Establishment of Organization Designation Authorization Program, 59932-59949 [05-20470]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59932-59949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20470]



[[Page 59931]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



14 CFR Parts 21, 121, 135, 145, and 183



Establishment of Organization Designation Authorization Program; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 59932]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 121, 135, 145, and 183

[Docket No. FAA-2003-16685; Amendment Nos. 21-86, 121-311, 135-97, 145-
23, and 183-12]
RIN 2120-AH79


Establishment of Organization Designation Authorization Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the Organization Designation 
Authorization (ODA) program. The ODA program expands the scope of 
approved tasks available to organizational designees; increases the 
number of organizations eligible for organizational designee 
authorizations; and establishes a more comprehensive, systems-based 
approach to managing designated organizations. This final rule also 
sets phaseout dates for the current organizational designee programs, 
the participants in which will be transitioned into the ODA program. 
This program is needed as the framework for the FAA to standardize the 
operation and oversight of organizational designees. The effect of this 
program will be to increase the efficiency with which the FAA appoints 
and oversees designee organizations, and allow the FAA to concentrate 
its resources on the most safety-critical matters.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective November 14, 2005. Affected 
parties, however, do not have to comply with the information collection 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  183.43, 183.45, 183.53, 183.55, 183.57, 
183.63, or 183.65 until the control number assigned by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for this information collection requirement 
is published in the Federal Register. Publication of the control number 
notifies the public that OMB has approved this information collection 
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, Ralph Meyer, 
Delegation and Airworthiness Programs Branch, Aircraft Engineering 
Division (AIR-140), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., ARB Room 308, Oklahoma City, 
OK, 73169; telephone (405) 954-7072; facsimile (405) 954-2209, e-mail 
ralph.meyer@faa.gov. For legal issues, Karen Petronis, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-3073; facsimile (202) 267-7971; e-mail 
karen.petronis@faa.gov.

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 (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies' Web page at http:/
/www.faa.gov/regulationspolicies; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    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 can search the electronic form of comments received into our 
dockets by the individual's name who sends the comment (or signs the 
comment, if sent for 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 https://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question about 
this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBREFA on the Internet at https://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules about aviation safety is found 
in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447--Safety Regulation, Section 44702--
Issuance of Certificates. Under paragraph 44702(d), the FAA 
Administrator may delegate to a qualified private person a matter 
related to issuing certificates, or related to the examination, 
testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate he is 
authorized by statute to issue under Sec.  44702(a). Under paragraph 
(d), the Administrator is empowered to prescribe regulations and other 
materials necessary for the supervision of delegated persons. This 
regulation is within the scope of that authority in that it establishes 
a comprehensive program for the designation of organizations in 14 CFR 
part 183.

Background

History of Designation Programs

    Since at least 1927, the federal government has used private 
persons to examine, test and inspect aircraft as part of the system for 
managing aviation safety. The current system of delegations has been 
evolving since the need for assistance by private persons was 
recognized over 70 years ago. Beginning in the 1940s, the FAA's 
predecessor agency, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) 
established programs to appoint designees to perform certain tasks for 
airman approvals, airworthiness approvals and certification approvals. 
These include the Designated Engineering Representative (DER), 
Designated Manufacturing Inspection Representative (DMIR), and 
Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) programs.
    In the 1950s, the rapid expansion of the aircraft industry led to 
the adoption of the Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) program to 
supplement the agency's limited resources for certification of small 
airplanes, engines and propellers. As the first program that delegated 
authority to an organization rather than an individual, DOA was 
intended to take advantage of the experience and knowledge inherent in 
a manufacturer's organization. Currently, DOAs are authorized for 
certification and airworthiness approvals for the products manufactured 
by the authorization holder.
    The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 established the Federal Aviation 
Agency and codified the authority of the Administrator to delegate 
certain matters in section 314 of that Act. When that statute was 
recodified in the 1990s, the delegation authority was placed in 49 
U.S.C. 44702(d) without substantive change to the authority of the 
Administrator.
    The 1960s saw the creation of the Designated Alteration Station 
(DAS)

[[Page 59933]]

Program, which was intended to reduce delays in issuing supplemental 
type certificates (STCs) by allowing the approved engineering staffs of 
repair stations to issue STCs. As adopted, the DAS program allows 
eligible air carriers, commercial operators, domestic repair stations 
and product manufacturers to issue STCs and related airworthiness 
certificates.
    In the 1970s the FAA reviewed its delegated organization programs, 
which then allowed the approval of major alteration data by a delegated 
organization, but not approval of major repair data. This review lead 
to the adoption of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 36 in 
1978 to allow eligible air carriers, commercial operators, and domestic 
repair stations to develop and use major repair data without FAA 
approval of the data.
    In the 1980s, the FAA established the Designation Airworthiness 
Representative (DAR) program to expand the airworthiness certification 
functions that individual designees may perform. At the same time, we 
allowed for organizations to serve as DARs, in a program known as 
Organizational Designated Airworthiness Representatives (ODARs).
    Since the formation of the first organizational designee programs, 
organizational designees have gained significant experience in aircraft 
certification matters, and the FAA has gained significant experience in 
managing these designee programs. We have found that the quality of the 
approvals processed by these organizations equals those processed by 
the FAA. Delegation of tasks to these organizations has allowed the FAA 
to focus our limited resources on more critical areas.

Status of Designees

    In understanding these programs, we consider it essential to 
remember that designees have a unique status. While we refer to these 
persons and organizations informally as ``designees'', under part 183 
they are referred to as ``representatives of the Administrator.''
    When acting as a representative of the Administrator, these persons 
or organizations are required to perform in a manner consistent with 
the policies, guidelines, and directives of the Administrator. When 
performing a delegated function, designees are legally distinct from 
and act independent of the organizations that employ them. The 
authority of these representatives to act comes from an FAA delegation 
and not a certificate. As provided by statute, the Administrator may at 
any time and for any reason, suspend or revoke a delegation. This is 
true even though some parts of the delegation regulations in part 183 
and elsewhere refer to kinds of certificates that denote the authority 
granted.
    An ODA issued under this program is a delegation made under section 
44702(d), not a statutorily authorized certificate issued under section 
44702(a). The authority of the Administrator to suspend, revoke, or 
withhold ODA authorization is not subject to appeal to the National 
Transportation Safety Board.

ODA Program Overview

    The FAA is adopting the ODA program as a means to provide more 
effective certification services to its customers. This final rule 
adopts the regulatory basis of the ODA program. Companion FAA orders, 
similar to the draft Order made available for review, will describe the 
specifics of the program and provide guidance for FAA personnel and for 
organizations to which we grant an ODA. These orders will also provide 
information to FAA personnel on how to qualify, appoint, and oversee 
organizations in the ODA program.
    As aviation industry needs continue to expand at a rate exceeding 
that of FAA resources, the need for the ODA program has become more 
apparent. According to a 1993 report by the General Accounting Office 
(GAO/RCED-93-155), the FAA's certification work has increased five-fold 
over the last 50 years. The ODA program is a consolidation and 
improvement of the piecemeal organizational delegations that have 
developed on an ``as needed'' basis over the last half century. As the 
FAA's dependence on designees has increased, so has the need to oversee 
designated organizations using a single, flexible set of procedures and 
a systems approach to management. Using our experience with both 
individual and organizational designees, we have designed the ODA 
program with these criteria in mind.
    The ODA program improves the FAA's ability to respond to our 
steadily increasing workload by expanding the scope of authorized 
functions of FAA organizational designees, and by expanding eligibility 
for organizational designees. One way this program expands eligibility 
is by eliminating the requirement that an organization hold some type 
of FAA certificate before it would qualify for designation 
authorization.
    The ODA program also allows the FAA to delegate any statutorily 
authorized functions to qualified organizations. Expansion of the 
available authorized functions will reduce the time and cost for these 
certification activities.
    While our current delegations are limited to such organizations as 
manufacturers, air carriers, commercial operators, and repair stations, 
this rule formalizes the delegation of functions to any qualified 
organization. Accordingly, an organization with demonstrated 
competence, integrity, and expertise in aircraft certification 
functions is eligible to apply for an ODA.
    Creation of the ODA program aids the expansion of the designee 
system by addressing the delegation of more functions related to 
aircraft certification, and new functions pertaining to certification 
and authorization of airmen, operators, and air agencies. For general 
aviation operations, the rule allows an ODA Unit member to issue airman 
certificates or authorizations under 14 CFR parts 61, 63, or 91. 
Additionally, the rule allows designated organizations to find 
compliance or conduct functions leading to the issuance of certificates 
or authorizations for any statutorily authorized function, including--
     Rotorcraft external load operations under 14 CFR part 133;
     Agricultural operations under 14 CFR part 137;
     Air agencies operations under 14 CFR part 141; and
     Training centers operators under 14 CFR part 142 (air 
carrier functions excluded).
    Nothing in the establishment of the ODA program changes any 
authority or responsibility for compliance with the certification, 
airworthiness or operational requirements currently in place, such as 
part 21 or part 121. No current safety requirements are being removed 
or relaxed. The ODA program does not introduce any type of self-
certification.
    An Organization Designation Authorization includes both an ODA 
Holder and an ODA Unit. The ODA Holder is the parent organization to 
which the FAA grants an ODA Letter of Designation. The ODA Unit is an 
identifiable unit of two or more individuals within the ODA Holder's 
organization that performs the authorized functions. The regulations 
specify separate requirements for the ODA Holder and the ODA Unit.
    Because the ODA program eliminates the requirement that an 
applicant hold an FAA certificate, organizations consisting of 
consultant engineering and inspection personnel could be eligible for 
an ODA. Under such circumstances, it is possible the ODA Holder would

[[Page 59934]]

have the same composition as the ODA Unit.

ODA Program Policy

    As noted earlier in this preamble, FAA orders will outline the 
specifics of the ODA program and provide guidance for both FAA 
personnel and for organizations that obtain an ODA. These orders will 
describe the authorized functions for aircraft-related approvals, such 
as type certificates and airworthiness certificates, and certain 
operations-related approvals like airman certificates. While the 
regulations contain the general requirements of the ODA program, the 
orders will provide the administrative details. Providing the specifics 
in orders allows for flexibility to expand or revise the details of the 
ODA program without further rulemaking, especially since every type of 
delegated function that may be appropriate for an ODA Unit cannot be 
foreseen.
    In addition to approved delegated functions and the eligibility 
requirements for delegated functions, the orders address the specific 
selection, appointment, and oversight procedures the FAA will follow in 
managing ODA Holders. Additional ODA program details may be described 
in other FAA orders or policies.

Application for ODA and Transition of Existing Delegation Holders

    This rule provides that existing Designated Alteration Station 
(DAS), Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) and Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation 36 (SFAR 36) authorization programs will be phased 
out over three years beginning November 14, 2006. Additionally, 
Organizational Designated Airworthiness Representatives (ODARs) will no 
longer be appointed under part 183 subpart A, and will have to apply 
for an ODA within the three-year phaseout period. The FAA's priority 
during the phaseout period will be the transition of existing 
organizations to ODA.
    The FAA intends to appoint new ODA applicants based on the need for 
their services. The ability of a particular FAA field office to appoint 
new ODA Holders will depend on the number of existing delegated 
organizations in an office's jurisdiction. During the three-year 
phaseout period of the current delegated organization programs, the 
only new applicants (those with no existing organizational delegation) 
the FAA expects to appoint are those with a significant history of 
certification work and whose workload could be better managed under an 
ODA.
    FAA Offices that manage existing delegated organizations will 
oversee the transition of those organizations using the following 
criteria:
     A need to delegate the authorized functions.
     An organization's level of certification activity.
     The number and need for new ODA organizations.
    Priority will be given to existing delegated organizations that 
have and are expected to maintain a significant workload in new areas 
authorized under the ODA regulations. For example, an existing DAS that 
desires to have both STC and Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) 
functions under an ODA would be a higher transition priority than a DAS 
that would not be adding any new functions. Similarly, the FAA may find 
it of greater benefit to appoint a new ODA with a heavier workload than 
transition of an existing organization with a lighter workload.
    Based on these considerations, each FAA field office will develop a 
strategy for managing the ODA applications it receives. We expect that 
existing delegated organizations will cooperate with their managing 
offices in submission of their ODA applications. The FAA managing 
offices will, to the extent possible, develop a transition schedule 
that meets the organization's needs. The FAA will not accept ODA 
applications until November 14, 2006 in order to establish a smooth 
transition in prioritizing and processing applications. We are not able 
to predict how long it will take the agency to act on an individual 
application. Existing delegated organizations should apply for ODA as 
requested by their managing office, but not later than 18 months after 
the application period begins to ensure that its application may be 
processed and fully considered before the end of the three-year 
phaseout period.
    The FAA will provide transition training for existing DAS, DOA, and 
SFAR 36 administrators to address the differences between ODA and 
existing programs. This training is required for these organizations' 
administrators before they may be appointed under ODA. The FAA is 
planning similar training for new ODA applicants that will more 
comprehensively address all aspects of the ODA program. Because of the 
substantial differences between ODA and ODAR requirements, ODAR 
administrators will have to complete this more comprehensive training 
prior to appointment as an ODA.
    It is expected that DAS, DOA and SFAR 36 organizations will be able 
to transition to an ODA program with minimal changes to their existing 
procedures. These organizations will have to submit an application and 
make minimal changes to their procedures manuals in order to receive an 
ODA. The certification activity of existing organizations will also be 
reviewed to determine whether it is still in the FAA's interest to 
appoint the organization as an ODA. We expect that there will be 
greater impact to existing ODAR organizations, which will have to 
develop new procedures, such as internal evaluations and in-house 
training, which are not current ODAR requirements. Existing authorized 
representatives for all types of delegated organizations will be 
granted the same level of authority under the ODA program without 
additional review of their qualifications.

Impact on Individual Designee Programs

    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA expects that a significant number of 
individual designees who work for larger organizations will become 
members of an ODA Unit and give up their individual designee status. 
The FAA may allow an ODA Unit staff member to remain a designee 
provided that there is a sufficient amount of designee work outside of 
his ODA activity to warrant continuation of the designee authority. The 
FAA applies this same philosophy to existing designees that are staff 
members for DAS, DOA, or SFAR 36 organizations. As commenters to the 
NPRM note, we do not expect that the ODA program will significantly 
reduce the number of consultant DERs, and the need for consultant DERs 
will remain dependent on their level of activity.

ODA Program Final Rule

    In addition to establishing the ODA program, this final rule also 
includes revisions that standardize the duration of certificates for 
aircraft certification and flight standards individual designees; the 
designation of these individuals continues under part 183, subparts B 
and C. This final rule creates a new subpart D in part 183 that 
contains the regulations applicable to all types of organizational 
designees. This rule replaces existing DAS, DOA, SFAR 36, and ODAR 
delegation programs with a single delegation program for organizations. 
The regulations governing those other programs, subparts J and M of 
part 21, and SFAR 36, are being phased out under this rule by placing a 
suspension date of (Insert date 4 years after the effective date of 
this rule) for functions performed under those programs.

[[Page 59935]]

Disposition of Comments

    The FAA received 40 comments to the NPRM from 36 commenters. Eleven 
of the 36 commenters, including the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association (GAMA), Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream 
Aerospace), the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and 
International Aero Engines (IAE), express general support for the rule. 
Fourteen commenters oppose the rule in general, with three of them 
adding specific comments, addressed below. Comments in opposition were 
received from United Airlines, the Professional Airways Systems 
Specialists, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. This 
discussion of comments is organized by each proposed rule topic or 
section for which we received comments.
    Many of the general comments raise issues with material in the 
agency order that specifies certain details of the ODA program and 
application process. Most of those comments are considered outside the 
scope of this rulemaking since they do not address any part of the 
proposed rule language. A few of the comments regarding material in the 
draft order are addressed later in this section, but most will be 
addressed in the final version of the Order.
    Similarly, some comments make suggestions beyond the scope of FAA 
authority, such as an investigation of designee fees by the Internal 
Revenue Service. While we have reviewed all of the material submitted, 
comments such as these that transcend FAA authority and the issues of 
the proposed rule will not be addressed individually.

General Comments

    Commenters that support the ODA rule state that it will result in 
more efficient and effective use of industry and FAA resources. They 
state that the ODA rule would lighten some of the FAA workload and 
allow the FAA to better meet industry demand for certification 
activities. General Electric Aircraft Engines (GE Aircraft Engines), a 
member of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) that 
developed recommendations for an ODA rule, noted that it was 
particularly satisfying to see that the FAA had left intact the spirit 
of the recommendations developed by the ARAC. Other commenters affirm 
that the ODA program will reduce the amount of FAA oversight needed for 
individual designees, while increasing the FAA's capacity to issue 
approvals. Commenters also note that an expected benefit is the 
increased flexibility that will allow the FAA to establish additional 
delegation programs without needing to amend the rule.
    Several opposing commenters assert that previous problems with 
designees or delegated organizations indicate that delegation is not 
beneficial. They state general opposition to the idea of delegation, or 
of expanding delegation to make it available to more organizations, and 
they generally do not think it is the most efficient use of FAA 
resources. Most commenters expressing opposition did not provide 
comments to any specific part of the proposed rule.
    More than one commenter states that the FAA should be hiring more 
inspectors, not spending its limited resources creating an 
organizational designee system. Another common objection is that the 
proposed rule seeks to increase the number of designees used by the 
FAA.
    In proposing this program, the FAA is not spending money that could 
be transferred to other unspecified programs such as `hiring more 
inspectors', as suggested by commenters. The proposed ODA program is, 
at its simplest, a restatement of how we will be approving and 
overseeing organizational designees. The ODA program was not designed 
to increase the overall number of designees, but to increase the 
functions available to organizational designees. By doing so, the FAA 
hopes to reduce the number of individual designees and concentrate its 
oversight resources more effectively.
    Many of the general opposing comments note a few specific instances 
in which the designee programs have experienced problems or been the 
subject of investigation. While the FAA does not dispute that some 
designee programs have experienced problems, we believe that the 
commenters are overstating their breadth because they are unfamiliar 
with the extent of the designee programs already in use compared to the 
number of problems reported. Today's rule phases out the assortment of 
delegated organization programs we currently manage in favor of a 
single system, and both the FAA and the affected organizations will be 
operating under organizational procedures that are familiar and 
effective. This rule will make the benefits of organizational 
delegation available to more types of organizations. Further, the FAA 
is always seeking to improve its designee programs, an example of which 
is the August 2002 implementation of new oversight processes that 
outline the participation of FAA offices involved in the oversight of 
delegated organizations. Included in the oversight program are routine 
evaluations of the delegated organization's performance by FAA managing 
offices. This oversight feature is included in the ODA program.
    The FAA continues to seek input on improvements in oversight and 
management procedures for all of its designee programs. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) completed a review of the FAA designee 
system (GAO 05-40, ``FAA Needs to Strengthen the Management of its 
Designee Programs'') in October 2004. The FAA is taking steps to 
address the GAO's recommended means of improving the designee programs.
    Additionally, the FAA is implementing an internal quality 
management system that will help assess the performance of the 
delegation programs and implement any needed corrective action.

Specific Comments

    Comment: Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation opposes the rule 
because it has not been coordinated with foreign aviation authorities. 
The commenter notes that it worked with foreign authorities for years 
to gain acceptance of FAA-approved data (from designated engineering 
representatives (DERs)). Other commenters agree that it is important 
that foreign airworthiness authorities recognize approvals made by a 
designee. One commenter states that the FAA should pursue bilateral 
agreements to ensure mutual acceptance of FAA ODA and European Aviation 
Safety Agency Design Organization Approval (EASADOA) systems.
    Response: Bilateral agreements are negotiated with individual 
countries, and an agreement may or may not provide for mutual 
acceptance of designee programs. The creation of ODA should not change 
acceptance of designee approvals where they already exist in a 
bilateral agreement. Nor does the ODA system prevent the use of DER 
approvals for organizations that prefer the DER system to support their 
certification activity. The FAA expects that, at a minimum, foreign 
authorities will be more accepting of ODA-approved repair data than 
they are of data developed under SFAR 36 since SFAR 36 data is not 
considered ``FAA-approved.''
    Changing a domestic regulatory program is not, however, a means to 
presume acceptance of approved data under bilateral airworthiness 
agreements. Coordination and acceptance of such issues is neither 
simple nor accomplished quickly. The FAA has determined that it is 
better to put the ODA program in place for use

[[Page 59936]]

now and work out the more complex international acceptance issues over 
time.
    As noted, we expect no impact to existing agreements regarding 
approvals performed by an ODA Holder. However, we do not currently plan 
to allow approvals issued by an EASADOA holder to be used within an ODA 
Holder's system (or vice-versa) without authority-to-authority 
coordination and agreement. No change to the rule has been made based 
on this comment.
    Comment: One commenter does not support the rule because it is too 
costly to maintain and that the cost to the public is ``double 
taxation.'' Another commenter notes that the public deserves the safest 
and not the cheapest service.
    Response: Neither commenter was specific in its criticism of the 
costs of the ODA program; most costs associated with the program will 
be borne by the ODA Holder, and may be passed on to its customers. No 
one is required to use the services of an ODA Holder; the FAA will 
continue to do approvals directly if requested. Nor is the goal of the 
ODA program to seek out the low bidder for services. The FAA will not 
make a decision to approve an ODA Holder simply because the applicant 
claims it can do the work cheaper. Those who use the services of an ODA 
Holder may incur costs that would not occur if the FAA did the 
approval. A user may nonetheless feel justified in incurring the cost 
of the service from the ODA Holder if, for example, the Holder can do 
it faster. The existence of ODA Holders is expected to free up more FAA 
resources by allowing non-critical tasks to be accomplished by the 
designee. None of the commenters gave any specific example of why the 
ODA program would be more costly to the agency than any of the current 
designee programs, and we have no reason to think it will be so. No 
change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: One commenter says the proposed ODA program significantly 
modifies the current regulatory oversight system, deteriorating the 
established technical FAA oversight by going to a ``systems'' oversight 
approach that would provide less specific and technical FAA oversight 
and would, in time, reduce safety.
    Response: The FAA disagrees that a systems approach will provide 
less specific technical oversight, and believes it will increase 
safety. A systems approach is currently being used successfully to 
manage DAS and DOA organizations. The FAA has found that management of 
these organizations, rather than a number of individual employees that 
they might employ, is more efficient for both the FAA and industry and 
results in approvals that comply with the regulations. The FAA 
anticipates that these more effective delegation programs will increase 
safety by freeing up FAA resources for tasks more critical to safety. 
Additionally, Congress has shown support for system-based certification 
programs by mandating the issuance of Design Organization Certificates 
in the 2003 reauthorization of the FAA. Design organization 
certificates would give the certificate holder privileges similar to 
delegated organizations, but would have the authority of a certificate 
rather than a delegation. No change to the rule has been made based on 
this comment.
    Comment: One commenter asserts that while the quality of approvals 
by designees may be comparable for aircraft certification functions, it 
is not true for designees such as examiners. The commenter points out 
problems with specific examiner programs, which resulted in the re-
examination of a number of airmen.
    Response: The FAA acknowledges that problems have been identified 
in some designee programs. However, the FAA does not agree that this 
necessarily indicates that these approvals are not, as a whole, 
comparable to those performed by the FAA. Additionally, the FAA has 
taken steps to improve the oversight of its individual and 
organizational designees; the ODA program is expected to result in 
further improvements. By restructuring delegation programs toward 
organizations, oversight of individuals is reduced, allowing the FAA 
workforce to focus on individual designee oversight when needed. No 
change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: Many of the commenters, including Piper Aircraft, AIA, and 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing) say FAA review of individual ODA 
Unit members contradicts the intent of a systems approach. They also 
note current delegation rules are not based on a systems approach 
because the FAA must approve the individuals within the organization.
    Response: The FAA intends to allow ODA Holders that have had 
significant experience as a delegated organization to appoint ODA Unit 
members with a minimum level of FAA involvement. The process will 
require an ODA Holder to notify the FAA of the names of proposed staff 
members before the ODA Holder conducts a full internal evaluation. If 
the FAA has reason to object to the appointment of an individual, we 
will do so before the organization does its full evaluation. The FAA 
anticipates that at some point experienced organizations may be able to 
select staff members without FAA review of the staff members' 
qualifications and authority. However, the FAA will review the ODA Unit 
member selection decisions made by ODA Holders until they demonstrate 
that they are capable of selecting qualified personnel for the ODA 
Unit. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: Several commenters, including IAE and United Technologies 
Corporation (United Technologies), recommend an additional ODA program 
type for airworthiness approvals. The commenters state that the 
programs, as defined, could restrict the ability of existing ODARs to 
obtain an ODA without obtaining additional engineering functions.
    Response: We do not plan to have an ODA program specifically 
identified for airworthiness approvals. Although this specific program 
was not described in the draft order, the proposed functions will 
continue to be available as a delegated function under the ODA program. 
The ODA program structure allows an existing ODAR to obtain an ODA 
without requiring the addition of new functions or capabilities. No 
change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies Corporation recommend that the 
FAA either set up an audit program that does not require an ODA Holder 
to report deficiencies that will result in enforcement actions, or 
create criteria for ``safety-related'' and ``non-safety related'' audit 
findings. Under such a proposal, the organization would only have to 
report safety-related findings.
    Response: Under the FAA's compliance and enforcement program, 
voluntarily disclosed violations may not be subject to legal 
enforcement action. Requiring periodic audits by an organization is 
consistent with similar requirements imposed on certificate holders. 
The FAA expects ODA Holders to take an active role in the 
identification and resolution of deficiencies, including, non-
compliances. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: GAMA, IAE, and United Technologies, among others, 
recommend that the FAA provide the public a chance to comment on 
whether a specific function should be delegated, and state that changes 
to the ODA program should be noted in the Federal Register. One 
commenter suggests that the public also be invited to comment on each 
applicant's qualifications.

[[Page 59937]]

    Response: The FAA agrees that the public should be notified and 
given opportunity to provide input on proposed ODA programs. The FAA 
plans to continue its practice of publishing notice of proposed 
policies that implement new or changed programs such as ODA.
    The FAA does not agree that it is appropriate to publish the names 
of applicants and request public comment on their qualifications. We do 
not have such a process for other designee programs, and decisions are 
based on the FAA's expertise and experience working with individual 
organizations. Public comment raises issues of bias against individuals 
and organizations and we would have to determine whether the person 
providing the comment was qualified to assess the applicant. The FAA is 
comfortable with its experience regarding determinations of an 
applicant's qualifications. No change to the rule has been made based 
on this comment.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies note that it would be a burden 
to industry if DMIRs and ODA Holders can't perform functions on the 
same project. They reference language in the NPRM preamble, which 
states that organizations that currently have individual designees 
could operate under both systems (but not on the same project or 
program).
    Response: The FAA acknowledges that the NPRM language may have been 
confusing. The referenced language specifically applies to design 
approval projects, such as Type Certificate (TC) programs, issuing 
STCs, and developing PMA design approvals. For these types of projects, 
it is expected that all engineering and inspection functions related to 
the project would be performed under the ODA authority, rather than 
another designee program.
    ODA Holders with DMIRs could continue to use both ODA and DMIR 
approvals on FAA-managed projects. All authorities and capabilities 
available in the ODAR system are available under the ODA program. The 
FAA anticipates that the need for separate DMIRs will decrease, since 
all delegated inspection and production functions are available under 
the ODA program. No change to the rule has been made based on this 
comment.
    Comment: The United States Parachute Association (USPA) comments 
that parachute operations functions are not mentioned in the draft ODA 
order, but are provided for in the proposed rule language. The USPA 
fears that if the authority to issue parachute operations approvals is 
delegated, it could be held liable for issuing certificates of 
authorization currently issued by the FAA. The USPA does not believe 
this delegation is appropriate.
    Response: The FAA agrees that a delegation of the approvals could 
negatively impact the long-standing safety record of parachute 
operations by introducing less-experienced third parties into the 
process. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that authorizations or 
waivers related to parachute operations will not be delegated at this 
time. Based on this comment, we have changed the rule language to 
remove all references to part 105 or parachute operations.

Comments on Specific Proposed Rule Language

    Section titles are those from the proposed rule, and may differ 
from those in the final rule.
Section 183.1 Scope
    Comment: Several commenters request clarification of the term 
``private organization'' as used in Sec.  183.1(b), since the 
introductory text of that section uses the term ``private persons.'' 
One commenter suggests including a definition of ``private 
organization'' in the introductory text of Sec.  183.1 or in Sec.  
183.41 (Applicability and definitions).
    Response: As defined in 14 CFR part 1, ``person'' includes both an 
individual and an organization. Section 183.1 seeks to distinguish an 
individual from an organization for purposes of designation under part 
183. Both individuals and organizations may receive a designation, but 
the ODA rule only applies to organizations. No change to the rule has 
been made based on this comment.
Section 183.15 Duration of Certificates
    Comment: Two commenters, including IAE and United Technologies, ask 
if the duration and renewal of certificates as proposed under this 
section are applicable to individual ODA Unit members.
    Response: The language in Sec.  183.15 only applies to individual 
designees under other programs, not to the individuals within the ODA 
Unit. ODA Unit members are not considered appointed by the FAA and 
their appointment is not subject to renewal by the FAA. However, the 
ODA Holder will have to periodically assess the individuals within 
their ODA Unit. No change to the rule has been made based on this 
comment.
Section 183.41 Applicability and Definitions
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the current ODAR 
program only requires one focal point. They propose that ODA should 
also allow a single focal point.
    Response: The commenters misunderstood the proposed rule. Proposed 
Sec.  183.41(b)(1) defines the authorized representatives within the 
ODA Unit. While there must be at least two authorized individuals 
within an ODA Holder's organization, only one ODA administrator is 
required. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment. 
Section 183.41 has been reformatted, and the definition of ``ODA Unit'' 
in paragraph (b) has been clarified.
Section 183.47 Eligibility (Now Titled Qualifications)
    Comment: Many commenters, including GE Aircraft Engines, Gulfstream 
Aerospace, and Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon Aircraft) recommend 
that the FAA permit foreign organizations located in foreign countries 
to obtain ODAs. They note that the FAA could use its ``no undue 
burden'' concept to determine eligibility for foreign organizations, 
and that such organizations would help enhance the relationship between 
the United States and foreign countries.
    Response: The FAA agrees in part. Although DERs currently must be 
located within the United States, the FAA has appointed a limited 
number of airworthiness and manufacturing designees that are located in 
foreign countries. We agree that the regulatory language should not 
prevent foreign eligibility, and we have removed the phrase, ``located 
within the United States'', from proposed Sec.  183.47(a)(1). The 
regulations for the individual designee programs do not restrict 
eligibility to persons in the United States. The limitations for each 
designee type are included in the policies for managing these programs. 
Similarly, the FAA might place a limitation on appointing ODA Holders 
in foreign countries in the associated FAA policy. The rule has been 
changed as noted to reflect this comment.
    Comment: Texas Air Composites states that the FAA should revise 
Sec.  183.47(a) to state that the applicant has ``personnel with 
sufficient experience'', rather than the organization. Otherwise, it 
could be misconstrued that the organization must have the experience. 
This could result in start-up or recently formed companies with 
qualified personnel not being granted an ODA because the organization 
is new.
    Response: The experience requirement is meant to apply to the 
organization. Although an organization may have experienced 
individuals, that

[[Page 59938]]

group of individuals must have experience working with each other and 
with the FAA as an organization. This is the only way for the FAA to 
determine that they are qualified, and whether there is a need for the 
authorization. Recently formed companies would not be eligible until 
they gain the necessary experience and demonstrate that, historically, 
they have sufficient workload to justify the authorization. No change 
to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the FAA must 
identify the criteria the agency will use to determine when a qualified 
organization will not be granted an ODA. Texas Air Composites further 
notes that not granting an ODA to a qualified applicant could result in 
a financial disadvantage.
    Response: A fundamental principle of delegation is the FAA's 
discretion in appointing designees and delegated organizations. Even if 
qualified, an organization is not entitled to an authorization, and the 
FAA does not make delegation decisions based solely on an applicant's 
desire to have an authorization. Authorizations will be based on the 
need for the functions requested. Thus, we expect to give priority to 
organizations with demonstrated expertise and a large workload. In some 
cases, we expect it may be beneficial for the FAA to manage an 
organization's activity using individual designees. It is not possible 
to state all the reasons that the FAA might have to deny an 
application. The primary considerations will always be the need for the 
authorization and the ability of the FAA to oversee the organization's 
activity. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: Regarding proposed Sec.  183.47(b)(1), IAE and United 
Technologies state the FAA should include Production Certificate and 
Technical Standard Order Authorization to the list of certificates used 
to establish eligibility. Also, regarding proposed Sec.  183.47(d), a 
commenter believes the proposed regulatory language could be 
interpreted to deny an ODA to a company that holds a type certificate 
that was transferred into the company. The commenter suggests the FAA 
revise the language to clarify that those companies holding a 
transferred type certificate are eligible for an ODA.
    Response: The FAA agrees that the proposed language of this section 
could be misinterpreted. Section 183.47 has been significantly modified 
to clarify that eligibility is based solely on experience performing 
the functions sought, and the title of the section changed to 
Qualifications. The proposed language identified many different 
certificate holders as eligible for ODA, but did not specify the 
authority available for each type of certificate holder.
    Holding a certificate is not an eligibility requirement for ODA. 
However, most functions authorized under the ODA program require the 
applicant to have been issued and hold a certificate related to the 
function. The only aircraft certification functions currently 
anticipated for non-certificate holders are the approval of major 
alteration and major repair data. Our draft order states that functions 
such as issuing STCs or PMA supplements require the applicant to have 
previously obtained such certificates from the FAA. The language in 
Sec.  183.47 has been revised to require only experience performing the 
desired function and experience with related FAA procedures and 
policies. The list of certificates has been removed from the rule 
language. The specific eligibility requirements for the available 
programs and functions are described in the associated FAA policy.
    Comment: Several commenters, including IAE, United Technologies, 
Matsushita Avionics System Corporation and Gulfstream Aerospace 
recommend that the FAA make holders of PMAs that were granted by 
license eligible for an ODA. They state that PMA holders seeking 
production approval functions should not be required to have experience 
in both design and production approval to obtain an ODA. This would be 
an additional requirement from the ODAR system. The commenters 
recommend proposed Sec.  183.47(c) be reworded as follows: ``An 
applicant seeking function in the area of production must have for the 
product, components, parts, or appliances for which the applicant is 
seeking designation authorization, a current PC, TSOA or PMA issued 
under Part 21 of this chapter.''
    Response: The FAA agrees. A PMA holder may apply for an ODA to 
perform production and airworthiness functions even if it does not have 
any engineering design experience. As noted above, the qualification 
requirement has been revised to require only experience performing the 
desired function and experience with related FAA procedures and 
policies. The details of the specific eligibility requirements for the 
available programs and functions will be more fully described in the 
associated policy.
Section 183.49 Authorized Functions
    Comment: Electronic Cable Specialists comments that the preamble 
language indicates that the FAA is not considering delegation of PMAs. 
The commenter states that design approvals for PMAs should be a part of 
the ODA program.
    Response: The FAA agrees that an ODA Holder may issue PMA 
supplements. However, the FAA has never delegated the issuance of an 
original PMA, and we do not intend to do so under ODA. No change to the 
rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: One commenter states that proposed Sec.  183.49(c)(1) and 
(c)(3) appear to duplicate the provisions of Sec.  183.29. The 
commenter believes that allowing DERs and ODA Unit members to perform 
the same functions would double the FAA's oversight workload.
    Response: The FAA disagrees. The commenter presumes that a DER and 
ODA Unit member would be performing the same function. Although these 
proposed sections provide for functions similar to those performed by a 
DER, the performance of a function under an ODA is separate and 
distinct from a function performed by an individual designee. As such, 
oversight of ODA functions is separate from any individual designee 
oversight. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: One commenter recommends that the rule should have a 
subparagraph to denote inherently governmental functions that may not 
be delegated.
    Response: Listing inherently governmental functions is not 
consistent with accepted regulatory drafting, or with the intent of 
this rule. The FAA's delegation regulations define only those functions 
that may be accomplished by designees. We have revised proposed Sec.  
183.49 by removing any reference to specific functions. The ODA rule 
allows the delegation of any function allowed by 49 U.S.C. 44702(d). No 
change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: AIA and Boeing note that the proposal does not indicate 
whether the ODA program will apply to part 34 (emissions) or part 36 
(aircraft noise) standards. The commenters state that delegation in 
these areas would be a significant opportunity to gain efficiency in 
the certification process with no associated safety risk. They request 
that the rule state that parts 34 and 36 are included.
    Response: The FAA does not agree that the rule should specifically 
note application to parts 34 and 36. As revised, the rule allows 
designees to make findings of compliance with any FAA requirements. The 
FAA anticipates that ODA Holders may perform noise

[[Page 59939]]

and emission-related functions to the extent currently performed by 
DERs, but does not expect an expansion of the authorized functions 
under the ODA program. No change to the rule has been made based on 
this comment.
Section 183.51 ODA Unit Personnel (Proposed Sec.  183.51 Personnel)
    Comment: Piper Aircraft recommends a provision in the rule or FAA 
policy requiring that ODA Unit members receive training similar to that 
of FAA personnel.
    Response: The FAA disagrees that ODA Unit members need the same 
training as FAA personnel. Training requirements may not be appropriate 
for all types of ODA Unit members that may exist under an ODA program. 
For example, engineers may perform limited functions of a repetitive 
nature, such as burn test approvals, for which there is no associated 
FAA training. When appropriate, the training requirements for ODA Unit 
members will be defined in the FAA policy, but they are not appropriate 
to include in the rule language. No change to the rule has been made 
based on this comment.
    Comment: One commenter states that the rule should specify that ODA 
staff members and ODA Unit Members must be United States citizens, must 
be subjected to the same background check as FAA employees, and must 
live in the United States.
    Response: The FAA disagrees. Neither United States citizenship nor 
a federal employee background check are qualifications currently 
imposed on individual designees. Further, staff members of delegated 
organizations are not required to be United States citizens, nor are 
they subject to background checks by the FAA. The FAA expects that some 
ODA Holders will have staff members in foreign countries performing 
functions for them. The associated FAA orders will include any 
limitations regarding staff members in foreign countries. No change to 
the rule has been made based on this comment.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the experience for 
determining conformity and issuing airworthiness approvals should be in 
inspection, not aircraft certification.
    Response: The FAA agrees that inspection and related experience is 
appropriate for conformity and airworthiness approvals. Accordingly, we 
have removed the phrase ``in aircraft certification'' from Sec.  
183.51(b).
    Comment: One commenter notes that the terms ``qualified'' and 
``experienced'' are subject to many interpretations. The rule should be 
more specific in explaining what these terms mean.
    Response: The FAA disagrees. Specifying what qualified and 
experienced means in the many possible types of administrators and 
personnel that might be needed in an ODA organization is inappropriate 
for regulatory standards. The language is consistent with other 
designee rules currently used by the FAA, and delegation remains at the 
discretion of the FAA. More detail regarding qualifications for ODA 
positions can be found in the associated FAA orders. No change to the 
rule has been made based on this comment.
Section 183.53 Procedures Manual
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the continued 
airworthiness requirements in proposed Sec.  183.53(n) (revised as 
Sec.  183.53(b)(13)) should be applicable only to engineering 
functions, and not to production approval holders.
    Response: The FAA disagrees. The procedures manual requirement 
applies to ODA Holders performing either engineering design or 
manufacturing-related approvals. Manufacturing issues not specifically 
related to the engineering or type design functions may lead to service 
difficulties and require investigation by an ODA holder. While no 
change to the rule has been made based on this comment, the proposed 
requirement is now contained in Sec.  183.53(c)(13) referencing 
continued responsibilities.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies recommend rewording the last 
sentence of the introductory text of Sec.  183.53 regarding changes to 
the procedures manual, stating that there may be instances when the FAA 
will authorize an ODA Holder to implement minor changes to the manual 
without FAA approval. They suggest revising the sentence to state 
``Changes may be implemented prior to FAA approval in accordance with 
the change procedure in the manual.''
    Response: The FAA agrees that certain minor changes to the manual 
may be made without prior approval. However, the procedures manual must 
specify the types of changes that may be adopted without FAA approval. 
Proposed Sec.  183.53 has been revised and its paragraphs redesignated. 
Section 183.53(b) allows certain changes to be made to the manual, and 
to require that the manual describe the types of changes that may be 
incorporated without specific FAA approval.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the regulation is 
too detailed regarding the content of the procedures manual. The 
commenters fear that stating the content as a minimum requirement will 
discourage the adoption of industry practices that exceed the 
requirements in the regulation. They note that the details of 
procedures manuals are usually in Orders and advisory circulars.
    Response: The FAA has determined that it is appropriate to specify 
procedures manual requirements in the regulation. Since this section of 
the rule defines only the required content of the manual, rather than 
how to perform authorized functions, ODA Holders will still be free to 
introduce good practices that satisfy the requirements. No change to 
the rule has been made based on this comment.
Section 183.55 Limitations
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies Corporation suggest changing 
Sec.  183.55(b) to add the term ``significant,'' since minor changes 
within an ODA Unit may not affect the Unit's qualifications.
    Response: The FAA disagrees. The addition of the term 
``significant'' would have no impact on the requirements of this 
paragraph. If changes within the ODA Unit or ODA Holder do not affect 
the qualifications of the ODA Unit or Holder, or the ability of the ODA 
Unit to perform authorized functions, then they do not have to be 
reported. No change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
Section 183.57 Responsibilities of an ODA Holder
    Comment: Raytheon Aircraft and GAMA comment on the language of 
proposed Sec.  183.57(c), which specifies that the ODA Holder must 
``Ensure that no interference or conflicting restraints are placed on 
the ODA Unit or on the personnel performing the designated functions 
while complying with this part and the approved procedures manual.'' 
They state that the proposed language is not consistent with existing 
wording used in FAA Order 8100.9, paragraph 3-3(a). The commenters 
question why this section is different from the language of the 
existing order. Since the intent is the same, one commenter recommends 
that the FAA adopt wording similar to that in Order 8100.9. That Order 
states ``The authorization holder must ensure that the administrator 
and ARs [Authorized Representatives] remain free of any restraints that 
would limit the DOA's, DAS's, or SFAR 36's ability to ensure that 
authorized functions are performed in compliance with FAA 
regulations.''
    Response: The FAA agrees that the intent of the proposed language 
is

[[Page 59940]]

similar to that stated in Order 8100.9. However, we have determined 
that the language used in the rule is preferable for the purpose of 
regulation since it also prohibits interference with the ODA Unit by 
the ODA Holder. No change to the rule has been made based on this 
comment.
Section 183.63 Records and Reports (Proposed Sec.  183.61)
    Comment: Two commenters state that the requirement to submit data 
in the proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(3) should not apply to airworthiness 
certificates, export approvals, the production limitation records or 
``any other approval authorized under this subpart.'' One commenter 
points out that production limitation record requirements are already 
addressed in the proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(2), and that the retention 
requirements for airworthiness certificates and approvals should be 
consistent with record retention requirements imposed on other 
designees. The commenters recommend deletion of proposed Sec.  
183.63(b)(6) for the same reasons. The same commenters recommend 
conformity inspection records and airworthiness approvals be maintained 
for two years rather than indefinitely as proposed.
    Response: The FAA agrees in part. Airworthiness certificates or 
approvals are generally maintained for two years by most types of 
designees. The final rule adopts a two-year requirement for those ODA 
Holders that only issue these types of certificates or approvals. 
However, ODA Holders that perform type design approvals, such as TC and 
STC programs, are required to maintain records typically submitted to 
and maintained by the FAA as part of standard certification projects. 
The airworthiness certificates or approvals associated with such design 
approval projects must be maintained indefinitely. As revised, Sec.  
183.61(a)(2) requires indefinite retention of airworthiness 
certificates or approvals performed as part of type design programs, 
and revised Sec.  183.61(c) requires retention of other airworthiness 
approvals or certificates for two years. The FAA agrees that reference 
to production limitation record data in the proposed section Sec.  
183.63(b)(3) duplicated the requirement for the production certificate 
in the proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(2). The requirement for production 
related records has also been incorporated in revised 183.61(a)(2). The 
retention requirement of proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(6) is also 
incorporated in the revised 183.61(a)(2) as a general requirement for 
all approvals, rather than a stand-alone requirement.
    Comment: Two commenters recommend retaining the periodic audit and 
records of corrective action required under proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(9) 
for two years rather than indefinitely.
    Response: The FAA agrees that these records need not be retained 
indefinitely. However, we consider periodic audit records an important 
means to document an organization's continued compliance with the 
requirements for the authorization. Two years may not be adequate in 
all cases, since the planned oversight evaluation interval of two years 
could result in the development and destruction of these records before 
review of the corrective action by the FAA. To ensure adequate 
documentation for oversight of the ODA Holder, Sec.  183.61(b) requires 
these records be maintained for five years.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the two year record 
retention requirements in proposed Sec.  183.63(c)(1) should not be 
applied to a production approval holder (PAH) that holds an ODA since 
it is not required for an FAA inspector or designee. They add that part 
21 already specifies the inspection data requirement for PAHs.
    Response: The FAA agrees. While such requirements are not imposed 
on individual designees, the requirement is contained in the existing 
DOA rules. While necessary under the DOA rule, the FAA agrees that it 
is not necessary under the ODA program since the other production 
approval holder requirements in part 21 apply. The requirement proposed 
in Sec.  183.63(c)(1) has been removed.
    Comment: IAE and United Technologies state that the requirement of 
proposed Sec.  183.63(b)(4) for an ODA Holder to maintain a list of 
products on which it has performed an authorized function should apply 
only to ``authorized engineering functions.'' The commenter points out 
that records retention for manufacturing functions should be the same 
as for other designees.
    Response: The FAA disagrees that the list requirement should apply 
only to engineering functions. The purpose of this requirement is to 
maintain a list of the specific products for which the ODA holder 
issues approvals. For example, a manufacturer authorized to issue 
airworthiness certificates is required to maintain a list of the 
aircraft for which it issued airworthiness certificates, and a repair 
station authorized to approve alteration data is required to maintain a 
list of the aircraft for which it has approved alteration data. We have 
removed the proposed language specifying the means of identification, 
but no change to the rule has been made based on this comment.
Section 183.65 Data Review and Service Experience (Now Sec.  183.63 
Continuing Requirements: Products, Parts or Appliances)
    Comment: AIA states that proposed Sec.  183.65(b) would require an 
ODA Unit to submit information necessary for the FAA to implement 
corrective action. The ODA Unit is the interface between the ODA Holder 
and the FAA. A certificate holder's obligation to develop and submit 
information under Sec.  21.99 and Sec.  21.277(b) remains in effect.