This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

59021 

Vol. 80, No. 190 

Thursday, October 1, 2015 

1Section 21.1(b)(6) defines production approval 

as 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. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21 and 45 

[Docket No.: FAA–2013–0933; Amdt. Nos. 

21–98, 45–29] 

RIN 2120–AK20 

Changes to Production Certificates 

and Approvals 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending 

certification procedures and marking 

requirements for aeronautical products 

and articles. The amendment requires 

production approval holders to identify 

an accountable manager who is 

responsible for, and has authority over, 

their production operations and serves 

as the primary contact with the FAA; 

allows production approval holders to 

issue authorized release documents for 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles; 

permits production certificate holders to 

manufacture and install interface 

components; requires production 

approval holders to ensure that each 

supplier-provided product, article, or 

service conforms to the production 

approval holder’s requirements and 

establish a supplier-reporting process 

for products, articles, or services that 

have been released from or provided by 

the supplier and subsequently found not 

to conform to the production approval 

holder’s requirements; removes the 

requirement that fixed-pitch wooden 

propellers be marked using an approved 

fireproof method; and changes the title 

of part 21 of title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. This amendment 

updates FAA regulations to reflect the 

current global aeronautical 

manufacturing environment, thereby 

promoting aviation safety. 

DATES: Effective March 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see How To Obtain 

Additional Information in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Priscilla Steward or 

Robert Cook, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Production Certification 

Section, AIR–112, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–1656; email: 

priscilla.steward@faa.gov or telephone: 

(202) 267–1590; email: robert.cook@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Benjamin Jacobs, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, Regulations 

Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–7240; email: 

benjamin.jacobs@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) is responsible for developing 

transportation policies and programs 

that contribute to providing fast, safe, 

efficient, and convenient transportation 

under § 101 of Title 49, United States 

Code (49 U.S.C.). The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA, we, us, or our) is 

an agency of DOT. The FAA has general 

authority to issue rules regarding 

aviation safety, including minimum 

standards for articles and for the design, 

material, construction, quality of work, 

and performance of aircraft, aircraft 

engines, and propellers under 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 44104, and 44701. 

The FAA is amending its regulations 

governing certification procedures for 

products and articles, and its 

requirements for identification and 

registration marking. These changes 

improve the quality standards 

applicable to manufacturers and help to 

ensure that products and articles are 

produced as designed and safe to 

operate. For those reasons, these 

amendments are a reasonable and 

necessary exercise of our rulemaking 

authority and obligations. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This final rule changes certification 

and marking requirements for products 

and articles. In particular, this final rule: 

• Requires applicants for a 

production approval and production 

approval holders (PAHs) to identify an 

accountable manager; 

• Allows a production certificate (PC) 

holder to manufacture and install 

interface components (IC) under certain 

conditions and limitations; 

• Clarifies that a PAH must ensure 

that each supplier-provided product, 

article, or service conforms to the PAH’s 

requirements; 

• Requires a PAH to establish a 

supplier-reporting process for products, 

articles, or services released from or 

provided by a supplier and 

subsequently found not to conform to 

the PAH’s requirements; 

• Allows a PAH that establishes an 

FAA-approved process in its quality 

system to issue authorized release 

documents (using FAA Form 8130–3) 

for new and used aircraft engines, 

propellers, and articles produced by that 

PAH; and 

• Excludes fixed-pitch wooden 

propellers from the requirement that a 

propeller, propeller blade, or propeller 

hub be marked using an approved 

fireproof method. 

Regulations pertaining to certification 

requirements for products and articles 

are in part 21 of Title 14 of Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Marking 

requirements are in 14 CFR part 45. 

This final rule requires applicants for 

a production approval and production 

approval holders (PAHs) to identify an 

accountable manager who is responsible 

for, and has authority over, a PAH’s 

operations. This individual would also 

serve as a PAH’s primary contact with 

the FAA. Additionally, this amendment 

requires PAHs to amend, where 

applicable, the documents required by 

§§ 21.135, 21.305, and 21.605 to reflect 

the appointment of an accountable 

manager. 

This final rule allows a production 

certificate 1 (PC) holder to manufacture 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and install interface components (IC) 

under certain conditions and 

limitations. This final rule defines an IC 

as an article that serves as a functional 

interface between an aircraft and an 

aircraft engine, between an aircraft 

engine and a propeller, or between an 

aircraft and a propeller. Under this rule, 

an IC is designated as such by the type 

certificate (TC) or the supplemental type 

certificate (STC) holder who controls 

the approved design data for that article. 

This final rule clarifies that a PAH 

must ensure that each supplier-provided 

product, article, or service conforms to 

the PAH’s requirements. This final rule 

also requires a PAH to establish a 

supplier-reporting process for products, 

articles, or services released from or 

provided by a supplier and 

subsequently found not to conform to 

the PAH’s requirements. A PAH’s 

reporting system may require suppliers 

to report nonconformances to the PAH 

directly, or to other suppliers in the 

supply chain. 

This final rule allows a PAH that 

establishes an FAA-approved process in 

its quality system to issue authorized 

release documents (using FAA Form 

8130–3) for new and used aircraft 

engines, propellers, and articles 

produced by that PAH. This provision 

allows PAHs privileges similar to those 

afforded European- and Canadianapproved manufacturers. 

This final rule amends part 45 to 

exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers 

from the requirement that a propeller, 

propeller blade, or propeller hub be 

marked using an approved fireproof 

method. This exclusion allows 

manufacturers to mark their products in 

a practical manner that takes account of 

the inherent nature of wooden 

propellers. 

This final rule amends the title of part 

21 to include articles. The title is now 

‘‘Certification Procedures for Products 

and Articles.’’ 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The provisions of this final rule (1) 

are minimal cost, (2) impose no 

additional costs because the provisions 

clarify only, or are current practice, or 

(3) are voluntary and therefore 

inherently cost-beneficial. Our analysis 

described in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) regulatory 

evaluation has not changed. The FAA 

received no comments to the docket on 

the NPRM regulatory evaluation. 

II. Background 

Part 21 of 14 CFR contains the FAA’s 

regulations concerning certification 

procedures for products, articles, and 

parts. Since the FAA codified part 21 in 

1964, it has been amended numerous 

times. Additionally, the origins of many 

part 21 regulations can be traced to the 

Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937. 

When part 21 was first codified, most 

manufacturers of aviation products and 

articles had a small, local supplier base. 

Production certificate holders oversaw 

the manufacture of replacement parts, 

and the international market for aviation 

products was relatively small. As a 

result, for many years the U.S. had few 

bilateral agreements with other 

countries for the export and import of 

aviation products, and these agreements 

were limited in scope. 

Today, aviation products are 

manufactured world-wide. The number 

of suppliers has increased dramatically, 

and these suppliers manufacture an 

increasing percentage of a given product 

or article. Furthermore, due to the global 

nature of manufacturing, forming 

business partnerships and agreements 

across large geographic areas is now a 

common strategy to lower costs, share 

risks, and expand markets. 

Manufacturers collaborate globally to 

reduce duplicate requirements for 

shared suppliers. Accordingly, the 

international market for aviation 

products and the production of 

replacement parts under parts 

manufacturer approvals (PMAs) have 

increased dramatically. 

In recognition of these and other 

related considerations, the FAA 

published an NPRM, Changes to 

Production Certificates and Approvals, 

on February 27, 2014, 79 FR 11012. The 

NPRM proposed numerous rule changes 

to part 21, primarily to subparts A 

(General) and G (Production 

Certificates). For greater detail on the 

FAA’s initial proposal, including 

additional background information and 

a more complete statement of the 

problem, refer to the NPRM. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

In response to the FAA’s NPRM, we 

received comments from 19 

commenters, raising 32 issues. 

Commenters included aviation 

manufacturers and equipment 

manufacturers, such as Boeing, Garmin, 

General Electric, HEICO, Textron, 

Timken, and Williams International; 

industry groups and associations, such 

as Aerospace Industry Association 

(AIA), Aviation Suppliers Association 

(ASA), and Modification and 

Replacement Parts Association 

(MARPA); and numerous individuals. 

The comments covered five main topics 

and a range of various responses to the 

rulemaking proposal, which are 

discussed in more detail below. 

A. Supplier Control 

This final rule makes two 

amendments to § 21.137(c)(1) & (2). 

First, as proposed, § 21.137(c)(1), which 

previously required a PAH to develop 

procedures to ensure that a supplierprovided product or article conforms to 

its approved design, now also requires 

those procedures to account for 

supplier-provided services. Second, as 

proposed, the standard for supplier 

control is revised in both § 21.137(c)(1) 

& (2) to require suppliers to furnish 

products, articles, or services that 

conform to the PAH’s requirements. 

Prior to this final rule, supplierprovided goods and services had to 

conform to FAA-approved design data. 

HEICO recommended amending the 

proposed § 21.137(c)(1) to include 

services provided to a design approval 

holder. The commenter noted that many 

design approval holders outsource 

portions of the overall design process 

and these ‘services’ must also be 

properly controlled. The commenter’s 

recommendation is outside the scope of 

this rulemaking, which focuses on 

production approvals and PAH 

activities, and not on design approval 

certification activities. PAHs are not 

responsible, under § 21.137, for design 

approval holder activities. 

ASA and MARPA recommended that, 

in addition to requiring a PAH to 

require suppliers to provide products, 

articles, or services to meet the PAH 

requirements, the FAA should also 

continue to allow a PAH to accept 

products, articles, or services that 

conform to the PAH’s approved design. 

The commenters’ rationale was that this 

final rule creates two separate rules with 

respect to conformity of products and 

articles; one standard for when a 

company is acting as a supplier, and 

another standard when it is acting as a 

distributor. The commenters claimed 

that an entity functioning as a supplier 

to a PAH would be required to ensure 

that the product or article conformed to 

the PAH’s requirements. However, if 

that same entity, operating as a 

distributor, were to sell their products 

in the aftermarket as replacement parts, 

for instance to a repair station or an air 

carrier, they would still be required to 

ensure that the product or article 

conforms to its approved design. Both 

commenters suggested that this 

situation could result in confusion and 

unintended harm to suppliers, and 

recommended revising proposed 

§ 21.137(c)(1) to allow products, articles, 

or services to conform to either the 

PAH’s requirements or the approved 

design. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 59023 

2Formerly known as the Society of Automotive 

Engineers. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. With respect to the 

commenters’ claim that this final rule 

creates two separate rules for suppliers 

and distributors in the aftermarket, we 

presume that the commenters used the 

term ‘‘aftermarket distributor’’ to mean 

that the distributor is acting as a 

supplier to an entity other than a PAH. 

Regardless, this provision does not 

create two separate standards. All 

suppliers to any purchaser continue to 

be bound by contract to the terms of any 

relevant purchase order. In the case of 

suppliers to a PAH, the final rule 

removes the requirement to report 

deliveries that conform to the purchase 

order but do not conform to the PAH’s 

final approved design. Aftermarket 

distributors who are not suppliers, on 

the other hand, are outside of the scope 

of part 21. The FAA does not regulate 

aftermarket distributers under these 

regulations. 

The commenters also suggested that, 

under this final rule, a supplier 

providing the same part with different 

specifications to both a PAH and an 

aftermarket customer, such as a 

maintenance provider, could be at risk 

of inadvertently sending designconforming parts (intended for the 

aftermarket customer) to a PAH, instead 

of parts that met the PAH’s unique 

specifications. The commenters 

suggested that the supplier in that 

situation should not be punished for 

providing an article that conforms to its 

approved design. 

The FAA disagrees with the comment 

that this change will punish any 

supplier who provides nonconforming 

products, articles, or services. This 

provision is not intended as a means to 

punish suppliers. The FAA does not 

directly regulate suppliers; instead, this 

final rule requires that a PAH’s quality 

system include a supplier-reporting 

system. Under this final rule, a PAH 

must establish procedures for supplier 

reporting of supplier-provided products, 

articles, or services that deviate from the 

requirements of the PAH’s purchase 

order. This gives a PAH flexibility to 

determine the appropriate level of 

reporting because it is the PAH and only 

the PAH who knows what is needed, 

and in what condition, for the 

production process. To clarify, this final 

rule does not require a PAH to report to 

the FAA those supplier 

nonconformances that remain within 

the PAH’s quality system. 

Relatedly, ASA and MARPA stated 

that the proposed rule could indirectly 

require a supplier to report 

nonconformance higher up the supply 

chain, even when the supplier provided 

a product or article that conformed to its 

approved design. The commenters again 

recommended that the final rule allow 

suppliers to provide products or articles 

that conform to either the PAH’s 

requirements or the approved design. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. This final rule 

replaces the existing requirement that a 

supplier-provided product, article, or 

service conform to the PAH’s approved 

design with a requirement that it 

conform to the PAH’s requirements. The 

purpose of this amendment is to tailor 

the regulation to its original intent. For 

example, a PAH may issue a purchase 

order for sheet metal parts, and state on 

the purchase order that the rivet holes 

are to be drilled to less than the finished 

dimensions of the approved design. The 

PAH may request pilot drilling by the 

supplier because the PAH will itself 

drill the holes to the finished size upon 

assembly. If the supplier provides the 

items with the holes drilled to the 

finished dimension, the sheet metal 

parts would not conform to the PAH’s 

requirements. The supplier would be 

supplying nonconforming material even 

though it would conform to the 

approved design. Under this final rule, 

therefore, a supplier may not deviate 

from the requirements of the PAH. It is 

the PAH, and only the PAH, that knows 

what is needed, and in what condition, 

for the production process. 

An individual commenter stated that 

the NPRM changes the definition of 

‘‘quality escape,’’ as the phrase is used 

in § 21.137(n), from nonconforming 

products or articles which escaped a 

PAH’s quality system to products or 

articles which do not conform to their 

approved design but are contained 

within the quality system. The 

commenter recommended that we 

distinguish between nonconforming 

products or articles still within the 

PAH’s quality system, and 

nonconforming products or articles that 

escape a PAH’s quality control system. 

Section 21.137(n), which is not 

revised by this rule, addresses quality 

escapes by requiring a PAH to have 

procedures for, among other things, 

identifying and taking corrective action 

whenever a PAH releases a 

nonconforming product or article from 

its quality system. In our NPRM, we 

stated that this proposal would require 

a PAH to establish a supplier reporting 

process for products, articles, or services 

that have been released from a supplier 

and subsequently found not to conform 

(hereafter referred to as a quality escape) 

to the PAH’s requirements. We believe 

the commenter’s confusion derives from 

our use of the term ‘‘quality escape’’ to 

describe the transfer of nonconforming 

items or services between tiers in the 

supply chain, instead of its traditional 

meaning of nonconforming products or 

articles that leave a PAH’s quality 

system. We acknowledge that our 

preamble discussion in the NPRM used 

the term in a confusing manner. 

However, we determine that no change 

to the terms of § 21.137, as originally 

proposed, are necessary. The reporting 

requirements of § 21.137(c) apply when 

a supplier to a PAH determines that it 

has released or provided a product, 

article, or service subsequently found 

not to conform to the PAH’s 

requirements, and do not include the 

phrase ‘‘quality escape.’’ 

Boeing recommended that the FAA 

require PAHs to communicate design 

change notifications throughout the 

supply chain, and adopt the industry’s 

SAE 2 AS9016 standard for 

standardization of design change 

notifications, because it believes this 

will address the single most common 

reason for quality escapes from the 

supply chain. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation to regulate PAHs’ use 

of SAE AS9016 because we believe this 

subject is adequately addressed by our 

current regulation, § 21.137(a), design 

data control, which requires that only 

current, correct, and approved data is 

used. In addition, we do not believe that 

we should mandate, by rule, the use of 

an industry standard over which we 

have no control. This final rule requires 

a PAH to ensure that any product, 

article, or service it receives conforms to 

its requirements. If a PAH chooses, it 

may, as part of a purchase order, require 

its supply-chain to adhere to the 

AS9016 standard. 

Williams International stated that it is 

unnecessary to require a PAH to report 

supplier nonconformances that remain 

contained within the PAH quality 

system. Williams International further 

stated that the proposed requirement for 

reporting of released nonconformances 

is already required by a PAH. FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC) 00–58, 

Voluntary Disclosure Reporting 

Program, further provides a means for a 

voluntary disclosure of such releases. 

Although the commenter did not 

provide a recommendation, the FAA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

premise. Before this final rule, a PAH’s 

supplier-reporting process required each 

supplier, at any tier, to report to the 

PAH any product, article, or service that 

did not conform to the PAH’s FAAapproved design. The FAA recognizes 

that this requirement had the potential 

to impose significant burdens on a PAH 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and that, in many cases (such as 

suppliers of standard parts), a supplier 

may not have known the ultimate 

customer. This final rule amends 

§ 21.137(c) to provide every PAH greater 

flexibility to determine which 

nonconformances its suppliers should 

report, and to whom. 

An individual commenter suggested 

that all tiers in the supply chain should 

report to a PAH any nonconforming 

products, articles, or services that have 

been released from or provided by that 

supplier and subsequently found not to 

conform to the PAH’s requirements. 

More specifically, the commenter 

suggested that the FAA require each 

supplier, in some instances, to report a 

nonconformance to each level up the 

supply chain, and ultimately to the PAH 

and the PAH’s customer. Another 

individual recommended the FAA keep 

the current regulation which requires 

suppliers to report quality escapes to the 

PAH, and provided no further rationale. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendations. In the 

past, a PAH’s supplier-reporting system 

required every manufacturing supplier 

and affected downstream suppliers to 

report to the PAH all products or 

articles which did not meet the PAH’s 

approved design, even if those products 

or articles met the PAH’s actual 

requirements. The FAA recognizes that 

this past requirement could have 

imposed a significant burden on PAHs, 

and this final rule is intended to 

maintain safety while also providing 

PAHs with the flexibility to determine 

which suppliers should report, and to 

whom. 

B. Accountable Manager 

As the FAA proposed in the NPRM, 

this final rules amends §§ 21.135, 

21.305, and 21.605 to require a PAH to 

provide the FAA with a document 

identifying the organization’s 

accountable manager. The accountable 

manager is responsible for, and has 

authority over, all part 21 production 

activities. It is not the FAA’s intent that 

this provision dictates who is 

responsible for PAH production 

operations. It is also not the FAA’s 

intent that this provision imposes 

personal liability for production 

operations on the accountable manager. 

The FAA is simply requiring each PAH 

to identify for the FAA the individual or 

individuals within the PAH’s 

organization who the PAH considers 

responsible for all production 

operations. 

Boeing, MARPA, and Timken 

Aerospace recommended that an 

accountable manager have the ability to 

identify and delegate functions to 

alternate points of contact. These 

commenters noted that the person 

responsible for accountability may be a 

company president or chief executive 

who cannot reasonably be available at 

all times. Allowing delegation increases 

the FAA’s access to the PAH and 

provides redundancy in the event of 

personnel turnover, in accordance with 

the intent of this final rule. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters 

with respect to delegation, but 

determines that no change to the 

proposed rule language is necessary. To 

clarify, the accountable manager may 

delegate functions and identify alternate 

points of contact. These actions should 

be noted in the PAH’s organization 

document. Additional guidance may be 

found in FAA AC 21–43, Issuance of 

Production Approvals Under Subparts 

G, K, & O. 

Boeing and an individual commenter 

requested that we revise the rule to 

require two accountable managers—one 

for production activities and one for 

design activities. These commenters 

claimed that two such accountable 

managers would better reflect the 

various responsibilities of PAH 

personnel, including those responsible 

for coordinating with FAA 

manufacturing inspection district offices 

(MIDOs) and aircraft certification offices 

(ACOs). 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation. The 

commenters are describing designrelated activities and responsibilities. 

Because the public was not provided an 

opportunity to comment on an FAA 

requirement for an accountable manager 

for design activities, the FAA considers 

the recommendation to be outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. To clarify, the 

accountable manager described in this 

rule is required only to have 

responsibility for production operations, 

not design activities. 

Garmin International and Williams 

International stated that there is no need 

for an accountable manager, and 

recommended instead a requirement 

that the PAH identify an FAA point of 

contact. In addition, Garmin stated that 

a better means to improve the FAA’s 

access would be to require a PAH to 

clearly indicate how its organization 

will communicate. Williams 

recommended that if the FAA has 

difficulty communicating with a 

particular PAH, that PAH should be 

required to clarify its own existing 

procedures. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendations. An 

accountable manager is not simply a 

point of contact. When issuing an 

approval or performing certificate 

management, the FAA must know who 

from the PAH has the authority to speak 

for the PAH and ensure compliance 

with all applicable regulatory 

requirements. Requiring a PAH to 

identify such an individual, one who is 

knowledgeable of and accountable for 

maintaining the PAH’s FAA production 

approval, will improve communication 

between the PAH and the FAA offices 

responsible for certificate management 

of their production approval. A simple 

point of contact would not create the 

same benefits. 

Universal Avionics Systems 

Corporation (UASC), Textron, and an 

individual commenter suggested 

identifying the accountable manager as 

the ‘‘Quality Manager.’’ Textron stated 

that the rule could be misinterpreted as 

describing the PAH official in charge of 

production operations, instead of the 

person who runs the quality system. 

UASC and the individual commenter 

both observed that the FAA already 

requires accountable managers for repair 

stations. The individual commenter 

further stated that organizational 

differences between a typical PAH and 

a typical repair station make identifying 

a general manager as an accountable 

manager less appropriate for a PAH than 

for a repair station. Finally, UASC 

recommended incorporating the 

definition of ‘‘directly in charge’’ from 

part 145 (Repair Stations) into part 21, 

to better explain the role of 

‘‘accountable manager.’’ UASC stated 

that it believes the Accountable 

Manager is intended to be a quality 

person whom may not have 

responsibility for and authority over 

production operations. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendations. 

Although the FAA requires the 

establishment of a quality system as a 

prerequisite to obtaining a production 

approval, nowhere do we require a PAH 

to create an organizational position 

responsible solely for the PAH’s quality 

system. Moreover, under this rule, the 

accountable manager must be at a 

sufficient level within the organization 

to have responsibility over all 

production operations, not just the 

quality system. For example, the 

accountable manager should have 

responsibility for, among other things, 

formally applying to add a new product 

or article to the PAH’s production 

approval; formally requesting FAA 

approval for a change in location; 

amending the PAH’s organization 

document and submitting that 

document to the FAA; ensuring support 

for design approval holders, as required 

by § 21.137(m); and formally submitting 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 59025 

changes to the PAH’s approved quality 

system. 

We also disagree with the 

commenters’ comparisons of part 21 and 

part 145 accountable managers. A PAH’s 

accountable manager has different 

duties and responsibilities from the 

accountable manager of a repair station. 

Furthermore, the ‘‘directly in charge’’ 

definition from part 145 does not apply 

to a PAH’s accountable manager. We are 

not requiring a PAH accountable 

manager to be ‘‘directly in charge’’ of 

the work performed by the production 

organization. 

C. Authorized Release Documents 

This final rule creates § 21.137(o), 

which permits a PAH to issue 

authorized release documents for new 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles 

manufactured by that PAH, and for used 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles 

rebuilt or altered in accordance with 

§ 43.3(j), provided the PAH establishes 

and adheres to certain quality assurance 

procedures as part of its quality system. 

This final rule marks a slight change 

from what the FAA initially proposed: 

In response to comments, we explicitly 

restrict each PAH to issuing authorized 

release documents for products and 

articles manufactured by the PAH itself. 

Boeing recommended that the FAA 

consider requiring PAH personnel 

selected to issue authorized release 

documents to receive FAA training 

equivalent to what is currently required 

for designees. The FAA disagrees with 

the recommendation. Under this final 

rule, a PAH that chooses to issue 

authorized release documents must 

establish a training process for 

individuals the PAH selects to issue 

those documents. The PAH may choose 

to send its personnel to FAA designee 

training (if available), establish its own 

in-house training, or meet the 

requirement in some other manner. The 

rule establishes minimum requirements 

and permits the PAH to establish FAAapproved procedures to meet those 

requirements. 

ASA stated that the rule does not give 

a PAH authority to issue FAA Form 

8130–3 because the term ‘‘authorized 

release document’’ is not defined. The 

commenter also suggested changing the 

definition of airworthiness approval to 

add Airworthiness approval means a 

document issued by the FAA, or a 

person authorized by the FAA. 

The FAA disagrees with ASA’s 

recommendations. As stated in 

§ 21.1(b)(1), an airworthiness approval 

is a document that must be issued by 

the FAA. By this final rule, however, the 

FAA will now permit an authorized 

PAH to issue authorized release 

documents, using an FAA Form 8130– 

3, for new aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles, and for used aircraft 

engines, propellers, and articles when 

rebuilt or altered in accordance with 

§ 43.3(j). PAHs that intend to issue these 

documents must detail the appropriate 

procedures in their quality manual. To 

be clear, FAA regulations and policy 

distinguish between a document issued 

by the FAA (an airworthiness approval) 

and one issued by the PAH (an 

authorized release document). In 

addition, the latest version of FAA AC 

21–43, released concurrently with this 

final rule, clearly states that a PAH 

should use FAA Form 8130–3 when 

issuing an authorized release document. 

ASA recommended extending the 

privilege of issuing an authorized 

release document beyond PAHs, to 

include distributors accredited in 

accordance with FAA AC 00–56, 

Voluntary Industry Distributor 

Accreditation Program. The commenter 

suggested that not doing so would create 

a significant competitive disadvantage 

for certain American businesses. More 

specifically, the commenter argued that 

failing to allow non-manufacturing 

distributors to issue authorized release 

documents would put those distributors 

at a competitive disadvantage. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. The FAA cannot 

extend this privilege to nonmanufacturer distributors because they 

are not recognized PAHs and, therefore, 

lack FAA-approved quality systems. 

Quality systems are necessary to ensure 

that products and articles conform to 

their approved design and are in a 

condition for safe operation. The intent 

of this provision is to maintain the high 

level of safety achieved under the prior 

rules, while allowing FAA-approved 

PAHs to engage in a practice that is 

permitted by other authorities, such as 

the European Union and Canada, for 

their PAHs. 

One individual commenter suggested 

that the FAA limit a PAH’s authority so 

that the PAH could only issue 

authorized release documents for new 

or used aircraft engines, propellers, and 

articles that the PAH itself 

manufactured under part 21. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter’s 

proposal. Where a PAH was not 

involved in manufacturing a product or 

article, the PAH may not have the 

ability to make the appropriate 

conformity determination. Accordingly, 

this final rule limits a PAH’s authority 

to issue authorized release documents to 

only those products and articles that 

particular PAH has manufactured. 

Two individual commenters stated 

that allowing a PAH to issue Form 

8130–3 as an authorized release 

document will reduce or be detrimental 

to aviation safety. One of these 

commenters pointed out that, prior to 

this final rule, FAA designees assigned 

to complete Form 8130–3 would 

occasionally turn back parts and articles 

due to issues discovered during the 

FAA conformity inspections. For that 

reason, the commenters claimed that 

eliminating designees’ continued, 

objective inspections would reduce 

safety. Both commenters suggested 

keeping the current system. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ characterization of how 

FAA Form 8130–3 has been used 

previously, as well as their 

recommendations. With respect to 

products and articles produced under a 

production approval, issuance of an 

FAA Form 8130–3 indicates that that 

the product or article conforms to its 

type design and is in a condition for safe 

operation, unless otherwise specified. 

Even prior to this rulemaking, FAA 

Form 8130–3 did not (and does not 

now) indicate that a particular product 

or article has been inspected by the FAA 

or its designee. 

Additionally, allowing a PAH, as 

opposed to an FAA employee or 

designee, to issue FAA Form 8130–3 

will not cause a decrease in safety. 

Currently, Designated Manufacturing 

Inspection Representatives (DMIRs) or 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) unit members issue the vast 

majority of FAA Form 8130–3s. These 

designees are employed by the PAH and 

authorized by the FAA, and the FAA 

requires them to possess at least certain 

minimum qualifications and training, 

such as those described in FAA Orders 

8100.8, 8000.95 and 8100.15. Similarly, 

under this final rule, any PAH seeking 

authority to issue FAA Form 8130–3 

must first get FAA approval. As 

described in FAA AC 21–43, the FAA 

will not approve a PAH to issue FAA 

Form 8130–3 unless the PAH 

demonstrates that its authorized 

personnel possess the same 

qualifications and receive training 

equivalent to what is required by FAA 

Orders 8100.8, 8000.95 and 8100.15 for 

FAA designees. 

Timken Aerospace suggested that 

allowing PAHs to issue authorized 

release documents would add 

complexity to the existing process and 

increase the FAA’s workload. The 

commenter recommended instead 

developing a system to assist PAHs in 

obtaining additional DMIRs. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. The FAA anticipates 

that permitting PAHs to issue 

authorized release documents will 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

reduce the workload of both the FAA 

and PAHs. Our intent is to recognize a 

practice permitted by other authorities 

by giving FAA-approved PAHs the same 

flexibility available to their European 

and Canadian counterparts, who already 

issue authorized release documents. For 

PAHs with an approved system for 

issuing authorized release documents, 

the FAA will no longer authorize DMIRs 

or ODA unit members to issue 

airworthiness approvals. 

Textron Aviation recommended that 

the FAA remove the regulatory language 

in our 2014 NPRM proposing to allow 

the use of authorized release documents 

for work performed under § 43.3(j). The 

commenter stated that this type of 

rebuilding work, and related use of FAA 

Form 8130–3, is already performed by 

PAH manufacturers. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. The commenter is 

correct that FAA Order 8130.21 allows 

certain entities to use FAA Form 8130– 

3 when returning to service rebuilt or 

altered engines, propellers, or articles in 

accordance with § 43.3(j). However, the 

FAA’s final rule codifies our 

authorization of that practice and 

extends the same privilege to PAHs 

producing new aircraft engines, 

propellers, and articles. 

Textron Aviation also claimed that 

FAA Order 8130.21 requires authorized 

persons to document inspection activity 

on an FAA Form 8100–1 when required 

by the managing office, and 

recommended revising either § 21.137 

or FAA Order 8130.21 to indicate that 

a PAH is not required to use FAA Form 

8100–1 when issuing authorized release 

documents. 

The FAA disagrees with both the 

commenter’s claim and 

recommendation. Neither our prior 

rules, nor this final rule, requires a PAH 

to comply with the internal guidance in 

FAA Order 8130.21. More specifically, 

§ 21.137(o) does not require any PAH to 

use FAA Form 8100–1 when issuing an 

FAA Form 8130–3. Furthermore, FAA 

Order 8130.21 does not require the use 

of FAA Form 8100–1, but an FAA 

managing office may determine that a 

conformity inspection report is 

necessary to substantiate an FAA-issued 

FAA Form 8130–3. 

One individual commenter stated that 

allowing a PAH to develop its own 

procedures for signing authorized 

release documents will reduce or 

eliminate the standardization that exists 

among designees. The commenter 

recommended that requiring PAH 

personnel to take FAA training would 

facilitate greater standardization. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. When a PAH signs an 

authorized release document, the PAH 

is not signing that document on behalf 

of the FAA Administrator. The FAA 

requires any PAH that chooses to issue 

authorized release documents to 

establish minimum procedures, 

including training the employees 

responsible for issuing those 

documents. These procedures will be 

reviewed and, if acceptable, approved 

by the FAA, which will be conducive to 

standardization. Ultimately, however, 

the current proposal gives each PAH the 

flexibility to choose to send its 

personnel to FAA designee training (if 

available), establish their own in-house 

training, or meet the requirement in 

some other manner. 

D. Definitions 

This final rule revises one definition 

and adds two new definitions to § 21.1. 

The definition of ‘‘airworthiness 

approval,’’ in § 21.1(b)(1), is expanded 

to account for the issuance of an 

airworthiness approval in instances 

where an aircraft, aircraft engine, 

propeller, or article does not conform to 

its approved design or may not be in a 

condition for safe operation at the time 

the airworthiness approval is generated 

and that nonconformity or condition is 

specified on the airworthiness approval 

document. In response to comments, we 

revised the definition proposed in our 

NPRM to account for the fact that an 

airworthiness approval may in some 

cases be issued for products or articles 

that are not in a condition for safe 

operation, such as when those products 

or articles are packed for shipment. 

As proposed, § 21.1(b)(5) defines an 

‘‘interface component’’ as a functional 

interface between an aircraft and an 

aircraft engine, an aircraft engine and a 

propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. 

Furthermore, an interface component is 

designated by the holder of the type 

certificate or the supplemental type 

certificate who controls the approved 

design data for that article. This 

definition is necessary because this final 

rule also promulgates § 21.147(c), which 

permits a PAH to apply to the FAA to 

amend its production certificate to 

allow the PAH to manufacture and 

install interface components. No change 

was made to the definition in this final 

rule from the NPRM. 

Finally, as proposed, § 21.1(b)(10) 

defines a ‘‘supplier’’ as any person at 

any tier in the supply chain who 

provides a product, article, or service 

that is used or consumed in the design 

or manufacture of, or installed on, a 

product or article. This definition is 

necessary to clarify existing FAA 

requirements. No change was made to 

the definition in this final rule from the 

NPRM. 

Timken Aerospace and one individual 

commenter recommended we revise our 

proposed airworthiness approval 

definition by moving ‘‘unless otherwise 

specified’’ to be the final clause. In other 

words, these commenters recommended 

changing the definition to a document 

which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft 

engine, propeller, or article conforms to 

its approved design and is in a 

condition for safe operation, unless 

otherwise specified. The commenters 

noted, for example, that an engine is not 

shipped from a factory in a complete 

and final condition, since it is prepped 

for shipping, and is therefore not in a 

condition for safe operation. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters’ 

recommendation. There are many 

instances in which the FAA issues an 

airworthiness approval but, at the time 

of issuance, the product or article 

neither fully conforms to its approved 

design, nor is it in a condition for safe 

operation. For example, the FAA may 

issue an airworthiness approval for an 

aircraft that has been disassembled for 

shipping, for an engine that has 

preservation fluids installed prior to 

shipping, or for used aircraft engines 

and propellers that are not in a 

condition for safe operation (see 

§ 21.331, Issuance of export 

airworthiness approvals for aircraft 

engines, propellers, and articles). We 

therefore revise the definition of 

airworthiness approval to 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, unless 

otherwise specified. 

Also with respect to the airworthiness 

approval definition, Timken Aerospace 

recommended we use the phrase 

‘‘except for deviations noted’’ instead of 

‘‘unless otherwise specified,’’ to be more 

consistent with FAA Form 8130–9, 

Statement of Conformity. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. The concept of 

airworthiness is generally composed of 

two factors: Conformity with an 

approved design and being in a 

condition for safe operation. In this 

context, the term ‘‘deviation’’ would 

indicate a variation from an approved 

design or quality system, but would not 

necessarily convey the fact that a 

product is not in a condition for safe 

operation. Accordingly, we determine 

that the phrase ‘‘unless otherwise 

specified’’ more accurately reflects the 

intent of our proposal. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 59027 

Two individual commenters 

expressed concern that adding ‘‘unless 

otherwise specified’’ to the definition of 

airworthiness approval would change a 

fundamental premise of airworthiness 

approvals, that a product or article must 

conform to its design. The commenters 

recommended that the definition not be 

changed. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters. The issuance of an 

airworthiness approval, such as an 

export certificate of airworthiness, does 

not necessarily mean that a product is 

airworthy. FAA regulations, such as 

§ 21.331, allow FAA personnel and 

designees to issue an airworthiness 

approval for a product or article that 

does not conform to its approved 

design, as long as the nonconforming 

condition is stated on the approval 

document and, in the case of export, the 

receiving authority agrees to accept the 

product or article as described. This 

final rule, therefore, simply brings the 

definition of Airworthiness Approval in 

line with current FAA practice and with 

part 21, subpart L. Contrary to the 

commenters’ suggestion, we are not 

changing the fundamental concept of 

airworthiness. Under current practices, 

an airworthiness approval is a means to 

show that the product or article 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation, unless 

otherwise specified. 

One individual commenter stated that 

the definition of ‘‘supplier’’ is overbroad 

because it includes distributors of 

commercial off the shelf parts or parts 

not originally manufactured for aviation 

use. The same commenter also stated 

that the addition of the term ‘‘at any 

tier’’ will cause inconsistent and 

disparate interpretation within the FAA 

and undue burden to industry. The 

commenter did not provide any 

recommendations. 

The FAA recognizes that by including 

the term ‘‘at any tier,’’ the proposed 

definition of ‘‘supplier’’ applies to all 

suppliers throughout the supply chain. 

Contrary to the commenter’s statement, 

the FAA believes including suppliers 

‘‘at any tier’’ will reduce inconsistencies 

by confirming that the FAA definition of 

‘‘supplier’’ applies to all suppliers, 

regardless of their position within the 

supply chain. Furthermore, the FAA 

does not believe this definition will 

unduly burden industry. To the extent 

that a supplier has only a tenuous 

connection to a PAH, perhaps because 

the supplier produces parts that are not 

specifically designed for use in aviation, 

it may be appropriate for the PAH to 

account for that attenuation when 

designing its supplier-reporting 

protocols. A PAH has always been 

responsible for assuring that its 

products and articles conform and are in 

a condition for safe operation. The 

inclusion of all suppliers within the 

regulatory definition of supplier should 

therefore impose no additional burden 

on either the PAH or its suppliers. 

The same individual commenter also 

stated that there is no guidance for the 

suppliers of off-the-shelf parts, 

described above, who may not 

anticipate that their parts will be used 

or installed on type certificated aircraft 

and approved. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter’s 

observation that there is no guidance 

provided specifically for distributors of 

parts not originally manufactured for 

aviation use or installation on type 

certificated aircraft and approved under 

§ 21.8(c). The FAA provides guidance to 

PAHs, repair stations, and other FAAregulated entities. The FAA does not 

provide guidance for entities that fall 

outside the scope of FAA regulations. 

E. Interface Components 

As proposed, § 21.147(c) now permits 

a PAH to apply to the FAA for an 

amendment to the PAH’s production 

limitation record (PLR), authorizing the 

PAH to manufacture and install 

interface components. If granted, the 

FAA will amend the PAH’s PLR to add 

the interface components (IC). ICs are 

defined in the new § 21.1(b)(5). The 

FAA had previously granted exemptions 

to engine manufacturers, allowing them 

to manufacture and install airframe 

components that interface between the 

engine and the airframe, provided the 

engine manufacturer owned or licensed 

the ICs design and installation data. 

Boeing and General Electric 

supported the rule change. Boeing also 

suggested the FAA allow engine 

manufacturers to install and certify 

airplane manufacturers’ ICs during the 

engine type certification process. 

The FAA disagrees with this 

recommendation as it is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. Allowing 

engine manufacturers to install and 

certify airplane manufacturers’ ICs 

during the engine TC process is a design 

issue, not a production issue. Our 2014 

NPRM and this final rule focus on 

amendments to the production approval 

provisions in subpart G. 

Williams International recommended 

that our final rule distinguish between 

all potential ICs versus those that are 

licensed to be both manufactured and 

installed by a PAH. The commenter 

suggested that defining ICs more 

narrowly would enable the FAA to 

include fewer items on the PAH’s PLR, 

and as a result would require fewer PLR 

updates and impose less of a burden on 

the FAA. 

The FAA agrees with the concerns 

raised byWilliams International, but we 

have determined that the rule as drafted 

adequately addresses these concerns. 

Under §§ 21.1(b)(5) and 21.147(c), a 

component must meet certain criteria 

before it is considered an ‘‘interface 

component’’ eligible for the PAH’s PLR. 

For example, § 21.1(b)(5) requires, 

among other things, that an IC be 

designated as such by the TC or STC 

holder. The rule requires only those ICs 

the PAH intends to produce be listed on 

the PLR and not all possible ICs, so the 

PLR should not be an exhaustive list or 

a burden on the FAA. 

F. Miscellaneous Issues 

HEICO requested that the FAA define 

authorized release documents, to 

establish who is issuing the document. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

recommendation. The FAA does not 

believe it is necessary to provide a 

definition in the text of the rule. The 

FAA provides additional guidance on 

authorized release documents in the 

revised AC 21.43, Appendix B, which is 

applicable to any PAH. 

One individual commenter stated that 

the title of the NPRM did not reflect 

recent changes from parts to articles in 

our 2009 final rule, Production and 

Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, 

and Miscellaneous Amendments, 74 FR 

53384 (Oct. 16, 2009). The commenter 

recommended changing the title of part 

21 to ‘‘Certification Procedures for 

Products, Articles, and Parts.’’ The FAA 

partially agrees with the 

recommendation and this final rule 

changes the title of part 21 to 

‘‘Certification Procedures for Products 

and Articles.’’ 

HEICO requested that we revise FAA 

Form 8130–3 attached as Appendix A, 

Figure A–1 to FAA Order 8130.21 to 

explicitly indicate who, including a 

PAH, is allowed to issue the document. 

The FAA disagrees with HEICO’s 

recommendation to revise the form. 

Instead, we have revised FAA Order 

8130.21 and ACs 21–43 and 21–44 to 

reflect the rule change allowing a 

properly authorized PAH to issue an 

authorized release document. In the ACs 

we also provide guidance to on how to 

complete FAA Form 8130–3. 

Textron Aviation recommended that 

the FAA remove the requirement for the 

issuance of export airworthiness 

approvals for articles, believing that this 

change would better align FAA 

regulations with those of foreign 

authorities. The recommendation is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA notes that the requirements for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3Before 2010, §§ 21.142 (production limitation 

record) and 21.147 (amendment of production 

certificates) were codified at §§ 21.151 and 21.153, 

respectively. 

4The production and installation of ICs by engine 

manufacturers also increase efficiency by allowing 

delivery of quick-change replacement engines to 

end users such as air carriers and charter operators. 

Some piece parts (or kits), such as the engine 

buildup unit (EBU), rather than being installed by 

the PC holder, may be shipped separately to an 

aircraft manufacturer for the purpose of just-in-time 

manufacturing operations, or to an airline that may 

want kits on hand for routine maintenance 

operations or to replace hardware damaged during 

operations. 

the issuance of export airworthiness 

approvals for articles are contained in 

subpart L. Although the FAA proposed 

allowing PAHs to issue authorized 

release documents in § 21.137, the 

proposal did not change the conditions 

specified in subpart L. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354), 

as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39), as 

amended by the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, the Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), as codified 

in 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to 

prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

As summarized in the table below, the 

provisions of this final rule (1) are 

minimal cost, (2) will impose no 

additional costs because the provisions 

will clarify only, or are current practice, 

or (3) are voluntary and therefore 

inherently cost-beneficial. Our 

determination has not changed from 

that made in the NPRM regulatory 

evaluation. The FAA received no 

comments to the docket on the NPRM 

regulatory evaluation. More detailed 

explanations follow the table. 

Provision Costs/Benefits 

Require Identification of Accountable Manager Minimal cost—Requires identification of an existing manager, who is responsible for and has authority over a Production Approval Holder (PAH)’s operations, as a PAH’s primary contact with the FAA. 

Allow PC Holders to Manufacture and Install Interface Components.Codifying the practice, previously allowed by exemption, will reduce regulatory 

compliance costs. 

Modify Supplier Control Requirements ......................................... No additional cost—Clarifies existing requirement that PAHs are responsible 

for conformity throughout their supply chains and gives PAHs flexibility in 

establishing a supplier-reporting process for nonconforming releases. 

Allow PAHs to Issue Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft 

Engines, Propellers and Articles.

Voluntary, so expected benefits will exceed expected costs. 

Exclude Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers from Fireproof Marking 

Requirements.

The FAA found the exemption provides an equivalent level of safety. Codifying 

the practice, previously allowed by exemption, will reduce regulatory compliance costs. 

1. Require Identification of an 

Accountable Manager 

Under this provision, the FAA will 

require each applicant for, or holder of, 

a Production Certificate (PC), Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA), or 

Technical Standard Order (TSO) 

authorization to identify an accountable 

manager, who is responsible for, and 

has authority over, a PAH’s operations, 

as a PAH’s primary contact with the 

FAA. This provision is not intended to 

require the PAH to create a new position 

within its organization and will not 

mandate that an individual in a specific 

position be identified as the accountable 

manager. Consequently, the costs, if 

any, associated with this requirement 

are minimal. 

2. Allow Production Certificate Holders 

To Manufacture and Install Interface 

Components 

PC holders previously could not 

install interface components (ICs) on 

their type-certificated products without 

an exemption. Previous regulations 

governing the production limitation 

record and the amendment of PCs 

restricted the PC holder to the 

manufacture of products only (aircraft, 

aircraft engines, or propellers) and did 

not authorize installation.3 The FAA has 

granted exemptions to engine 

manufacturers, allowing them to 

manufacture and install airframe 

components that interface between the 

engine and the airframe provided they 

own or are licensed to use the IC type 

design and installation data. In granting 

these exemptions, the FAA found that 

allowing engine manufacturers to 

produce and install ICs improved safety 

and efficiency by eliminating 

disassembly, reassembly and retesting, 

as well as related scoring of fatigue 

sensitive parts; damage to critical parts; 

and air/fuel/oil leaks.4 This provision 

will codify the practice, previously 

allowed by exemption, of allowing PC 

holders to manufacture and install ICs, 

and will apply to any articles designated 

by the TC holder that interface between 

products. Therefore, this provision 

applies to the interface between 

propeller and aircraft engine and 

between propeller and aircraft, as well 

as between aircraft engine and aircraft. 

Codifying the previous practice of 

allowing PC holders to manufacture and 

install ICs implies no change in safety 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 59029 

5For aircraft, an export airworthiness approval 

will continue to be issued only by the FAA, using 

Form 8130–4, ‘‘Export Certificate of 

Airworthiness.’’ 

6 Variable-pitch wooden propellers do not require 

exception from the fireproof marking requirement 

since they have metal hubs. 

benefits. Codifying the practice, 

however, will reduce regulatory costs 

since paperwork requirements involved 

in periodic application for and granting 

of exemptions will be eliminated. 

3. Modification of Supply Control 

With this provision, the FAA intends 

to clarify existing requirements that the 

PAH is responsible for (1) conformity 

throughout the supply chain and (2) 

establishing a supplier reporting process 

for nonconforming releases. As there 

was no definition of supplier in the 

previous regulations, the final rule 

defines supplier as a person that 

provides a product, article, or service at 

any tier in the supply chain that is used 

or consumed in the design or 

manufacture of, or installed on, a 

product or article. 

The final rule changes the language to 

§ 21.137(c) as shown in the following 

table: 

Previous rule language Final rule language 

Supply Control—Procedures that (1) Ensure that each supplier-furnished product or article conforms to its approved design; and Supply Control—Procedures that (1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service conforms to the product approval 

holder’s requirements; and 

(2) Require each supplier to report to the production approval holder if 

a product or article has been released from that supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design data. 

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

found not to conform to the production approval holder’s requirements. 

As provision (1) clarifies the FAA’s 

intent and current practice and 

provision (2) gives PAHs greater 

flexibility, there will be no additional 

cost resulting from these provisions. 

4. Allow Production Approval Holders 

To Issue Authorized Release Documents 

for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and 

Articles 

Previously, only the FAA was allowed 

to document that an aircraft engine, 

propeller, or article conforms to its 

approved design and is in condition for 

safe operation. The FAA provides 

documentation with an airworthiness 

approval, using FAA Form 8130–3, 

‘‘Authorized Release Certificate, 

Airworthiness Approval Tag.’’ This 

provision allows, but does not require, 

qualified PAHs to issue authorized 

release documents, using FAA Form 

8130–3, for aircraft engines, propellers, 

and articles for which the PAH has a 

production approval. We refer to the 

issuance of Form 8130–3 by a PAH as 

an ‘‘authorized release document’’ 

because, as defined by 14 CFR 

21.1(b)(1), only the FAA is allowed to 

issue an airworthiness approval. PAHs 

choosing not to issue these authorized 

release documents may continue to 

obtain approvals from the FAA. 

Although such airworthiness 

documentation is required only when 

requested by a foreign civil aviation 

authority, it has become increasingly 

valued in the aviation industry. Several 

U.S. manufacturers have requested the 

privilege to issue such documentation, 

which is already enjoyed by their 

European and Canadian counterparts. 

As it is voluntary, this provision is 

inherently cost beneficial.5

5. Marking of Fixed-Pitch Wooden 

Propellers 

As noted in the preamble above, the 

FAA granted an exemption to Sensenich 

Wood Propeller Company from the 

regulations requiring that a propeller, 

propeller blade, or propeller hub be 

marked using an approved fireproof 

method. In granting the exemption, the 

FAA found that stamping the hub of the 

propeller with the identification 

markers will achieve an equivalent level 

of safety to the rule. The FAA maintains 

that finding in this final rule and, in any 

case, codifying the practice, previously 

allowed by exemption, implies no 

change in safety benefits.6 Codifying the 

practice, however, will reduce 

regulatory costs since the costs of 

paperwork requirements involved in 

periodic application for and granting of 

the exemptions will be eliminated. 

The FAA made this minimal cost 

determination for the proposed rule. As 

no comments were received, the FAA 

concludes the expected cost is minimal. 

B. 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 provisions of this final rule (1) 

are minimal cost, (2) would impose no 

additional costs because the provisions 

would clarify only, or are current 

practice, or (3) are voluntary. We 

received no comments regarding our 

determination that there was no 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities in the NPRM. 

Therefore, as provided in section 

605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that the rule’s provision allowing PAHs 

to issue authorized release documents 

for purposes of export would be in 

accordance with the Trade Agreements 

Act as this provision uses European 

standards as the basis for United States 

regulation. The remaining provisions 

have a minimal domestic impact only 

and therefore no effect on international 

trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and identified no differences with these 

regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA analyzed this 

action under the policies and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, and determined that this action 

has no significant effect on international 

regulatory cooperation. To the extent 

that this final rule may conflict with the 

implementing protocols of any FAA 

bilateral aviation safety agreements, the 

FAA will amend those protocols in 

coordination with our international 

partners. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet by— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s 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.). 

C. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 45 

Aircraft, Exports, Signs and symbols. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, and 

under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) 

and 44701(a)(5), the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 59031 

chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND 

ARTICLES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

■ 2. The heading for part 21 is revised 

to read as set forth above. 

■ 3. Amend § 21.1 by revising paragraph 

(b)(1), redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) 

through (b)(8) as (b)(6) through (b)(9), 

and adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and 

(b)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Airworthiness approval means a 

document, issued by the FAA for an 

aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or 

article, which certifies that the aircraft, 

aircraft engine, propeller, or article 

conforms to its approved design and is 

in a condition for safe operation, unless 

otherwise specified; 

* * * * * 

(5) Interface component means an 

article that serves as a functional 

interface between an aircraft and an 

aircraft engine, an aircraft engine and a 

propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. 

An interface component is designated 

by the holder of the type certificate or 

the supplemental type certificate who 

controls the approved design data for 

that article; 

* * * * * 

(10) Supplier means a person at any 

tier in the supply chain who provides a 

product, article, or service that is used 

or consumed in the design or 

manufacture of, or installed on, a 

product or article. 

■ 4. Revise § 21.135 to read as follows: 

§ 21.135 Organization. 

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a 

production certificate must provide the 

FAA with a document— 

(1) Describing how its organization 

will ensure compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart; 

(2) Describing assigned 

responsibilities, delegated authorities, 

and the functional relationship of those 

responsible for quality to management 

and other organizational components; 

and 

(3) Identifying an accountable 

manager. 

(b) The accountable manager specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section must be 

responsible within the applicant’s or 

production approval holder’s 

organization for, and have authority 

over, all production operations 

conducted under this part. The 

accountable manager must confirm that 

the procedures described in the quality 

manual required by § 21.138 are in place 

and that the production approval holder 

satisfies the requirements of the 

applicable regulations of subchapter C, 

Aircraft. The accountable manager must 

serve as the primary contact with the 

FAA. 

■ 5. Amend § 21.137 by revising 

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

paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 21.137 Quality system. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Ensure that each supplierprovided product, article, or service 

conforms to the production approval 

holder’s requirements; and 

(2) Establish a supplier-reporting 

process for products, articles, or services 

that have been released from or 

provided by the supplier and 

subsequently found not to conform to 

the production approval holder’s 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(o) Issuing authorized release 

documents. Procedures for issuing 

authorized release documents for 

aircraft engines, propellers, and articles 

if the production approval holder 

intends to issue those documents. These 

procedures must provide for the 

selection, appointment, training, 

management, and removal of 

individuals authorized by the 

production approval holder to issue 

authorized release documents. 

Authorized release documents may be 

issued for new aircraft engines, 

propellers, and articles manufactured by 

the production approval holder; and for 

used aircraft engines, propellers, and 

articles when rebuilt, or altered, in 

accordance with § 43.3(j) of this chapter. 

When a production approval holder 

issues an authorized release document 

for the purpose of export, the 

production approval holder must 

comply with the procedures applicable 

to the export of new and used aircraft 

engines, propellers, and articles 

specified in § 21.331 and the 

responsibilities of exporters specified in 

§ 21.335. 

■ 6. Revise § 21.142 to read as follows: 

§ 21.142 Production limitation record. 

The FAA issues a production 

limitation record as part of a production 

certificate. The record lists the type 

certificate number and model of every 

product that the production certificate 

holder is authorized to manufacture, 

and identifies every interface 

component that the production 

certificate holder is authorized to 

manufacture and install under this part. 

■ 7. Revise § 21.147 to read as follows: 

§ 21.147 Amendment of production 

certificates. 

(a) A holder of a production certificate 

must apply for an amendment to a 

production certificate in a form and 

manner prescribed by the FAA. 

(b) An applicant for an amendment to 

a production certificate to add a type 

certificate or model, or both, must 

comply with §§ 21.137, 21.138, and 

21.150. 

(c) An applicant may apply to amend 

its production limitation record to allow 

the manufacture and installation of an 

interface component, provided— 

(1) The applicant owns or has a 

license to use the design and 

installation data for the interface 

component and makes that data 

available to the FAA upon request; 

(2) The applicant manufactures the 

interface component; 

(3) The applicant’s product conforms 

to its approved type design and the 

interface component conforms to its 

approved type design; 

(4) The assembled product with the 

installed interface component is in a 

condition for safe operation; and 

(5) The applicant complies with any 

other conditions and limitations the 

FAA considers necessary. 

■ 8. Revise § 21.305 to read as follows: 

§ 21.305 Organization. 

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a 

PMA must provide the FAA with a 

document— 

(1) Describing how its organization 

will ensure compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart; 

(2) Describing assigned 

responsibilities, delegated authorities, 

and the functional relationship of those 

responsible for quality to management 

and other organizational components; 

and 

(3) Identifying an accountable 

manager. 

(b) The accountable manager specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section must be 

responsible within the applicant’s or 

production approval holder’s 

organization for, and have authority 

over, all production operations 

conducted under this part. The 

accountable manager must confirm that 

the procedures described in the quality 

manual required by § 21.308 are in place 

and that the production approval holder 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

satisfies the requirements of the 

applicable regulations of subchapter C, 

Aircraft. The accountable manager must 

serve as the primary contact with the 

FAA. 

■ 9. Revise § 21.605 to read as follows: 

§ 21.605 Organization. 

(a) Each applicant for or holder of a 

TSO authorization must provide the 

FAA with a document— 

(1) Describing how its organization 

will ensure compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart; 

(2) Describing assigned 

responsibilities, delegated authorities, 

and the functional relationship of those 

responsible for quality to management 

and other organizational components; 

and 

(3) Identifying an accountable 

manager. 

(b) The accountable manager specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section must be 

responsible within the applicant’s or 

production approval holder’s 

organization for, and have authority 

over, all production operations 

conducted under this part. The 

accountable manager must confirm that 

the procedures described in the quality 

manual required by § 21.608 are in place 

and that the production approval holder 

satisfies the requirements of the 

applicable regulations of subchapter C, 

Aircraft. The accountable manager must 

serve as the primary contact with the 

FAA. 

PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND 

REGISTRATION MARKING 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 45 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113– 

40114, 44101–44105, 44107–44111, 44504, 

44701, 44708–44709, 44711–44713, 44725, 

45302–45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122. 

■ 11. Revise § 45.11(c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 45.11 Marking of products. 

* * * * * 

(c) Propellers and propeller blades 

and hubs. Each person who produces a 

propeller, propeller blade, or propeller 

hub under a type certificate or 

production certificate must mark each 

product or part. Except for a fixed-pitch 

wooden propeller, the marking must be 

accomplished using an approved 

fireproof method. The marking must— 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on September 25, 2015. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24950 Filed 9–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3981; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–126–AD; Amendment 

39–18280; AD 2015–20–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–02– 

10 for all Airbus Model A330–200 

Freighter series airplanes; Model A330– 

200 and –300 series airplanes; and 

Model A340–200 and –300 series 

airplanes. AD 2013–02–10 required an 

inspection of the rods to determine the 

manufacturer; and for affected parts, an 

inspection for any cracking of the rods, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD revises the 

affected airplanes of a certain paragraph 

of AD 2013–02–10 due to the discovery 

of an error. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct cracking of the rods, 

which could result in rupture of rods 

that attach the belly fairing to the 

airframe, leading to separation of the 

belly fairing from the airframe, and 

consequent damage to airplane structure 

and airplane systems. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

October 16, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of March 8, 2013 (78 FR 7257, 

February 1, 2013). 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by November 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, 

Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 

36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: 

airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3981. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3981; or in person at the Docket 

Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone: 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone: 425–227–1138; 

fax: 425–227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On January 16, 2013, we issued AD 

2013–02–10, Amendment 39–17331 (78 

FR 7257, February 1, 2013), which 

applied to all Airbus Model A330–200 

Freighter series airplanes; Model A330– 

200 and –300 series airplanes; and 

Model A340–200 and –300 series 

airplanes. AD 2013–02–10 was 

prompted by a report of a manufacturing 

defect in certain rods installed in the 

belly fairing, which could lead to cracks 

at the crimped end of the rod. AD 2013– 

02–10 required an inspection of the rods 

to determine the manufacturer; and for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES