Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals, 63797-63800 [E7-22111]

Download as PDF rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations outbreaks of the disease were confirmed in the departments of Artigas, Canelones, Colonia, Duranzo, Flores, Florida, Lavalleja, Maldonado, Paysandu, Rio Negro, Rivera, Rocha, Salto, San Jose, Tacuarembo, and Treinta y Tres. In response to the spread of FMD within Uruguay, we issued an interim rule effective April 2, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36695–36697, Docket No. 00–111–2), that amended the regulations by removing Uruguay from the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and FMD and from the list of regions that, although rinderpest and FMD-free, are subject to certain restrictions on the importation of meat and other animal products. Comments on the interim rule of July 13, 2001, were required to be received on or before September 11, 2001. We did not receive any comments. Although we removed Uruguay from the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD, we recognized in that interim rule that Uruguay’s Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries had responded immediately to the detection of the disease by imposing restrictions on the movements of ruminants and swine from the affected areas and by initiating several measures to eradicate the disease. For this reason, we stated that we intended to reassess the situation in accordance with the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) at a future date. Since that time, we have undertaken a reassessment of Uruguay’s disease status. While we acknowledge the many efforts Uruguay has made to control and eradicate FMD within its departments since the interim rule was published, we have received no data suggesting that our disease classification of the country is in error, or supporting the return of Uruguay to FMD-free status. However, we note that while it was necessary to remove Uruguay from the list in § 94.1(a)(2) of regions that are declared to be free of both FMD and rinderpest, the disease situation that led to that action involved only FMD. Therefore, it is possible to include Uruguay on the list of regions declared to be free of rinderpest. Accordingly, this final rule amends § 94.1(a)(3) by adding Uruguay to the list of regions declared to be free of rinderpest. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the change discussed in this document. This final rule also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:06 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. I Accordingly, the interim rule amending 9 CFR part 94 that was published at 66 FR 36695–36697 on July 13, 2001, is adopted as a final rule with the following change: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 371.4. 2. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows: I § 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists; importations prohibited. (a) * * * (3) The following regions are declared to be free of rinderpest: Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, and Uruguay. * * * * * Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of November 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7–22091 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–34–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 21 [Docket No. FAA–2006–25877; Amendment No. 21–91] RIN 2120–AI78 Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 63797 SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its requirements to allow the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products located at facilities outside the United States. The FAA proposed this change in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on October 5, 2006. That NPRM proposed comprehensive changes to 14 CFR part 21 to standardize production and airworthiness requirements for production approval holders. This final rule expedites the promulgation of a simple and uncontroversial portion of that rulemaking. The FAA intends to issue a separate final rule on other proposals in that NPRM. DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this final rule, contact John Linsenmeyer, Production Certification Branch, AIR– 220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493–5571; facsimile (202) 267–5580, email john.linsenmeyer@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking Under the laws of the United States, the Department of Transportation has the responsibility to develop transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation (49 U.S.C. 101). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA or ‘‘we’’) is an agency of the Department. The FAA has general authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum standards for appliances and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers (49 U.S.C. 106(g) and 44701). We may also prescribe regulations in the interest of safety for registering and identifying an aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance (49 U.S.C. 44104). The FAA may issue, among other things, type certificates, production certificates and airworthiness certificates (49 U.S.C. 44702). We issue a production certificate authorizing the production of a duplicate of an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance for which a type certificate has been issued when we find the duplicate will conform to the certificate. We may include in a production certificate terms required in the interest of safety. We issue an airworthiness certificate for an aircraft when we find the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. We may include in an airworthiness certificate E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 63798 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations terms required in the interest of safety (49 U.S.C. 44704). This document adopts a change to our regulations governing the certification procedures for products and parts. This change will make it easier for manufacturers to produce and obtain aircraft parts in the global marketplace, which should aid the efficiency and competitiveness of the industry. For these reasons, this final rule is a reasonable and necessary exercise of the FAA’s rulemaking authority and obligations. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Background On October 5, 2006, the FAA issued an NPRM to amend its certification procedures and identification requirements for aeronautical products and parts (71 FR 58914). Included in that NPRM was a proposed change to § 21.325(b)(3) to allow an export airworthiness approval to be issued for a product or article located outside of the U.S. if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering its regulations (Emphasis added). One aspect of the proposed change was to substitute the words ‘‘product or article’’ for ‘‘Class II and III products.’’ This change was part of a comprehensive effort to standardize terminology throughout part 21. Because the NPRM has not yet been adopted, this final rule allows for the issuance of export airworthiness approvals outside the U.S., but it retains the reference to ‘‘Class II and III products.’’ Summary of Comments The FAA received one comment on our proposed changes to the regulations affecting export airworthiness approvals. The Aviation Suppliers Association noted that the proposal still imposes an obligation to apply to the FAA for the ‘‘no undue burden’’ analysis. In the commenter’s view, such an analysis is not necessary. Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) must already receive permission to operate outside his or her geographic region. If the DAR has the authority to operate and make findings outside the U.S., then the DAR should also be permitted to issue an export airworthiness approval. An ‘‘undue burden analysis’’ would be duplicative and a waste of Government resources. The commenter recommends removal of the ‘‘undue burden analysis.’’ The FAA disagrees with the commenter. Pursuant to Title 49 of the United States Code, the Administrator of the FAA may delegate to a qualified private person a matter related to the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:06 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 However, these assignees work on behalf of the Administrator. Ultimately, the FAA has a statutory responsibility to inspect products and determine their airworthiness status. We use the undue burden determination to ensure, with FAA’s limited resources, we can meet the requirements of Title 49; our obligations under that statute cannot by circumvented by application of a rule. Discussion of the Final Rule Part 21, Subpart L contains regulations for exporting aviation products. This rulemaking amends the regulations governing how export airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products are issued. Export airworthiness approvals are used to identify the airworthiness status of a particular product. Specifically, export airworthiness approvals attest that a particular product conforms to the approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. These approvals provide a certain level of assurance that a product or part that has been placed in the aviation stream of commerce poses a negligible risk to the flying public. They serve both civil aviation authorities approving the products for import and the end-user who places them into service. Although export approvals are required only when requested by the importing civil airworthiness authority, these documents have become increasingly valued in the aviation industry. Products and parts with an airworthiness approval have increased sales potential over those same parts that do not have an approval. This rulemaking amends Subpart L to allow the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products, regardless of their location. Previously, the rule only permitted approvals to be issued for these products manufactured and located in the United States. When § 21.325(b)(3) was adopted (30 FR 8465, Jul. 2, 1965), the international market for aviation products was minimal compared with today’s international market. Additionally, FAA resources were limited for issuing export airworthiness approvals outside the United States. However, FAA designees are now available to issue export airworthiness approvals for production approval holders (PAHs) and other exporters. This rulemaking relieves the past restriction on issuing approvals, as well as the public’s burden of petitioning for exemptions, by allowing export airworthiness approvals to be issued for any Class II or Class III product located in another country, if the FAA finds no undue burden in PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 administering its requirements. Consequently, a PAH may direct ship its products from a supplier facility without first shipping the product to the United States to obtain an export airworthiness approval. Certificate management and designee oversight responsibilities are examples of potential burdens on the FAA. For the PAHs, the assessment of undue burden related to issuing an export airworthiness approval would be performed during the FAA’s undue burden assessment of a prospective production facility located outside the United States. Part of this assessment is a determination by the FAA that the PAH has established and implemented supplier control procedures that are acceptable to the FAA. The FAA has granted many petitions for exemption to § 21.325(b)(3), and this rulemaking will resolve the direct-ship issue that prompted organizations to request them. Expediting this rulemaking results in a more efficient disposition of those petitions for exemption. For the reasons stated above, this final rule adds new paragraph § 21.325(b)(4) which allows export airworthiness approvals to be issued for Class II and III products located outside of the United States if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and subchapter C of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Paperwork Reduction Act Information collection requirements associated with this final rule have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0721. An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this final rule. E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Public Law 96–39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Regulatory Evaluation Summary This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the economic impact of this rule. It also includes summaries of the final regulatory flexibility analysis, international trade impact assessment, and the unfunded mandate assessment. For more information, we suggest readers go to the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:06 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking This Regulatory Evaluation examines the impact of an FAA rule allowing for the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for Class II (major components) and Class III (parts and components) products located at facilities outside the United States. Export airworthiness approvals are required by the FAA only if required by the importing country. Consequently, there is no issue of ‘‘market failure’’, at least from the perspective of the United States. As this rule relieves regulatory burden, there are cost-relieving benefits and no costs. The FAA estimates the annual cost savings from this rule to be $11,867,500. As the rule is a procedural change with no front-loaded costs, we use a 10-year period of analysis. Discounting this stream of annual cost savings (at 7%) for ten years yields a present value of approximately $83 million. Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking This rule potentially affects directly all production approval holders, including holders of Production Certificates, Technical Standard Order Authorizations, and Parts Manufacturer Approvals. The rule also potentially affects distributors, importers and exporters of airplane parts, air operators and carriers, and the flying public. Assumptions This evaluation makes the following assumptions: • This rule would become effective on January 1, 2008. • The discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A–94, ‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs’’, October 29, 1992, p. 8). • The period of analysis is the 10-year period, 2008–2017. • For purposes of discounting, cost savings are conventionally assumed to occur at the end of the year. (If assumed to occur at the beginning of the year, the discounted present value of the cost savings increases by 7%.) Changes From the NPRM to the Final Rule • The effective date of the rule changes from 18 months after publication in the Federal Register to effective on January 1, 2008. • The period of analysis changes from 2009–2018 to 2008–2017. • The base year changes from 2005 to 2008. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 63799 Benefits of This Rulemaking The FAA estimates the present discounted value of the benefits of this rule to be approximately $83 million. Costs of This Rulemaking As this rule relieves regulatory burden, there are no costs of this rule. Alternatives Considered The Status Quo—The status quo represents a situation in which the FAA would continue to issue exemptions from § 21.325(b)(3) indefinitely. As that would perpetuate ‘‘rulemaking by exemption,’’ we choose not to continue with the status quo. Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.’’ The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the rules proposed in the NPRM found a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This result was reported in the NPRM and the full IRFA was placed in the docket (FAA–2006–25877), along with the Initial Regulatory Analysis, and was also published in the Federal Register (72 FR 6968, February 14, 2007). This final rule, however, is cost relieving and, therefore, imposes no E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 63800 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations economic cost on small entities. Moreover, we did not receive any comments regarding the small entity impact of this part of the NPRM. Therefore as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 308(b) and involves no extraordinary circumstances. may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/ regulations_policies/rulemaking/ sbre_act/. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined it would promote international trade by reducing the cost of export airworthiness approvals for Class II products (major components) and Class III products (parts and components). Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the executive order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Aircraft, Certification procedures for products and parts, Export airworthiness approvals. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by— 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov; 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at http:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 3. Accessing the Government Printing Office’s Web page at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you RIN 2120–AA64 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:35 Nov 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21 The Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: I PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS 1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: I 2. Amend § 21.325 by adding new paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: I § 21.325 Export airworthiness approvals. * * * * * (b)* * * (4) Class II and III products located outside of the United States if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering the applicable requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter. * * * * * Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2007. Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E7–22111 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2007–28828; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–010–AD; Amendment 39–15258; AD 2007–23–12] Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63797-63800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22111]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Amendment No. 21-91]
RIN 2120-AI78


Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and 
Miscellaneous Proposals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its requirements to allow the issuance of 
export airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products located at 
facilities outside the United States. The FAA proposed this change in a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on October 5, 2006. That 
NPRM proposed comprehensive changes to 14 CFR part 21 to standardize 
production and airworthiness requirements for production approval 
holders. This final rule expedites the promulgation of a simple and 
uncontroversial portion of that rulemaking. The FAA intends to issue a 
separate final rule on other proposals in that NPRM.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this final rule, contact John Linsenmeyer, Production Certification 
Branch, AIR-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493-5571; facsimile 
(202) 267-5580, e-mail john.linsenmeyer@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Under the laws of the United States, the Department of 
Transportation has the responsibility to develop transportation 
policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, 
efficient, and convenient transportation (49 U.S.C. 101). The Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA or ``we'') is an agency of the Department. 
The FAA has general authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, 
including minimum standards for appliances and for the design, 
material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, 
aircraft engines, and propellers (49 U.S.C. 106(g) and 44701). We may 
also prescribe regulations in the interest of safety for registering 
and identifying an aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance (49 U.S.C. 
44104).
    The FAA may issue, among other things, type certificates, 
production certificates and airworthiness certificates (49 U.S.C. 
44702). We issue a production certificate authorizing the production of 
a duplicate of an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance 
for which a type certificate has been issued when we find the duplicate 
will conform to the certificate. We may include in a production 
certificate terms required in the interest of safety. We issue an 
airworthiness certificate for an aircraft when we find the aircraft 
conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation. We 
may include in an airworthiness certificate

[[Page 63798]]

terms required in the interest of safety (49 U.S.C. 44704).
    This document adopts a change to our regulations governing the 
certification procedures for products and parts. This change will make 
it easier for manufacturers to produce and obtain aircraft parts in the 
global marketplace, which should aid the efficiency and competitiveness 
of the industry. For these reasons, this final rule is a reasonable and 
necessary exercise of the FAA's rulemaking authority and obligations.

Background

    On October 5, 2006, the FAA issued an NPRM to amend its 
certification procedures and identification requirements for 
aeronautical products and parts (71 FR 58914). Included in that NPRM 
was a proposed change to Sec.  21.325(b)(3) to allow an export 
airworthiness approval to be issued for a product or article located 
outside of the U.S. if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering 
its regulations (Emphasis added). One aspect of the proposed change was 
to substitute the words ``product or article'' for ``Class II and III 
products.'' This change was part of a comprehensive effort to 
standardize terminology throughout part 21. Because the NPRM has not 
yet been adopted, this final rule allows for the issuance of export 
airworthiness approvals outside the U.S., but it retains the reference 
to ``Class II and III products.''

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received one comment on our proposed changes to the 
regulations affecting export airworthiness approvals. The Aviation 
Suppliers Association noted that the proposal still imposes an 
obligation to apply to the FAA for the ``no undue burden'' analysis. In 
the commenter's view, such an analysis is not necessary. Designated 
Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) must already receive permission to 
operate outside his or her geographic region. If the DAR has the 
authority to operate and make findings outside the U.S., then the DAR 
should also be permitted to issue an export airworthiness approval. An 
``undue burden analysis'' would be duplicative and a waste of 
Government resources. The commenter recommends removal of the ``undue 
burden analysis.''
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter. Pursuant to Title 49 of the 
United States Code, the Administrator of the FAA may delegate to a 
qualified private person a matter related to the examination, testing, 
and inspection necessary to issue a certificate. However, these 
assignees work on behalf of the Administrator. Ultimately, the FAA has 
a statutory responsibility to inspect products and determine their 
airworthiness status. We use the undue burden determination to ensure, 
with FAA's limited resources, we can meet the requirements of Title 49; 
our obligations under that statute cannot by circumvented by 
application of a rule.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    Part 21, Subpart L contains regulations for exporting aviation 
products. This rulemaking amends the regulations governing how export 
airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products are issued. 
Export airworthiness approvals are used to identify the airworthiness 
status of a particular product. Specifically, export airworthiness 
approvals attest that a particular product conforms to the approved 
design and is in a condition for safe operation. These approvals 
provide a certain level of assurance that a product or part that has 
been placed in the aviation stream of commerce poses a negligible risk 
to the flying public. They serve both civil aviation authorities 
approving the products for import and the end-user who places them into 
service. Although export approvals are required only when requested by 
the importing civil airworthiness authority, these documents have 
become increasingly valued in the aviation industry. Products and parts 
with an airworthiness approval have increased sales potential over 
those same parts that do not have an approval.
    This rulemaking amends Subpart L to allow the issuance of export 
airworthiness approvals for Class II and III products, regardless of 
their location. Previously, the rule only permitted approvals to be 
issued for these products manufactured and located in the United 
States.
    When Sec.  21.325(b)(3) was adopted (30 FR 8465, Jul. 2, 1965), the 
international market for aviation products was minimal compared with 
today's international market. Additionally, FAA resources were limited 
for issuing export airworthiness approvals outside the United States. 
However, FAA designees are now available to issue export airworthiness 
approvals for production approval holders (PAHs) and other exporters. 
This rulemaking relieves the past restriction on issuing approvals, as 
well as the public's burden of petitioning for exemptions, by allowing 
export airworthiness approvals to be issued for any Class II or Class 
III product located in another country, if the FAA finds no undue 
burden in administering its requirements. Consequently, a PAH may 
direct ship its products from a supplier facility without first 
shipping the product to the United States to obtain an export 
airworthiness approval.
    Certificate management and designee oversight responsibilities are 
examples of potential burdens on the FAA. For the PAHs, the assessment 
of undue burden related to issuing an export airworthiness approval 
would be performed during the FAA's undue burden assessment of a 
prospective production facility located outside the United States. Part 
of this assessment is a determination by the FAA that the PAH has 
established and implemented supplier control procedures that are 
acceptable to the FAA.
    The FAA has granted many petitions for exemption to Sec.  
21.325(b)(3), and this rulemaking will resolve the direct-ship issue 
that prompted organizations to request them. Expediting this rulemaking 
results in a more efficient disposition of those petitions for 
exemption.
    For the reasons stated above, this final rule adds new paragraph 
Sec.  21.325(b)(4) which allows export airworthiness approvals to be 
issued for Class II and III products located outside of the United 
States if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering the applicable 
requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and subchapter C of Title 14 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements associated with this final rule 
have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0721.
    An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, 
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it 
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this final rule.

[[Page 63799]]

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Public Law 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the 
economic impact of this rule. It also includes summaries of the final 
regulatory flexibility analysis, international trade impact assessment, 
and the unfunded mandate assessment. For more information, we suggest 
readers go to the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have 
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking

    This Regulatory Evaluation examines the impact of an FAA rule 
allowing for the issuance of export airworthiness approvals for Class 
II (major components) and Class III (parts and components) products 
located at facilities outside the United States. Export airworthiness 
approvals are required by the FAA only if required by the importing 
country. Consequently, there is no issue of ``market failure'', at 
least from the perspective of the United States.
    As this rule relieves regulatory burden, there are cost-relieving 
benefits and no costs. The FAA estimates the annual cost savings from 
this rule to be $11,867,500. As the rule is a procedural change with no 
front-loaded costs, we use a 10-year period of analysis. Discounting 
this stream of annual cost savings (at 7%) for ten years yields a 
present value of approximately $83 million.

Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking

    This rule potentially affects directly all production approval 
holders, including holders of Production Certificates, Technical 
Standard Order Authorizations, and Parts Manufacturer Approvals. The 
rule also potentially affects distributors, importers and exporters of 
airplane parts, air operators and carriers, and the flying public.

Assumptions

    This evaluation makes the following assumptions:
     This rule would become effective on January 1, 2008.
     The discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management and 
Budget, Circular A-94, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost 
Analysis of Federal Programs'', October 29, 1992, p. 8).
     The period of analysis is the 10-year period, 2008-2017.
     For purposes of discounting, cost savings are 
conventionally assumed to occur at the end of the year. (If assumed to 
occur at the beginning of the year, the discounted present value of the 
cost savings increases by 7%.)

Changes From the NPRM to the Final Rule

     The effective date of the rule changes from 18 months 
after publication in the Federal Register to effective on January 1, 
2008.
     The period of analysis changes from 2009-2018 to 2008-
2017.
     The base year changes from 2005 to 2008.

Benefits of This Rulemaking

    The FAA estimates the present discounted value of the benefits of 
this rule to be approximately $83 million.

Costs of This Rulemaking

    As this rule relieves regulatory burden, there are no costs of this 
rule.

Alternatives Considered

    The Status Quo--The status quo represents a situation in which the 
FAA would continue to issue exemptions from Sec.  21.325(b)(3) 
indefinitely. As that would perpetuate ``rulemaking by exemption,'' we 
choose not to continue with the status quo.

Final 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-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the rules proposed 
in the NPRM found a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. This result was reported in the NPRM and the full 
IRFA was placed in the docket (FAA-2006-25877), along with the Initial 
Regulatory Analysis, and was also published in the Federal Register (72 
FR 6968, February 14, 2007). This final rule, however, is cost 
relieving and, therefore, imposes no

[[Page 63800]]

economic cost on small entities. Moreover, we did not receive any 
comments regarding the small entity impact of this part of the NPRM. 
Therefore as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and determined it would promote 
international trade by reducing the cost of export airworthiness 
approvals for Class II products (major components) and Class III 
products (parts and components).

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

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 308(b) and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://
www.regulations.gov;
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://DocketsInfo.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 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21

    Aircraft, Certification procedures for products and parts, Export 
airworthiness approvals.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

0
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, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.


0
2. Amend Sec.  21.325 by adding new paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  21.325  Export airworthiness approvals.

* * * * *
    (b)* * *
    (4) Class II and III products located outside of the United States 
if the FAA finds no undue burden in administering the applicable 
requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. and this subchapter.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2007.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-22111 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P