wishing to alter a product based on an 

‘‘orphaned’’ STC may be unable to 

locate the holder of the STC to obtain 

written permission from the holder. 

Intellectual Property Rights 

One individual commenter believes 

that the proposed requirements 

pertaining to the use of TCs and STCs 

do not have a safety purpose. The 

commenter believes that the proposed 

changes address intellectual property 

rights which are protected in the 

commercial code through patents, 

trademarks, and copyrights. The 

commenter believes that the proposed 

changes are unnecessary because an 

owner of a TC or STC can seek 

satisfaction through the existing legal 

system if his rights to the TC or STC are 

violated. 

In response to the commenter’s 

concerns the FAA notes that the 

changes made in this rule reflect 

statutory changes mandated by Congress 

in The Federal Aviation Reauthorization 

Act of 1996, Vision 100, and SAFETEA–

LU. In those statutes, Congress 

specifically revised the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 44704 that address the use of TCs 

and STCs. This rule does not alter the 

property rights of the holders of those 

certificates or the remedies they may 

seek for violation of those rights. The 

rule serves only to codify statutory 

mandates. 

The FAA has historically not inquired 

into whether a person has permission to 

use specific data to certificate an aircraft 

under § 21.183(d), and we recognize that 

this policy may have facilitated the use 

of data by persons who did not have 

legitimate rights to its use. Recent 

revisions by Congress to the U.S. Code 

have attempted to remedy this situation. 

These statutory revisions, however, 

have not altered the property rights of 

the owners of the technical data or other 

information that forms a part of these 

certificates. This data and information 

could never be used without the 

permission of the TC or STC holder, 

however there was no statutory 

requirement for a person to receive 

evidence of this permission from the TC 

holder. The enactment of the regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

contained in this rule reflects current 

statutory mandates, and serves to carry 

out the clear intent of Congress. 

The MCC, AOPA, AAA, and AFA, as 

well as eleven individual commenters 

believe there are hundreds of TCs and 

STCs that no longer have owners and 

are, thus, considered ‘‘orphaned’’ and in 

the public domain. In their opinion, the 

public owns these TCs and STCs, and 

anyone should be able to use them. 

The fact that the original holder of a 

TC or STC no longer exists, or that the 

FAA may not be able to locate the 

holder, does not automatically sever the 

rights of that certificate holder with 

regard to the contents of the TC or STC. 

These TCs and STCs, including their 

supporting technical data, are not 

automatically transferred into the public 

domain. Absent a surrender, 

suspension, or revocation of the 

certificate, the FAA cannot sever the 

rights of a holder to the privileges of a 

TC or STC, and the FAA cannot 

unilaterally extinguish any intellectual 

property rights that a person may have 

to the technical data or other contents 

of a certificate. 

Although the original holder of a 

certificate may no longer exist, the 

holder’s intellectual property rights are 

not automatically extinguished, but 

rather are passed to the legitimate 

successors or heirs of the holder by 

operation of law. They do not 

automatically revert to the public 

domain. The holder of a TC or STC, or 

its legitimate successors or heirs, may 

choose to make the technical data or 

other contents of a certificate available 

to the public, however a person may 

neither infringe upon, nor otherwise 

exercise, the rights of the owner of this 

property without that person’s consent. 

Miscellaneous Issues 

Continued Airworthiness 

An individual commenter believes 

that § 1.1 should be amended to include 

a definition of ‘‘Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness.’’ The 

commenter also recommends that the 

FAA amend § 21.50(b) to include a 

clause that manufacturers’ maintenance 

documents will be made available to 

anyone needing access for safety 

purposes and that the manufacturer 

cannot charge more than the cost of 

reproduction for these documents. 

The FAA did not propose a definition 

of ‘‘Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness,’’ nor did the agency 

propose a revision to § 21.50(b) to 

address the availability of 

manufacturers’ maintenance manuals. 

Taking such action in this final rule 

would not afford affected parties an 

opportunity to effectively comment on 

the changes and would be beyond the 

scope of the notice. The FAA notes that 

14 CFR part 11 provides the 

commenters with a mechanism for 

recommending that such changes be 

made to the regulations. 

Quality Assurance Systems 

An individual commenter believes 

that the FAA should adopt a policy 

where the complexity of the required 

quality assurance system is 

commensurate with the level of 

production. The commenter stated that 

current FAA guidance allows 

production for a 6-month period under 

an approved production inspection 

system (APIS), after which an applicant 

must meet the requirements for the 

issuance of a PC. The commenter 

believes the FAA should base quality 

system requirements on the applicant’s 

number of employees, number of units, 

or sales, rather than a period of time. 

This comment is outside the scope of 

the proposal. Possession of an APIS or 

PC is based on the ability to replicate an 

aircraft to its type design. The 

complexity of the quality control system 

is determined by the facility, products, 

processes, and procedures required to 

replicate these aircraft. 

Additionally, the FAA notes that a 

person may produce a product under an 

APIS for a period longer than six 

months. In accordance with existing 

§ 21.123 processes are in place to extend 

an APIS for more than six-months after 

the date of issuance of a TC in cases 

where a production inspection system 

cannot be established due to the 

complexity of a product. 

Harmonization With European Aviation 

Safety Agency Regulations 

The AIA and GE recommended FAA 

take an approach similar to that used by 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) for establishing production 

approval requirements. 

The commenters recommended that 

the FAA consider harmonization of the 

proposed rule language with existing 

EASA regulations 21A.131 and 21A.133. 

They noted that both regulations 

consistently use the word ‘‘design’’ with 

respect to obtaining a Production 

Organization Approval, the EASA 

equivalent of a PC. Further, EASA 

Acceptable Means of Compliance for 

21A.131 and 21A.133 consistently refers 

to the applicable design data when 

formulating an agreement between the 

design approval holder and the 

production organization. 

Although the FAA recognizes the 

benefits that may be obtained as a result 

of harmonization, the FAA did not 

propose any such requirements in the 

NPRM. The FAA considers such 

changes to be outside the scope of the 

NPRM and therefore inappropriate for 

inclusion in the final rule. However, we 

may consider this comment in a future 

rulemaking. 

FAA Resources and Delegation 

Two commenters asserted the FAA’s 

reliance on ‘‘limited resources’’ as a 

justification for revising the rules is 

inappropriate. One commenter urged 

the FAA to rely more on designees for 

certification projects under § 21.183(d) 

to reduce the FAA’s workload. 

The FAA often considers the level of 

agency resources available to conduct 

oversight in establishing regulatory 

requirements. In an effort to conserve 

resources, the FAA has relied 

extensively on the use of designees for 

standard airworthiness certification of 

used aircraft under § 21.183(d). 

Before this final rule, new aircraft 

could be presented for airworthiness 

certification under § 21.183(d) without 

the benefit of being manufactured under 

a production quality system. These 

aircraft did not have the same level of 

production oversight as newly 

manufactured aircraft certificated under 

§ 21.183(a), (b), or (c), and a finding of 

accurate reproduction to a type design 

was difficult. An increased level of 

delegation would not address this 

underlying problem. 

Comments on the Initial Economic 

Assessment 

GE believes that the Initial Economic 

Assessment in the NPRM is inconsistent 

with current 14 CFR part 21 and other 

language in the NPRM discussion. The 

Assessment states that the proposed rule 

would require airplane manufacturers to 

hold both a TC and a production 

approval for all airplanes produced that 

are issued a standard airworthiness 

certificate. 

The commenter is correct, and we 

have revised the economic analysis of 

the final rule to reflect that the type 

certificate and production approval 

holder do not have to be the same 

person. 

Additionally PASS–MIDO 

recommended that the FAA Civil 

Aircraft Registry begin tracking the 

number of ‘‘new’’ aircraft certificated 

under § 21.183(d) to understand the 

scope of the number of aircraft presently 

certificated under these rules. This 

commenter believes that more than 100 

aircraft a year are certificated under this 

regulation, and the economic impact of 

not being able to certificate these aircraft 

under this regulation would have a large 

impact on the flying community. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52257 

The FAA notes that its Aircraft 

Registry does not track the number of 

aircraft certificated under § 21.183(d). 

Since there is no data in the Aircraft 

Registry that indicates if an aircraft was 

certificated under § 21.183(d) and the 

commenter provided no data to 

substantiate its claim, we have no 

empirical basis for revising the 

economic analysis to reflect the 

commenter’s concerns. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information collection requirements 

in this rule have previously been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–

0005. 

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 determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Final Economic 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 requires agencies to analyze the 

economic effect of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) 

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 also requires 

the consideration of international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. And 

fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 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). 

The FAA has determined that this 

final rule has minimal costs, and that it 

is neither ‘‘a significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

12866, nor ‘‘significant’’ as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. Further, this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

will not impact international trade, and 

will not impose an Unfunded Mandate 

on State, local, or tribal governments, or 

on the private sector. 

DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies 

and procedures for simplification, 

analysis, and review of regulations. If it 

is determined the expected impact is so 

minimal that a rule does not warrant a 

full evaluation, a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it is included in the 

regulation. 

The FAA has evaluated each section 

of the rule and its relation to current 

public law and current industry 

practice. Section 21.6 does not impose 

a cost to the industry because it is a 

current statutory requirement that a 

person manufacturing a new aircraft, 

aircraft engine, or propeller based on a 

TC do so only if that person is the 

holder of the TC or has permission from 

the holder (except for those aircraft 

manufactured under the limited 

exception of 49 U.S.C. 44704(a)(4) as set 

forth in § 21.6(b)). Sections 21.55 and 

21.120 also do not impose costs on the 

industry because it is a current statutory 

requirement for TC and STC holders to 

provide written evidence in a form 

acceptable to the FAA of an agreement 

to use those certificates. Additionally, 

§ 91.403 does not impose costs on the 

industry because it is a current statutory 

requirement that persons may not alter 

an aircraft based on an STC unless the 

owner or operator holds the STC or has 

the written permission of the holder. 

Furthermore, the revisions to 

§ 21.183(d) also will not result in 

significant additional cost to the 

industry. Current industry practice 

shows that TC holders or licensees of 

TC holders who are involved in the 

serial production of aircraft also hold 

production approval. We note that the 

economic evaluation for the NPRM 

stated that only one company was 

engaged in the serial production of new 

aircraft intended for standard 

airworthiness certification without 

holding either a TC or PC. Since the 

publication of that NPRM, this company 

has obtained a TC for the aircraft. 

The FAA believes the economic 

impacts of this final rule are minimal 

because this final rule codifies common 

industry business practices, and 

conforms to an existing statutory 

requirement. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined the expected impact of this 

final rule is so minimal the rule does 

not warrant a full evaluation. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the Act requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The Act covers a wide range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the determination is that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the Act 

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 changes contained in this rule 

codify industry practices for the 

manufacture of new aircraft that are 

issued standard airworthiness 

certificates. Current industry practice 

shows that a TC holder or licensee, 

involved in the serial production of 

aircraft issued standard airworthiness 

certificates, also holds a production 

approval. Because all new aircraft 

intended for standard airworthiness 

certification are type certificated and are 

manufactured under a production 

approval, there are no resulting costs. 

Individuals and firms affected by this 

rule will include applicants for standard 

airworthiness certificates for new 

aircraft, STC holders, TC holders, 

licensees of TC holders, manufacturers, 

and maintenance providers. Many of 

these qualify as small businesses. 

Although the rule could affect a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

FAA believes there will be no small 

entity impact because the rule will 

establish a regulatory framework to 

ensure that the existing statutory 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements are met. Consequently, I 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

This rule incorporates existing public 

laws and common industry practices 

and thus imposes no additional cost to 

industry. This final rule will not create 

obstacles to international trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (the Act) is 

intended, among other things, to curb 

the practice of imposing unfunded 

Federal mandates on State, local, and 

tribal governments. Title II of the Act 

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 

$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This rule does not contain such a 

mandate. Therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

have determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or 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 Administrator, when 

modifying 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. We 

believe that the relief provided to 

manufactures of new aircraft as 

specified in §§ 21.6(b) and 21.183(h) 

sufficiently address the concerns of 

persons currently manufacturing new 

aircraft in Alaska for certification under 

§ 21.183. We have determined 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 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

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 it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND 

PARTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, 

44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. 

■ 2. Add new § 21.6 to read as follows: 

§ 21.6 Manufacture of new aircraft, aircraft 

engines, and propellers. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section, no person 

may manufacture a new aircraft, aircraft 

engine, or propeller based on a type 

certificate unless the person—

(1) Is the holder of the type certificate 

or has a licensing agreement from the 

holder of the type certificate to 

manufacture the product; and 

(2) Meets the requirements of subpart 

F or G of this part. 

(b) A person may manufacture one 

new aircraft based on a type certificate 

without meeting the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section if that 

person can provide evidence acceptable 

to the FAA that the manufacture of the 

aircraft by that person began before 

August 5, 2004. 

(c) The requirements of this section 

do not apply to—

(1) New aircraft imported under the 

provisions of §§ 21.183(c), 21.184(b), or 

21.185(c); and 

(2) New aircraft engines or propellers 

imported under the provisions of 

§ 21.500. 

■ 3. Add new § 21.55 to read as follows: 

§ 21.55 Responsibility of type certificate 

holders to provide written licensing 

agreements. 

A type certificate holder who allows 

a person to use the type certificate to 

manufacture a new aircraft, aircraft 

engine, or propeller must provide that 

person with a written licensing 

agreement acceptable to the FAA. 

■ 4. Add new § 21.120 to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.120 Responsibility of supplemental 

type certificate holders to provide written 

permission for alterations. 

A supplemental type certificate 

holder who allows a person to use the 

supplemental type certificate to alter an 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 

must provide that person with written 

permission acceptable to the FAA. 

■ 5. Amend § 21.183 by revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (d) and 

adding paragraph (h) 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. 

* * * * * 

(d) Used aircraft and surplus aircraft 

of the U.S. Armed Forces. An applicant 

for a standard airworthiness certificate 

for a used aircraft or surplus aircraft of 

the U.S. Armed Forces is entitled to a 

standard airworthiness certificate if—

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 170 / Friday, September 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52259 

(h) New aircraft manufactured under 

the provisions of § 21.6(b). An applicant 

for a standard airworthiness certificate 

for a new aircraft manufactured under 

the provisions of § 21.6(b) is entitled to 

a standard airworthiness certificate if—

(1) The applicant presents evidence to 

the FAA that the aircraft conforms to a 

type design approved under a type 

certificate or supplemental type 

certificate and to applicable 

Airworthiness Directives; 

(2) The aircraft has been inspected in 

accordance with the performance rules 

for a 100-hour inspections set forth in 

§ 43.15 of this chapter and found 

airworthy by a person specified in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and 

(3) The FAA finds after inspection, 

that the aircraft conforms to the type 

design, and is in condition for safe 

operation. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 91 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 

12 and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

■ 7. Add new paragraph (d) to § 91.403 

to read as follows: 

§ 91.403 General. 

* * * * * 

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft 

based on a supplemental type certificate 

unless the owner or operator of the 

aircraft is the holder of the 

supplemental type certificate, or has 

written permission from the holder. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 

2006. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7355 Filed 8–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES