Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous Amendments, 53368-53395 [E9-24821]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53368-53395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24821]



[[Page 53367]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, et al.



Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and Miscellaneous 
Amendments; Final Rule

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

[[Page 53368]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, and 45

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Amendment Nos. 1-64, 21-92, 43-43, and 45-
26]
RIN 2120-AJ44


Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and 
Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its certification procedures and 
identification requirements for aeronautical products and articles. The 
amendments will update and standardize those requirements for 
production approval holders (PAHs), revise export airworthiness 
approval requirements to facilitate global manufacturing, move all part 
marking requirements from part 21 to part 45, and amend the 
identification requirements for products and articles. The intent of 
these changes is to continue to promote safety by ensuring that 
aircraft, and products and articles designed specifically for use in 
aircraft, wherever manufactured, meet appropriate minimum standards for 
design and construction. As a result of this action, the FAA's 
regulations now better reflect the current global aircraft and aircraft 
products and articles manufacturing environment.

DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this rule, contact Barbara Capron and/or Robert Cook, Production 
Certification Branch, AIR-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 385-
6360 or (202) 385-6358; e-mail: barbara.capron@faa.gov or 
robert.cook@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this rule, contact 
Angela Washington, AGC-210, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-7556; e-mail: angela.washington@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Under the laws of the United States, the Department of 
Transportation has the responsibility to develop transportation 
policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, 
efficient, and convenient transportation (49 United States Code, 
Subtitle 1, Sec.  101). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA or 
``we/us/our'') is an agency of the Department. The FAA has general 
authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety, including minimum 
standards for articles and for the design, material, construction, 
quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and 
propellers (49 U.S.C. 106(g) and 44701). We may also prescribe 
regulations in the interest of safety for registering and identifying 
an aircraft engine, propeller, or article (49 U.S.C. 44104).
    The FAA is amending its regulations governing the certification 
procedures for products and articles and its requirements for 
identification and registration marking. These changes will improve the 
quality standards applicable to manufacturers, which help ensure that 
products and articles are produced as designed and are safe to operate. 
We are also relocating and standardizing our requirements for marking 
articles intended for use in aviation. These changes will make it 
easier to determine whether the correct articles are installed, which 
will contribute to a greater degree of safety. For these reasons, this 
rule will be a reasonable and necessary exercise of our rulemaking 
authority and obligations.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. Summary of Amendments
    B. Miscellaneous Requirements
    C. Compliance Dates
III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
IV. Amendments

I. Background

    Over the last several decades, the aircraft manufacturing industry 
has evolved significantly. Years ago, most transport category aircraft 
were manufactured in the United States. A typical business model 
consisted of a production certificate (PC) holder with a relatively 
small number of suppliers. Today, the number of aircraft manufacturing 
suppliers has increased dramatically. Conversely, through the years, 
the aircraft industry has seen a steady decline in the number of U.S.-
based transport category aircraft manufacturers. Those manufacturers, 
who once predominantly oversaw the production of replacement articles 
for their aircraft, now witness the ever increasing production of 
replacement and modification articles by independent parts 
manufacturers. Suppliers, including parts manufacturers, were located 
mainly in the United States decades ago; now, they are located all over 
the world. Suppliers are manufacturing greater percentages of aircraft 
products and articles. As a result, aircraft are now manufactured in an 
increasingly global environment.
    The FAA did not envision such an expansion in aircraft 
manufacturing when the certification rules were first promulgated in 
1964. The industry has been the subject of burgeoning 
internationalization in the last several decades. Evidence of this fact 
is that now, more than ever before, the United States has more 
bilateral agreements with foreign civil airworthiness authorities 
addressing the production, import, and export of aircraft. The old 
certification rules are too restrictive to accommodate today's 
manufacturing paradigm. Removing some of those restrictions will 
greatly improve our regulatory efficiency. This final rule is the FAA's 
response to the changing dynamics of the aircraft manufacturing 
industry, and this final rule contains requirements that reflect the 
current global environment.
    The evolution of the manufacturing industry prompted the FAA to 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
on ``Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Parts Marking, and 
Miscellaneous Proposals'' (71 FR 58914, October 5, 2006). In that 
notice, we proposed comprehensive changes to certification procedures 
and identification requirements for aeronautical products and articles. 
In general, we proposed to: (1) Standardize quality system requirements 
for all Production Approval Holders (PAH); (2) require PAHs, including 
those producing under Type Certificate, to mark all articles, including 
sub-assemblies and components; (3) require PAHs to issue airworthiness 
approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and other aviation 
articles; (4) require PAHs to create a certifying staff to issue those 
approvals; and (5) revise export airworthiness approval requirements to 
facilitate global manufacturing. The NPRM contains the background and 
rationale for this final rule, and except where we have made revisions 
to the proposal in this document, you should refer to the NPRM for that 
information.
    Commenters to the NPRM represented aircraft and parts 
manufacturers; repair stations; the U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Office of Advocacy (SBA's Office of Advocacy); industry groups; and 
other civil aviation authorities and individuals. While there was much 
support for the general intent

[[Page 53369]]

of the proposed rule changes, the largest percentage of the commenters 
opposed the following four specific proposals:

1. Identification Requirements for Parts, Appliances, and Technical 
Standard Order Articles

    The NPRM proposed to require manufacturers to mark each component 
of an aircraft engine or propeller, each part and component thereof, 
and each appliance and component thereof. Until now, the FAA has only 
required marking of the part; not the individual components of the 
part. Over forty commenters rejected the proposal, stating that the 
requirement to mark each component would be cost prohibitive. Also, the 
proposal would necessitate a change in all associated drawings and 
design data to reflect the marking requirement.

2. Mandatory Issuance of Airworthiness Approvals for Each Aircraft 
Engine, Propeller, and Article

    The NPRM contained a proposal that would have required PAHs to 
issue an airworthiness approval for each aircraft engine, propeller, or 
article produced under the production approval that conforms to its 
approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. Currently, 
and under the old rules, an airworthiness approval is mandatory for 
products and articles only when those products and articles are being 
exported. The FAA has never required that airworthiness approvals be 
issued domestically. Commenters stated that because a 
disproportionately larger number of aircraft engines, propellers, and 
articles are shipped domestically than are exported, mandatory issuance 
of airworthiness approvals would impose a substantial cost burden on 
manufacturers.

3. Creation of Certifying Staff To Issue Airworthiness Approvals

    We proposed in the NPRM to require PAHs to develop procedures for 
establishing and maintaining certifying staff that would be responsible 
for issuing airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, 
and articles, including the issuance of export airworthiness approvals. 
Presently, only the FAA or its designees issue airworthiness approvals. 
Commenters opposed this requirement, arguing that it would necessitate 
additional staff training and implementation of new procedures for 
manufacturers, thus unnecessarily escalating the cost of manufacturing.

4. Standardized Quality System Requirements

    In the NPRM, we proposed to standardize quality system requirements 
for PAHs so that all PAHs comply with the same set of quality system 
requirements, regardless of the product or article produced. We 
received over 65 comments (including those from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy; industry groups representing manufacturers, airlines, and 
pilots; and aircraft, aircraft engine, and aircraft parts 
manufacturers). An overriding concern of the commenters was that the 
quality system requirements, if adopted, would be burdensome to 
implement, particularly for small businesses. Commenters asserted that 
the requirements would impose substantial additional costs on industry 
with no measurable increase in safety.
    In addition to the commenters noted above, there were commenters on 
other proposals in the NPRM. We received over 100 comment letters (with 
over 500 comments) in response to the NPRM. After evaluating all 
comments received, we proceeded with this rulemaking action.

II. Discussion of Final Rule

A. Summary of Amendments

1. Identification Requirements
    In response to the concerns and issues raised, the FAA has 
reconsidered some of its proposals and made several substantive changes 
to the proposed regulatory text. Our most significant change pertains 
to the proposal to require marking of all component parts and 
appliances. Fifty-two commenters (including SBA's Office of Advocacy; 
industry groups representing manufacturers, airlines, and pilots; and 
aircraft, aircraft engine, and aircraft parts manufacturers) asserted 
the proposed requirement to mark detail parts would be cost prohibitive 
and would provide no verifiable safety benefit. Commenters pointed out 
some products or articles consist of hundreds or sometimes thousands of 
detail parts, arguing that the costs associated with changing the 
drawings and design data could cost small businesses over one billion 
dollars to implement.
    When we performed our initial regulatory flexibility assessment 
(IRFA) for the NPRM, we did not recognize the extent to which design 
data would have to be changed in order to accommodate the proposed 
marking of detail parts. Given that each product or article consists of 
hundreds or thousands of sub-tiered drawings, all of which would have 
to be changed, we agree with the commenters that we put forth a cost-
prohibitive proposal. Accordingly, the final rule does not contain this 
requirement.
    As a result of the many comments in opposition to our marking 
proposal, we revised the proposed rule to provide for methods of 
identification more flexible than marking. PAHs must mark the product 
or article that they have been granted a certificate or approval for in 
accordance with part 45. However, the sub-assemblies and component 
parts of that product or article do not have to be marked or identified 
unless they leave the PAH's facility as a separate article (e.g., 
replacement or modification part). Sub-assemblies, component parts, or 
replacement articles that leave the PAH's facility as FAA-approved must 
include the manufacturer's part number and name, trademark, symbol, or 
other FAA-approved PAH identification (e.g., the production approval 
number, cage code, or Federal supply code for manufacturers (FSCM)). A 
manufacturer or person producing under subparts F, G, K, or O may 
choose any method to meet this requirement. Methods include, but are 
not limited to, marking the article, attaching a tag to the article, 
placing the article in a container, or providing a document with the 
article with the information previously mentioned. This identification 
requirement codifies current industry practice and is less stringent 
than the proposed requirement.
    This identification requirement is not driven by a history of 
aviation accidents where inadequate marking or identification was 
necessarily found to be a primary cause; rather, it is part of a 
systemic approach to safety. Accident investigations and safety 
management system analyses show that accidents are rarely caused by one 
event. Accidents are the result of a chain of events. If any of the 
events had not occurred, an accident may have been prevented. This 
requirement assists in the traceability of articles and helps reduce 
the installation of incorrect articles, thereby preventing accidents.
    Because identification of articles is simply a byproduct of the 
marking proposal, the FAA has determined that it is within the scope of 
this rulemaking. The economic effects of this requirement have been 
evaluated and determined to be cost-neutral (i.e., having no economic 
impact).
    In the NPRM, we proposed to revise Sec.  45.15 to specify 
particular marking requirements for parts manufacturer approval (PMA) 
and technical standard order (TSO) articles. In doing so, we removed 
the former requirements for producers of PMA articles to mark those

[[Page 53370]]

articles with the designation ``FAA-PMA'' and information stating the 
installation eligibility of the article. As proposed, the rule would 
have required PMA holders to mark articles with the PMA holder's name, 
trademark, symbol, or other FAA-approved identification.
    Several commenters (including Airline Transport Association (ATA), 
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), General Electric Company (GE), 
the Boeing Company, and Snecma) questioned the proposal. They stated 
the current requirement to mark PMA articles with the letters ``FAA-
PMA'' increases traceability and allows installers and maintenance 
providers to easily identify the article being installed. The European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) stated it had recently introduced a 
requirement for the marking of parts not produced under the control of 
a TC or supplementary type certificate (STC). The marking clearly 
distinguishes those parts from parts produced by a TC or STC holder. 
EASA suggested the FAA and EASA coordinate their efforts in developing 
a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive part marking policy.
    The FAA does not espouse an opinion regarding the premise that 
marking PMA articles as ``FAA-PMA'' increases traceability. However, 
having a marking requirement consistent with the requirement of other 
aviation authorities is advantageous and enhances harmonization 
efforts. Furthermore, as we reviewed the proposal, we realized the 
removal of ``FAA-PMA'' would result in additional costs to the PMA 
holder. Much like the proposal to mark detail parts, the removal of 
``FAA-PMA'' would require a manufacturer to revise all of its design 
drawings, making it a cost-prohibitive change. Accordingly, this final 
rule retains the current ``FAA-PMA'' marking requirements.
    Unless otherwise specified in the applicable TSO, Sec.  45.15 now 
requires manufacturers of TSO articles to permanently and legibly mark 
the article with the TSO number and letter of designation, all markings 
specifically required by the applicable TSO, and the serial number or 
the date of manufacture of the article, or both. Likewise, each person 
who manufactures a part or component for which a replacement time, 
inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the 
Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance 
manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must permanently and 
legibly mark that part or component with a serial number (or 
equivalent).
    An individual commenter expressed concern that requiring a 
manufacturer to permanently mark an article may result in masking the 
age of a product. The commenter argued that a manufacturer could modify 
an existing appliance and issue it a new serial number and date of 
manufacture. The commenter recommended the proposal be revised to 
prohibit such activity. We understand the commenter's concern; however, 
the original serial number and date of manufacture must be maintained 
throughout the TSO article's life-cycle. We think the regulation is 
sufficiently clear that markings must be permanent. Additional markings 
must not obscure, remove, or obliterate the original markings.
    GE and Pratt & Whitney stated that the phrase ``or equivalent,'' 
when used to refer to an alternative to marking a part or component 
with a serial number, is confusing and should not be in the final rule. 
We disagree. Use of the phrase ``or equivalent'' offers flexibility in 
compliance with the marking requirement and provides an assessable 
standard for FAA enforcement of the requirement. Therefore, we retained 
the phrase in the final rule.
    Section 45.11 now provides relief to aircraft owners and operators 
for data plate location requirements for gliders and certain types of 
aircraft. This rule allows the data plate to be secured in an 
accessible location near the aircraft entrance. The former rule 
required the data plate be secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior, 
such that it was legible to a person on the ground. However, the old 
requirements were impractical. Over the last several years, the FAA has 
issued numerous exemptions from Sec.  45.11 for relief from the 
requirements for data plate location. This rule relieves the burden on 
the public and the FAA in regards to processing these types of 
exemptions in the future.
    AIA and GE stated that the proposed requirement to mark engine 
modules was unclear. They questioned whether the module marking should 
reflect the engine's information or the module's information. Also, GE 
stated that an additional identification plate should be added to a 
module when an STC has been incorporated. We have determined that the 
requirement to mark engine modules is unnecessary. The rule language 
has been changed to remove this requirement. We do not agree that 
additional marking is required when an STC is incorporated. While an 
STC is used for the approval of a major change in the type design, it 
does not approve the production of parts used in the modification. The 
data plate placed on a TC product is based on the manufacturer of the 
product, rather than the TC design approval holder (DAH). Requiring 
additional markings for STC incorporation would confuse the STC holder 
with the actual manufacturer of the STC modification part. It also 
would not provide any safety benefit. STC incorporation is marked in 
aircraft logbooks and flight manuals and has been shown effective.
    A repair station expressed concern about changes to articles driven 
by service bulletins. Articles for which service bulletins have been 
issued often require a new or revised marking. Since many of these 
articles are in service, the maintenance provider, not the producer, 
makes the required changes. Therefore, the commenter requested that the 
FAA create a regulatory provision permitting maintenance providers to 
act as the manufacturer's agent for the purpose of remarking the 
article.
    Changes to articles pursuant to service bulletins are governed by 
the provisions of part 43. Those changes, including the marking of the 
articles, are considered maintenance activity and are more 
appropriately accomplished pursuant to the maintenance provisions of 
part 43.
    If the FAA finds a part or component is too small or otherwise 
impractical to mark with any of the information required by this part, 
the manufacturer is required to attach that information to the part or 
component, or its container. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
(AOPA) commented that an enormous workload is imposed on the FAA 
because it must determine whether an article is too small or is 
otherwise impractical to mark. AOPA recommended that the manufacturer 
be allowed to make that determination.
    The FAA is ultimately responsible for determining compliance with 
regulatory requirements, and we must ensure consistency in application 
of the standard. Therefore, we will not abdicate our responsibility for 
determining whether articles are too small or otherwise impractical to 
mark.
    Marking requirements for all PAHs are now consolidated in part 45. 
These requirements apply to all PAHs, as well as to persons who produce 
the products or articles for export to the United States under the 
provisions of an agreement between the United States and another 
country or jurisdiction. The required markings constitute a 
representation that the product or article conforms to its approved 
design. Only the person authorized to produce the product or article 
may make this representation. However, this rule does not preclude an 
approved supplier to a PAH from applying markings in accordance with 
requirements imposed by the PAH;

[[Page 53371]]

neither does it preclude applying in-process markings throughout the 
manufacturing process.
    AIA, ATA, GE, and Pratt & Whitney stated the FAA should permit 
marking by owner operators, certificated repair stations, or 
appropriately certificated mechanics performing maintenance under part 
43. However, part 43 already allows owner/operators, certificated 
repair stations, and certificated mechanics performing maintenance to 
mark articles, and addressing it in this rulemaking would be 
duplicative and unnecessary.
    A parts manufacturer and an individual questioned whether using 
barcodes would be an acceptable means of complying with the rule, 
particularly in the case of small articles. Barcode identification may 
be used in conjunction with, but not in lieu of, the marking 
requirements. Provisions for marking small or delicate articles are 
specified in Sec.  45.15(d).
2. Mandatory Issuance of Airworthiness Approvals and Certifying Staff
    Forty-six commenters (including SBA's Office of Advocacy, industry 
groups, aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers, parts 
manufacturers, and individuals) stated that FAA's proposal to require 
the issuance of airworthiness approvals for each aircraft engine, 
propeller, or article would be cost prohibitive. Commenters stated that 
because a disproportionately larger number of aircraft engines, 
propellers, and articles are shipped domestically than are exported, 
mandatory issuance of airworthiness approvals would impose a 
substantial cost burden on manufacturers.
    We have further reviewed the potential impact of the proposal and 
have determined that the costs would disproportionately affect small 
manufacturers. Many small manufacturers do not ship their products or 
articles outside the United States, nor do they currently issue 
airworthiness approvals. In addition, airworthiness approvals are often 
separated from the product or article when it is received by the end 
user, nullifying the safety aspect of increased traceability. Because 
we have determined that the mandatory issuance of airworthiness 
approvals will not increase safety, and there is a high cost associated 
with its implementation, that proposal is not included in this final 
rule.
    We also have determined that mandating PAHs to establish and 
maintain a certifying staff to issue airworthiness approvals would 
necessitate costly staff training, and implementation of new procedures 
would be too burdensome for manufacturers. Because we have not included 
the proposed requirement for mandatory issuance of airworthiness 
approvals for each aircraft engine, propeller, and article, the 
requirement for a PAH to establish and maintain a certifying staff to 
issue the approvals is therefore not included in this rule.
3. Quality System Requirements
    This final rule prescribes a PAH's requirements for controlling the 
quality of the product or article it manufactures. The FAA has imposed 
in this final rule certain additional PAH quality system requirements 
designed to achieve overall improvement of the PAH's quality system. 
The quality system consists of fourteen specific quality system 
requirements. As described below, it is important to note that those 
fourteen quality system requirements are scalable, depending on the 
size and complexity of the PAH and of the product or article produced. 
Some of these requirements were already mandatory prior to this 
rulemaking and have been retained. The remaining requirements also have 
already been incorporated by industry for years and used voluntarily as 
``best practices.''
    Prior to this rulemaking, holders of different production approvals 
complied with, and were audited to, differing sets of requirements. For 
instance, if a manufacturer produced a PMA part and a TSO article, the 
manufacturer was subject to different quality and marking standards for 
each part it produced. Today's requirements are now applicable to PC 
and PMA holders and TSO authorizations alike. This final rule relieves 
PAHs from having to maintain, and the FAA from having to oversee, 
multiple PAH systems and procedures. Hence, this final rule will 
increase regulatory efficiency.
    We received over 65 comments (including those from the SBA's Office 
of Advocacy; industry groups representing manufacturers, airlines, and 
pilots; and aircraft, aircraft engine, and parts manufacturers). A 
general consensus of the commenters was that the proposed quality 
system requirements would be too restrictive, burdensome, and costly, 
especially on small businesses.
    SBA's Office of Advocacy believed the FAA's approach was more 
appropriate for large companies, rather than for smaller companies. 
That commenter suggested the FAA consider exempting small businesses 
from the quality system requirements or adopt a tiered approach based 
on the size and volume of the business. In addition, SBA's Office of 
Advocacy suggested that if the FAA does not intend to require an 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)- or SAE-equivalent 
regime, then it should delete the references to those standards in the 
preamble. In the NPRM, we likened our quality system requirements to 
those international quality standards and suggested that there is a 
global trend toward implementing them. SBA's Office of Advocacy argued 
the FAA should not impose ISO- or AS-based requirements of advocacy, 
maintaining that such a requirement would be duplicative because many 
PAHs have already achieved ISO or AS certification.
    The FAA derived its quality system requirements from a number of 
sources, including previous requirements in subparts G and K, as well 
as industry best practices, ISO standards, and other aviation 
authorities' requirements (e.g., Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), 
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and Transport Canada). These 
requirements do not introduce significantly different standards for 
PAHs, small businesses included. Because many PAHs currently employ 
these standards as best practices, the FAA has determined that 
compliance will not be costly. We have determined that the quality 
system requirements, as proposed, are appropriate for all 
manufacturers.
    In response to the SBA's Office of Advocacy's comment suggesting 
the FAA adopt a tiered approach for small businesses, the FAA maintains 
that even small businesses have many of these practices in place, just 
on a smaller scale than larger aircraft manufacturers. We are simply 
codifying those practices. Our requirements are consistent for all 
manufacturers, but they will be scalable and commensurate to the size 
of the company and the complexity of the product or article produced. 
For example, we would expect a large aircraft manufacturer to have a 
well-developed, complex quality system. In contrast, a small parts 
manufacturer producing a non-complex article could have a less complex 
quality system.
    However, that system could still comply with FAA quality system 
regulations and reflect the needs of the PAH without imposing an undue 
burden. The FAA will provide additional information on the Internet 
site https://www.faa.gov on how a PAH may construct a scalable quality 
system, to include examples.
    In addition to industry best practices, these amended quality 
system requirements are now consistent with

[[Page 53372]]

requirements of other aviation authorities. As a result, these quality 
system requirements will encourage greater international acceptance of 
products and articles and facilitate the import and export of those 
products and articles.
    This rule also requires that a manufacturer's quality system 
include procedures for controlling the use of design data and 
subsequent changes to ensure that only current, correct, and approved 
data are used. Earlier, we had proposed that the system include 
procedures for controlling design data, rather than the use of the 
data. However, GE correctly commented that the TC holder, not the PAH, 
controls the design data. Accordingly, we revised the rule language to 
accommodate that fact. We now require PAHs to have access to design 
data necessary to determine conformity and airworthiness for each 
product and article produced under the PC. In the case of a PAH who 
obtained approval by test and computation, the PAH controls the data. 
However, a PAH who obtained approval by licensing agreement might only 
have access to the data through the type design holder.
    This rule now requires manufacturers to establish procedures to 
control conformity of each supplier-furnished product or article to its 
approved design before release for installation. The PAH must establish 
a quality system that ensures the products or articles produced are 
conforming and in a condition for safe operation. In that regard, we 
have identified Supplier Control as one of the processes for which the 
PAH must establish procedures. The PAH is responsible for determining 
the type and scope of controls and the frequency of oversight necessary 
to ensure the conformity of the products or services provided by its 
supply chain, along with its compliance to contract requirements.
    We further require that the quality system include procedures for 
inspections and tests to ensure that a product or article conforms to 
its approved design. This revision clarifies that the purpose of 
inspections and tests is to verify that each product and article 
conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe 
operation. In addition, the inspection and test procedures must include 
a flight test of each aircraft produced, unless that aircraft will be 
exported as an unassembled aircraft, and a functional test of each 
aircraft engine and each propeller must be performed. Embraer 
questioned the benefit of performing a functional test on a fixed pitch 
propeller because it has no control system. For that reason, Embraer 
proposed we create an exception to exclude fixed pitch propellers from 
functional testing; however, we disagree. Inspections and tests, 
including functional tests, must be performed on fixed pitch 
propellers. These tests are used to validate whether performance 
characteristics and the structural integrity meet the design 
requirements.
    The quality system must include procedures to ensure that all 
inspection, measuring, and test equipment used to determine conformity 
of products and articles is calibrated and controlled. Each calibration 
standard must be traceable to a standard acceptable to the FAA. Boeing 
suggested we require calibration of inspection, measuring, and test 
equipment only when calibration is specified by the type design. 
However, calibration of inspection, measuring, and test equipment is a 
function of the quality system; it is not addressed in the type design. 
Proper calibration of all equipment helps ensure the integrity of the 
manufacturing process.
    This rule now requires that a quality system include procedures to 
ensure that discarded articles are rendered unusable. This revision 
helps ensure that discarded articles are not erroneously placed into 
service on aircraft. AIA, GE, and Boeing proposed that the FAA allow 
PAHs to identify articles as ``scrap,'' rather than the PAH rendering 
discarded articles as ``unusable''. The commenters further recommended 
that we define the term ``scrap'' in the rule.
    The term ``scrap'' is an acceptable industry term that may be used 
at the PAH's discretion, but many times, PAH's may use ``scrapped'' 
items in a new capacity. The term ``scrap'' does not clearly convey 
that the item may not be reused in a type-certificated product. For the 
purposes of this rule, we have decided that the term ``unusable'' 
clearly reflects our intent to ensure that an article that has been 
discarded cannot be used.
    In addition, this rule requires that the quality system include 
procedures to prevent damage or deterioration of products and articles 
during handling, storage, preservation, packaging, and delivery. AIA, 
GE, and Pratt & Whitney argued that the PAH cannot ensure the condition 
of articles after they have left the PAH's facility, and they 
recommended that we remove the term ``delivery'' from the proposed rule 
language. We agree and have revised the regulatory text accordingly.
    Pratt & Whitney also recommended revising the rule language to 
reflect that the quality system include procedures ``intended'' to 
prevent damage and deterioration of products and articles, as opposed 
to procedures that will prevent damage and deterioration. However, the 
FAA is responsible for imposing a standard that is measurable. We have 
determined that the standard imposed will better prevent damage or 
deterioration. Thus, we have retained the rule language as proposed.
    The FAA now requires the quality system to include procedures for 
identifying, storing, protecting, retrieving, and retaining quality 
records. Quality system records include inspection and test records, 
material review board records, and work orders. Both production 
approval applicants and PAHs must retain these records for at least 
five years for the products and articles manufactured under the 
approval and at least ten years for those articles that are identified 
as critical components under Sec.  45.15(c) of this chapter.
    GE recommended we increase the record retention time to 40 years. 
An individual commenter stated that the former record retention 
requirements were adequate. However, the new record retention 
requirements are the result of a recommendation from the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The ARAC stated that it is 
possible for a product or article to remain in production in excess of 
two years before it is released from production. Furthermore, that 
product or article would spend some length of time in service before 
any airworthiness directives (ADs) were possibly issued against it. 
Therefore, by the time a nonconformance or unairworthy condition is 
identified, the 2-year record retention period could have passed, 
making it difficult to identify a root cause for the condition. We have 
determined that a 5-year record retention for products and articles and 
a 10-year record retention for critical parts are necessary to 
facilitate the tracking of nonconformances. However, a PAH may maintain 
records longer if it chooses.
    Boeing suggested that we require record retention periods for 
products and articles only. We disagree. Records are objective evidence 
that a PAH has complied with all applicable regulatory requirements. 
Records are part of the quality system and are used to validate 
conformity to type design. Therefore, we have determined that these 
records are necessary, and the retention period is appropriate.
    We now require that the quality system include procedures for 
planning, conducting, and documenting internal audits to ensure 
compliance with the approved quality. A parts manufacturer

[[Page 53373]]

suggested the meaning of the term ``internal'' is relative to a PAH's 
quality system; therefore, audits of suppliers would fall within the 
scope of internal audits because a supplier is under the PAH's quality 
system. The commenter requested a clarification of the definition of 
``internal audits'' as it pertains to suppliers.
    The concept of what constitutes ``internal'' for the purposes of an 
audit is relative to the PAH's quality system. We think the regulation 
is sufficiently clear. Suppliers are controlled through the PAH's 
quality system, and procedures for suppliers' audits are dictated in 
Sec.  21.137(c), Supplier control. Conversely, Sec.  21.137(l) denotes 
procedures for the conduct of internal audits of the effectiveness of 
the PAH's Supplier Control System.
4. Replacement and Modification Articles
    Former Sec. Sec.  21.303(a) and (b) addressed production 
requirements for replacement and modification parts to ensure that only 
articles that conform to their approved design and are in condition for 
safe operation are installed in type-certificated aircraft. With 
certain exceptions, the former rule prohibited the production of such 
parts for sale for installation on a type-certificated product, unless 
those parts were produced pursuant to a PMA. Exempted from this 
requirement were parts produced under a TC or PC, parts produced by an 
owner or operator for maintaining or altering his own product, parts 
produced under an FAA TSO, and standard parts. This final rule 
consolidates those former requirements in newly established Sec.  
21.9(a), with some revisions. Under today's rule, the FAA will now 
prohibit the production of a replacement or modification article if the 
producer knows, or should know, that the part is reasonably likely to 
be installed on a type-certificated product unless the article part is:
     Produced under a TC;
     Produced under an FAA production approval;
     A standard part;
     A commercial part, as defined in Sec.  21.1;
     Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or 
altering that owner or operator's product; or
     Fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate holder 
with a quality system and consumed in the repair or alteration of a 
product in accordance with part 43.
    The provisions of Sec.  21.9 apply to the producer of any part that 
may be used as a replacement or modification article, not just parts 
that were produced specifically as replacement or modification 
articles. In determining whether a violation has occurred, one factor 
the FAA will consider is whether the article was represented as 
suitable for installation on a type-certificated product. Producers of 
replacement or modification articles who represent those articles as 
suitable for installation on a type-certificated product may be in 
violation of Sec.  21.9 unless the articles were produced under one of 
the above exceptions.
    Representation may include, but is not limited to, a producer 
advertising its parts in aviation magazines; representing the part with 
statements such as ``aviation quality'' or ``as previously installed 
on''; issuing aviation parts catalogs; or marketing at aviation trade 
shows and conferences. Owners, operators, producers, and maintenance 
providers rely on these representations to determine the airworthiness 
of an aircraft, or the acceptability of products and articles for a 
given application. Therefore, these representations must be truthful. 
Assessing representation of a part is just one means of determining 
whether a violation of Sec.  21.9(a) has occurred. Absent any such 
representation, the FAA may still find a violation has occurred if 
evidence can be established that the producer knows or should know that 
the part is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated 
product.
    Finally, newly established Sec.  21.9(c) would allow a person to 
represent an article as suitable for installation on a type-
certificated aircraft if the article was declared surplus by the U.S. 
Armed Forces and was intended for use on that model of U.S. Armed 
Forces aircraft.
    We received thirty-seven comments on this section. SBA's Office of 
Advocacy requested additional clarification on how the provisions of 
this section of the rule would apply. In addition, two individuals 
stated the rule language ``if a person knows, or should know, that the 
part is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated 
product'' is very subjective, and it will be difficult to properly and 
consistently enforce. It believed distributors, owner/operators, and 
manufacturers could be subject to legal action due to misunderstandings 
of the rule. The expected misunderstandings would arise from the 
likelihood of this final rule affecting parts manufacturers not subject 
to FAA regulation before its issuance. However, we believe the new rule 
is clearly stated, objective, and enforceable. As we apply the 
standard, we will examine all relevant facts and circumstances to 
determine whether a person knew or should have known that a part he 
produced was reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated 
product.
    Numerous commenters (including Aircraft Electronics Association 
(AEA), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), and repair stations) 
stated our proposed rule no longer contained language prohibiting the 
production of parts ``for sale for installation on a type-certificated 
product.'' In addition, the SBA's Office of Advocacy asked the FAA to 
clarify and confirm that the existing ability of a repair shop to 
produce a part during maintenance activities remains in place. Since 
the NPRM proposed to remove that language, several repair stations 
asked us to clarify whether they will still be able to produce articles 
that will be consumed in the course of a repair without violating Sec.  
21.9(a).
    It is not our intent to preclude that activity. To address that 
concern and clarify our intent, we established an exception in Sec.  
21.9(a)(6). This exception, which was not proposed in the NPRM, allows 
for the production of articles without benefit of a production approval 
when articles are fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate 
holder with a quality system and consumed in the repair or alteration 
of a product or article in accordance with part 43. Maintenance 
providers who do not have a quality system may continue to fabricate 
owner-produced articles for installation on type-certificated aircraft 
using the guidelines set forth in Policy Memorandum, Definition of 
``Owner Produced Part,'' Section 21.303(b)(2), August 5, 1993.
    SBA's Office of Advocacy asked the FAA to clarify how the rule 
would impact the distribution of parts and existing inventories based 
on small business concerns that the proposed rules will forbid anyone 
from selling civil aircraft parts unless they are the manufacturer of 
the part, essentially forcing current parts distributors out of 
business. This phrase was used in former Sec.  21.303(a). We disagree. 
Section 21.9 governs the production, not the sale, of articles and does 
not prohibit distributors from selling articles.
    SBA's Office of Advocacy was also concerned that the regulation 
does not contain express provisions concerning inventories of existing 
articles. That commenter recommended we clarify that any new production 
requirements on articles or products apply only to articles 
manufactured after a certain date and that the requirements do not 
render current articles or products in inventory unusable. Like the 
Office of Advocacy, ASA believed the rule would

[[Page 53374]]

prohibit the sale of existing inventories, and thus, they would lose 
value. The commenters' concerns are unfounded. The requirements of this 
rule apply to products or articles as they are manufactured. The 
provisions of this rule do not apply to existing inventories.
    Lastly, an individual commenter stated modification articles should 
be exempted from a PMA if those articles could be installed: (1) As a 
minor alteration with a simple logbook entry without approved data, or 
(2) under a field approval with data approved by a Flight Standards 
District Office (FSDO) airworthiness inspector or Designated 
Engineering Representative (DER). We disagree. Both exceptions would 
serve to weaken our regulatory intent to ensure that only articles for 
which a suitability determination has been made are installed in type-
certificated aircraft. An article is not approved unless the article 
is: Produced under a TC; produced under an FAA production approval; a 
standard part; a commercial part, administered in a manner acceptable 
to the FAA; or produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or 
altering that owner or operator's product.
5. Definition of ``Commercial Parts''
    In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a definition of commercial 
parts and create a replacement parts classification that would 
facilitate the use of parts during maintenance. This rulemaking 
established that classification and allows for the production of 
commercial parts, as defined by this rulemaking, as replacement or 
modification articles without benefit of a production approval. Over 
ten commenters (including SBA's Office of Advocacy, the Regional 
Airline Association (RAA), ASA, and Snecma) stated the proposed 
definition of ``commercial parts'' was confusing. SBA's Office of 
Advocacy asked the FAA to further explain how the new provisions would 
impact current practices and the industry's ability to use parts that 
commonly have been referred to as commercial prior to this rulemaking. 
The commenters were concerned that only those parts designated by the 
DAH and approved by the FAA as commercial would be considered as such. 
They concluded the proposal would unduly restrict the use of commercial 
parts on in-service aircraft, which is common industry practice today.
    In response to these comments, we modified the definition of 
``commercial parts,'' as it was proposed in the NPRM, to better clarify 
the meaning of the term. A commercial part means an article that is 
listed on an FAA-approved Commercial Parts List included in the DAH's 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs). By creating a 
``commercial parts'' classification, the FAA has constructed a new 
mechanism by which commercial parts may be approved for use on type-
certificated products as replacement or modification articles. The FAA 
has not removed any of the processes used prior to this rule change for 
approving articles for installation on type-certificated products as 
replacement or modification articles. Those processes include 
purchasing the article from the PAH or manufacturer producing under a 
TC approved to produce the article; produced and installed under the 
provisions of an STC; or produced and installed in accordance with the 
provisions of part 43.
    For the purposes of this rulemaking, in order for a part to be 
considered commercial, the DAH must submit to the FAA a list of parts 
it has designated as commercial pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  
21.50(c). A part is designated as commercial when the DAH: (1) Provides 
data to the FAA showing that the failure of the commercial part, as 
installed in the product, would not degrade the level of safety of the 
product; (2) shows the part is produced only under the commercial part 
manufacturer's specification and marked with only the commercial part 
manufacturer's markings, and (3) provides any other data the FAA 
requires to approve the Commercial Parts List.
    As discussed in the NPRM preamble, the data requirement concerning 
the failure of the part is necessary to ensure that commercial parts, 
which are not subject to the rigorous quality control requirements for 
PAHs, cannot jeopardize flight safety if they fail. The part marking 
requirement is necessary to ensure that other similar parts, whose 
safety has not been demonstrated, cannot be substituted for the part 
identified as commercial. Because this is a new regulatory 
classification of parts, we cannot anticipate all the issues that may 
arise as applicants submit proposals. We therefore need the third 
``catch-all'' provision to obtain information necessary to verify our 
intent in creating this new classification is fulfilled and to ensure 
there is no adverse effect on safety. The DAH must include the 
Commercial Parts List in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. 
The FAA approves the commercial parts list, and the parts on it are 
then eligible for use on a type certificated product as replacement or 
modification articles.
    SBA's Office of Advocacy was equally concerned that as a result of 
this new commercial parts classification, non-PAH commercial parts 
manufacturers would be held liable for a violation of Sec.  21.9 
regarding production of parts if a part they manufacture is used on a 
type-certificated aircraft without being declared a commercial part. It 
stated the FAA should be aware that a strict reading of the proposed 
rule seems to suggest that once a manufacturer knows or has reason to 
know that a repair or maintenance facility is installing its product on 
an aircraft, that manufacturer would have a legal obligation to obtain 
the approval of either the design holder or the FAA (through a PMA or 
TSO) for that part. This would extend the reach of the FAA's rule to a 
vast universe of manufacturers, none of whom are included in the FAA's 
economic analysis.
    SBA's Office of Advocacy is correct in its understanding of the 
proposed rule, in that if non-PAH producers know or should know that 
their articles are reasonably likely to be installed on a type-
certificated product, they cannot produce those articles unless they 
meet one of the four exemptions noted in Sec.  21.9. Non-PAH parts 
producers that know their parts are being installed on type-
certificated products may apply for a production approval for the 
production of those parts, or the DAH of the product or article on 
which those commercial parts will be installed may designate them as 
commercial. Our intent is to create an enforceable standard that helps 
ensure that parts that are used on type-certificated products are 
produced under an approved quality system or otherwise approved for use 
on that product.
    Several repair stations were unclear on whether repair or 
maintenance facilities would still be able to utilize the maintenance 
provisions in Sec.  43.13 to install commercial parts on aircraft. 
Commercial parts as defined in this rulemaking do not require a 
production approval, and repair stations may continue to utilize the 
provisions of Sec.  43.13 to install parts. Those parts that are 
generally recognized by industry as commercial, but have not been 
designated on a Commercial Parts List, must be approved for 
installation in accordance with part 43.
    Two individuals stated that the use of commercial parts should be 
approved only in applications where their function or failure would not 
degrade safety. The FAA agrees with that statement, and as we do with 
other parts

[[Page 53375]]

approved as part of the type design, we will also evaluate commercial 
parts during the type design approval process to determine their affect 
on the safety of the product. In order for a DAH to designate a part as 
commercial, the DAH must show that failure of the commercial part would 
not degrade the safety of the product.
    Snecma and an individual commenter recommended that advisory 
material would be helpful in determining when or how commercial parts 
can be used as part of a type design, including guidance on what a DAH 
must do to obtain approval of its commercial parts. A repair station 
also commented that we should provide advisory material on when and how 
commercial parts may be used by operators and maintenance personnel. 
The FAA will issue advisory material providing guidance on the above 
concerns and on substitution of commercial parts during maintenance.
    Lastly, an individual commenter noted that the marking requirements 
for commercial parts are not consistent with the marking requirements 
in part 45. We agree. However, the marking requirements in part 45 
pertain only to those articles manufactured under an approved type 
design or in accordance with the provisions of a bilateral agreement 
between the United States and another country or jurisdiction for the 
acceptance of products and articles. Accordingly, the part 45 marking 
requirements are not applicable.
6. Location of or Change to Manufacturing Facilities
    The FAA is requiring all PAHs to obtain FAA approval before making 
any changes in location or physical changes to its manufacturing 
facilities. Additionally, PAHs must immediately notify us of any 
changes that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of 
its products or articles. This requirement applies to all PAHs and 
persons producing under a TC only.
    One commenter noted that Sec.  21.122(a) appears to allow for 
production under a TC outside the United States. The commenter is 
correct. We considered amending subpart F to prohibit manufacturing 
under a TC in a foreign country. However, we decided to allow 
manufacturing under a TC in a foreign country, as long as it causes 
``no undue burden'' for the FAA.
7. Issuance of Export Airworthiness Approvals for Aircraft Engines, 
Propellers, and Articles
    Section 21.331 permits a person to obtain, from the FAA, an export 
airworthiness approval for a new or used aircraft engine, propeller, or 
article manufactured under this part if it conforms to its approved 
design and is in a condition for safe operation. Also, used aircraft, 
engines, and propellers are no longer required to be newly overhauled. 
Finally, prior to issuance of an export airworthiness approval for an 
aircraft engine, propeller, or article, the special requirements of 
importing countries or jurisdictions must be met.
    AIA, GE, and Pratt & Whitney suggested the FAA amend the rule to 
reflect that some products require disassembly for shipping purposes 
after the product has been certificated that it is ``in a condition for 
safe operation.'' Airworthiness is determined at the time the product 
is submitted to the FAA in an assembled state. We allow for disassembly 
of a product for the purpose of shipping to the end-user, but the 
importing authority will require an airworthiness determination after 
reassembly and prior to installation on the aircraft.
    AIA, Boeing, and GE also suggested we revise the rule language to 
allow a PAH to obtain letters of acceptance directly from the importing 
country when required for nonconforming products ready for export. A 
fundamental principle of our bilateral agreements is that letters of 
acceptance are transmitted between authorities, and we are not planning 
to institute a change to that policy. Because bilateral agreements 
supersede our regulatory requirements, the FAA will continue to receive 
and process letters of acceptance from importing authorities.
    AIA, Boeing, and GE further stated it would be beneficial for us to 
define the term ``used'' as it appears in Sec.  21.331. They also 
suggested that we revise Sec.  21.331 to allow the issuance of export 
airworthiness approvals for used products that do not meet an approved 
type design, as service time and wear prevent conformity to new article 
dimensions. We agree that there should be a consistent application of 
the term ``used'' as it relates to aircraft products; however, a 
regulatory definition would not be appropriate at this time because the 
term has different meanings in its application in a certification 
context versus a maintenance context. As to the comment regarding 
nonconforming products, Sec.  21.331 already allows for the issuance of 
an export airworthiness approval for used products that do not meet an 
approved type design.
    An individual commenter thought it unnecessary to obtain letters of 
acceptance from an importing country when shipping nonconforming 
products or articles. We disagree. An importing authority has complete 
discretion on whether it will accept nonconforming products or 
articles, and this issue is addressed between authorities in bilateral 
agreements and is not dictated via domestic regulations. Another 
individual commenter suggested that an importing country, rather than 
the FAA, should authorize deviations from the regulatory requirements 
of subpart L for products exported. Importing countries have no 
regulatory jurisdiction in the United States, and therefore, they have 
no authority to grant a deviation from our requirements. We maintain 
sole authority to grant deviations from our regulations.
    An individual commenter suggested that the rule accommodate the 
movement of articles whose airworthiness status is unknown. Again, we 
disagree. The rule is intended to accommodate only the export of 
products and articles determined to be airworthy. The issuance of an 
airworthiness approval for products and articles whose status is 
unknown would be contrary to the fundamental airworthiness principles 
and obligations of our bilateral airworthiness agreements with other 
countries and/or jurisdictions.
    Section 21.335(a) requires exporters to forward to the importing 
country or jurisdiction all documents specified by that country or 
jurisdiction. Paragraph (b) requires the exporter to preserve and 
package products and articles as necessary to protect them against 
corrosion and damage during transit or storage and to state the 
duration of effectiveness of such preservation and packaging. AIA, GE, 
aircraft parts manufacturers, and individuals assert that because it is 
difficult, or sometimes impossible, to predict how long an article may 
need to be preserved, it may be equally difficult to comply with the 
packaging and preservation requirements.
    This rule requires that products and articles be properly preserved 
and packaged as necessary at the time of export. Exporters must state 
the duration of effectiveness, but they are not required, as the 
commenters suggest, to exercise control over the end use or storage of 
the parts exported. If a product or article does not require any 
preservation or protective packaging in order to prevent damage, this 
rule does not apply.
    AIA and GE were concerned that U.S. exporters may be required to 
obtain an export airworthiness approval as part of the documents 
specified for export. They believed that import and export requirements 
should be the same. The commenters are correct. Based on the content of 
our agreement with a country, additional documentation,

[[Page 53376]]

including an export airworthiness approval from the importing country 
or jurisdiction, may be required.
    AIA mentioned that Sec.  21.335(a), or the preamble, should clearly 
state the documentation requirements for export, as there is often a 
variation in requirements. The FAA has numerous bilateral agreements 
with countries addressing the type, format, and content of 
documentation required for imported and exported products and articles. 
It would be impractical to delineate all those requirements in our 
regulations, as they are subject to change by the importing country. 
The FAA does request the importing authorities to periodically update 
and review its special import requirements, and we maintain that 
information in AC 21-2, Appendix 2, which is available on our Web site.
8. Definition of ``Standard Parts''
    We proposed in the NPRM to expand the definition of ``standard 
parts'' that appeared in former Sec.  21.303(b)(4). The proposed 
definition of ``standard parts'' included a part that conforms to a 
specification established by a foreign government agency or a consensus 
standards organization. However, due to conflicts between our proposed 
definition with other authorities' definitions of ``standard parts,'' 
the FAA has decided against revising the definition of ``standard 
parts'' at this time. Instead, we are maintaining the original use of 
the term, which now appears in Sec.  21.9(a)(3).
9. Definitions
    FAA has expanded the part 1 definition of ``approved,'' as it 
relates to the approval of products and articles, to include approvals 
issued under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between the United 
States and a foreign country or jurisdiction. This amendment clarifies 
that data approved by a foreign civil aviation authority under a 
bilateral agreement does not require further FAA approval. Furthermore, 
the term ``jurisdiction,'' as it appears in the definition, applies to 
entities that are not countries (e.g., the European Union (EU)).
    Section 21.1(a)(1) prescribes procedural requirements for issuing 
and changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness 
certificates, and airworthiness approvals. Paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(8) define the terms airworthiness approval, article, commercial 
part, design approval, product, production approval, State of Design, 
and State of Manufacture.
    We received forty-eight comments on this section. National Civil 
Aviation Agency--Brazil (ANAC) asked that we define the term 
``airworthiness certificates.'' An airworthiness certificate is a form 
issued by the FAA or its designee to document whether a product meets 
its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. The usage of 
this form in this manner has been commonly accepted, and we have 
determined that the term ``airworthiness certificate'' is widely 
understood and requires no further definition.
    ANAC stated that the term ``jurisdiction,'' as it appeared in the 
proposed definition of ``State of Design,'' should be defined because 
an airworthiness jurisdiction is sometimes different than the company's 
legal location jurisdiction. We have revised the definition of ``State 
of Design'' to clarify that it means an entity that has regulatory 
authority over an organization responsible for the design and continued 
airworthiness of a civil aeronautical product or article. The concept 
of ``airworthiness jurisdiction'' is addressed by the reference to 
regulatory authority.
    ANAC further stated that we should better clarify the term ``State 
of Manufacture'' because a product or article could have more than one 
State of Manufacture. Accordingly, we have revised the definition of 
``State of Manufacture'' to clarify that it means the country or 
jurisdiction with regulatory authority over the organization 
responsible for the production and airworthiness of a civil 
aeronautical product or article.
    An individual commenter mentioned the definition of ``airworthiness 
approval'' should include a reference to FAA Forms 8130-3 and 8130-4. 
The commenter also stated that an FAA Form 8130-3 should be required 
for standard and commercial parts when sold to an owner/operator for 
installation. We disagree with