Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals, 11004-11013 [2014-04330]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11004-11013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21 and 45

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0933; Notice No. 14-01]
RIN 2120-AK20


Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing changes to its certification procedures 
and identification requirements for aeronautical products and articles. 
The proposed changes would: require production approval holders to 
identify an accountable manager who would be responsible for, and have 
authority over, their production operations and serve as the primary 
contact with the FAA; allow production approval holders to issue 
authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and 
articles; permit production certificate holders to manufacture and 
install interface components; require production approval holders to 
ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service 
conforms to the production approval holder's requirements and establish 
a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that 
have been released from or provided by the supplier and subsequently 
found not to conform to the production approval holder's requirements; 
and remove the requirement that fixed-pitch wooden propellers be marked 
using an approved fireproof method. This proposal is necessary to 
update our regulations by revising certification and marking 
requirements to reflect the current global aeronautical manufacturing 
environment, thereby promoting aviation safety.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [Insert docket 
number from heading] using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without 
change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the 
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all 
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the 
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the 
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Priscilla Steward or Robert Cook, Aircraft 
Certification Service, Production Certification Branch, AIR-220, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 385-6367; email: 
priscilla.steward@faa.gov or telephone: (202) 385-6358; email: 
robert.cook@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Paul Greer, 
AGC-210, Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation, 
and Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7930; email: paul.g.greer@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Department of Transportation (``the Department) has the 
responsibility to develop transportation policies and programs that 
contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient 
transportation under Title 49, United States Code (49 USC), 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 under 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 under 49 U.S.C. 44104.
    The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations governing the 
certification procedures for products and articles and

[[Page 11005]]

its requirements for identification and registration marking. These 
changes would improve the quality standards applicable to 
manufacturers, which would help ensure that products and articles are 
produced as designed and are safe to operate. For these reasons, this 
proposed rule would be a reasonable and necessary exercise of our 
rulemaking authority and obligations.

List of Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule

BAA--Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement
BASA--Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
EASA--European Aviation Safety Agency
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
IC--Interface Component
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PAH--Production Approval Holder
PC--Production Certificate
PLR--Production Limitation Record
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
STC--Supplemental Type Certificate
TC--Type Certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order

I. Overview of the Proposed Rule

    In this NPRM, we are proposing changes to certification and marking 
requirements for products and articles. Regulations pertaining to 
certification requirements for products and articles are in Title 14, 
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21. Marking requirements are 
in part 45.
    The regulations in part 21 do not require applicants for, or 
holders of, a production approval to identify an accountable manager. 
This proposal would require applicants and PAHs to identify an 
accountable manager. This individual would be responsible for, and have 
authority over, a PAH's production operations. This individual would 
also serve as a PAH's primary contact with the FAA. Additionally, the 
FAA proposes to amend part 21 to require applicants and PAHs to amend, 
where applicable, the documents required by Sec. Sec.  21.135, 21.305 
and 21.605 to reflect the appointment of an accountable manager. This 
proposal would adopt the requirement for an accountable manger 
currently contained within part 145 and harmonize part 21 with EASA 
regulations.
    Currently, part 21 allows for an amendment to a PC holder's PLR so 
the PC holder can add a type-certificated product or article. The FAA 
proposes to amend part 21 to allow a PC holder to manufacture and 
install interface components (IC), under certain conditions and 
limitations. An IC would be defined as an article that serves as a 
functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an 
aircraft engine and a propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. An 
interface component would be designated by the holder of the type 
certificate (or the supplemental type certificate) who controls the 
approved design data for that article.
    Additionally, regulations currently specify that a PAH must have 
procedures that ensure each supplier-furnished product or article 
conforms to its approved design. The regulations also require that when 
a nonconforming product or article is released from the supplier, the 
supplier must report the nonconformance to the PAH. The FAA proposes to 
amend part 21 to clarify that each supplier-provided product, article, 
or service would be required to conform to the PAH's requirements. 
Production approval holders would also have to establish a supplier-
reporting process for products, articles, or services released from or 
provided by the supplier and subsequently found not to conform to their 
requirements.
    Currently, a person may obtain an airworthiness approval for an 
aircraft engine, propeller, or article only from the FAA for a new or 
used aircraft engine, propeller, or article. Production approval 
holders may not issue these airworthiness approvals under current 
regulations. The FAA proposes to amend part 21 to allow PAHs to issue 
authorized release documents (using FAA Form 8130-3) for new and used 
aircraft engines, propellers, and articles. This will provide PAHs with 
privileges similar to those afforded European- and Canadian-approved 
manufacturers.
    The regulations in part 45 require a propeller, propeller blade, or 
propeller hub to be marked using an approved fireproof method. The FAA 
proposes to amend part 45 to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers from 
the requirement that such markings be fireproof. This exclusion would 
allow manufacturers to mark their products in a practical manner that 
fully considers the inherent nature of wooden propellers.

II. Background

    To date, part 21 has been amended numerous times since it was 
codified in 1964. Additionally, the origins of many regulations in part 
21 can also be traced to the Civil Air Regulations codified in 1937.
    Formerly, most manufacturers of aviation products and articles had 
a small, local supplier base. Production certificate holders oversaw 
the manufacture of replacement parts, and the international market for 
aviation products was relatively small. As a result, for many years the 
U.S. had few bilateral agreements with other countries for the export 
and import of aviation products, and these agreements were limited in 
scope.
    Today, aviation products are manufactured world-wide. The number of 
suppliers has increased dramatically, and they manufacture a greater 
percentage of a given aircraft. Due to the global nature of 
manufacturing, forming business partnerships and agreements are common 
approaches to lower costs, share risks, and expand reachable markets. 
Manufacturers collaborate globally to reduce duplicate requirements for 
shared suppliers. The production of replacement parts under PMAs and 
the international market for aviation products have also increased 
dramatically. In recognition of global considerations regarding trade, 
commerce, and other matters, the U.S. has entered into over 30 
bilateral agreements with foreign aviation authorities. These 
agreements are broad in scope and establish the framework for the 
international market.

A. Statement of the Problems

    We are proposing changes to regulations governing the certification 
procedures for products and articles and part-marking requirements. 
These changes would improve the quality standards applicable to 
manufacturers, which would help to ensure that products and articles 
are produced as designed and are safe to operate. These changes would 
also make it easier for manufacturers to produce, obtain, and export 
products and articles while continuing to ensure their safety and 
quality.
1. Accountable Manager
    Under current regulations, a PAH is not required to identify an 
accountable manager to serve as the primary contact with the FAA. The 
lack of having a primary contact identified often results in schedule 
delays and uncertainty for the FAA when conducting oversight 
activities. The FAA proposes to have PAHs identify an accountable 
manager who would serve as the primary contact with the FAA. Having an 
accountable manager would provide a single individual who would 
facilitate communication between the PAH and FAA.
    Additionally, this best practice is currently required by part 145 
for certificated repair stations and is also used within certain other 
segments of the industry. In order to obtain a production approval 
within EASA countries, a production organization is required to 
identify an accountable manager. This proposal continues the FAA's 
efforts to harmonize its

[[Page 11006]]

regulations with standards that have been adopted by foreign 
authorities.
2. Interface Components
    Manufacturers cannot currently manufacture and install certain 
articles certificated as part of the airframe onto their type-
certificated engines without an exemption. Engine manufacturers have 
petitioned for exemptions from the FAA to produce and install these 
articles on their type-certificated engines. These articles and other 
articles that serve a functional interface between an aircraft and an 
aircraft engine, and also between an aircraft engine and a propeller, 
or an aircraft and a propeller, are known as interface components (IC).
    The FAA has found that a safety benefit exists by allowing the 
installation of airframe components onto an engine during production of 
the engine. The safety benefit occurs as a result of avoiding the 
disassembly of portions of the engine at the airframe manufacturing 
facility, or at an air carrier's maintenance facility, in order to 
attach airframe parts to the engine. Accordingly, engine manufacturers 
have been granted the authority to produce and install these articles 
under the provisions of exemptions. The FAA recognizes the safety 
benefit of this procedure and is therefore proposing to codify the 
relief provided by these exemptions and expand that relief to address 
ICs that have a functional interface between aircraft engines and 
propellers, and aircraft and propellers.
    This proposal would permit a PC holder to manufacture and install 
ICs listed on its production limitation record (PLR) onto its type-
certificated products under specified conditions and limitations.
3. Supplier Control
    Supplier control continues to be a significant issue due to the 
increasing use of suppliers, both globally and domestically. 
Additionally, PAHs are using suppliers to manufacture a greater 
percentage of their products and articles. Production approval holders 
are using suppliers as assembly providers or as integrators of 
products, articles, and services provided by multiple suppliers. These 
practices have the effect of necessitating that quality control 
procedures be used more extensively throughout the supply chain, 
thereby complicating communication and oversight.
    Due to the extensive use of suppliers in all phases of the 
production process, this proposal would require that each supplier-
provided product, article, or service conform to the PAH's requirements 
and not necessarily to an approved design. This proposal would also 
require the PAH to establish a supplier-reporting process for products, 
articles, or services that have been released from or provided by the 
supplier and subsequently found not to conform to the PAH's 
requirements.
4. Issuance of Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft Engines, 
Propellers, and Articles
    Presently, only the FAA can issue an airworthiness approval (e.g., 
FAA Form 8130-3). Industry has requested that a PAH for an aircraft 
engine, propeller, or article have the privilege of issuing this 
document for items produced under its production approval. The FAA 
agrees that significant benefits can be achieved by permitting a PAH to 
issue an authorized release document for aircraft engines, propellers, 
and articles it has manufactured since the PAH is responsible for 
ensuring that each product and article conforms to its approved design 
and is in a condition for safe operation. European and Canadian 
manufacturers currently may issue such documents. This proposal would 
further harmonize our regulations with those of foreign civil aviation 
authorities.
5. Marking of Wooden Propellers
    Under current regulations, propellers, propeller blades, and hubs 
must be marked using an approved fireproof method. Due to the 
flammability properties of a solid wooden propeller, mounting a metal 
tag may be the only way to provide fireproof identification that would 
not likely be lost or destroyed in an accident. However, attaching a 
metal tag can break the moisture seal of a propeller, which could 
increase the potential for cracking and deterioration of the wood. For 
this reason, the FAA proposes to exclude fixed-pitch wooden propellers 
from the requirement that these markings be fireproof. All other 
aspects of the marking requirements would remain unchanged.

B. Related Actions

    The FAA has proposed revisions to Advisory Circulars (AC) 21-43, 
Production Under 14 CFR Part 21, Subparts F, G, K, and O; AC 21-44, 
Issuance of Export Airworthiness Approvals Under 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart 
L; and AC 45-2, Identification and Registration Marking, to include the 
provisions of this proposal. Copies of these revised ACs are included 
in the docket.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Accountable Manager

    As noted, the FAA determined in a previous rulemaking, ``Repair 
Stations'' (66 FR 41088, August 6, 2001), that it was necessary for a 
repair station to have one individual, an accountable manager, who is 
responsible for ensuring repair station operations are conducted in 
accordance with part 145. Similarly, under this proposal, the FAA would 
require each applicant for, or holder of, a PC, PMA, or TSO 
authorization to identify an accountable manager.
    In conducting our oversight activities, we have experienced delays 
and uncertainty by not knowing who at the PAH's organization has the 
authority to represent the PAH. There have been cases where persons 
have represented themselves to have authority to act on behalf of the 
PAH when, in fact, they did not. Such cases have occurred, for example, 
when a person has submitted a response to a letter of investigation, 
and that person did not have authority from the PAH to provide that 
response. Identification of an accountable manager would eliminate the 
problems presented by such a situation.
    The proposal would require the accountable manager to confirm that 
the procedures described in the quality manual are in place and meet 
the requirements of the applicable regulations. Evidence of this 
confirmation can be shown by signing the quality manual before 
submitting it to the FAA. The FAA would not mandate that an individual 
in a specific position be identified as the accountable manager. 
However, the organization would have to identify a single point of 
contact who is knowledgeable of, and accountable for, maintaining the 
organization's FAA-approved production operations. This requirement is 
not intended to force the PAH to hire a new person to fill this 
position within its organization, but rather to identify a person to 
serve as the accountable manager.
    As also clarified in the 2001 ``Repair Stations'' final rule, it is 
not the FAA's intent to impose personal liability on the accountable 
manager; that liability will remain with the PAH. The FAA notes that 
the term ``accountable manager'' is consistent with EASA terminology 
and would continue our harmonization efforts with foreign civil 
aviation authorities. The applicant or PAH would identify the 
accountable manager by providing that person's name and contact 
information to the FAA. Should a new accountable manager be identified 
by the PAH, the

[[Page 11007]]

PAH would have to amend the document required by Sec. Sec.  21.135, 
21.305, and 21.605, as appropriate, to reflect this change, and notify 
the FAA of this amendment, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  21.146(a), 
21.316(a), or 21.616(a).
    The FAA understands the need for various business models and 
organizational structures. Currently, Sec. Sec.  21.135(a), 21.305(a), 
and 21.605(a) require a PAH to provide the FAA with a document 
describing assigned responsibilities and delegated authority, and the 
functional relationship of those responsible for quality to management 
and other organizational components. This proposal would also revise 
the language in the second sentence of the referenced sections from 
``At a minimum'' to ``In addition.'' This change is being made to avoid 
any misinterpretation as to what the document must include, 
specifically a description of how the organization will ensure 
compliance with the provisions of the subparts referenced in Sec. Sec.  
21.135, 21.305, and 21.605.

B. Interface Components

    Engine manufacturers have petitioned for exemptions from the FAA to 
manufacture and install ICs on their type-certificated engines. In 
granting exemptions to General Electric (Exemption No. 10079) and Pratt 
& Whitney (Exemption No. 10531) to manufacture and install certain 
articles certificated as part of an airframe onto their engines, the 
FAA found that a safety benefit exists for the installation of airframe 
components onto an engine during production of the engine. Copies of 
these exemptions are included in the docket.
    Aircraft manufacturers and air carriers frequently seek delivery of 
engines as a ``complete propulsion system,'' consisting of an engine 
and aircraft kits/parts associated with an aircraft from the engine 
manufacturer. Delivering a complete propulsion system makes engine 
installation safer and more efficient. This pre-installation delivery 
prevents redundant disassembly, torque breaks, handling damage, and 
additional retesting after the engine ships from the manufacturing 
facility.
    Under current regulations, a PC holder is allowed to manufacture a 
product if it holds for the product a current TC, rights to the 
benefits of a TC under a licensing agreement, or an STC as specified in 
Sec.  21.132. A manufacturer of a product currently cannot manufacture 
and install an IC on that type-certificated product when the IC is not 
part of that product's type design. This proposal would define an IC as 
an article that serves a functional interface between an aircraft and 
an aircraft engine, and also between an aircraft engine and a 
propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. Examples of ICs consist of 
articles such as engine mounts; various electrical, hydraulic, and 
drain brackets; and environmental control system and anti-ice ducts, 
along with their associated hardware.
    This proposal would also permit a PC holder to manufacture and 
install ICs onto its products. Although this proposal would revise 
Sec.  21.147 to allow a PC holder for a product to receive an amendment 
to its production limitation record (PLR) to permit the manufacture and 
installation of ICs, the FAA notes that the holder of design data 
identifying the IC installed on the PC holder's product under the 
privileges of Sec.  21.147(c) retains all of the continuing 
airworthiness responsibilities for the IC. If the PC holder is not the 
owner of the IC design or installation data, the PC holder has no 
authority to amend the design or installation data of the IC. All 
changes to the design or installation data would be made by the design 
approval holder. The PC holder would be responsible for all issues 
related to quality, manufacturing, and installation of the IC by the PC 
holder.
    A PLR is issued as part of a PC. Current Sec.  21.142 states that a 
PLR lists the TC number and the model of every product that the PC 
holder is authorized to manufacture. The PLR does not provide for the 
listing of ICs. This proposal would therefore revise Sec.  21.142 to 
specify that the PLR would also identify every IC that the PC holder is 
authorized to manufacture and install.
    The TC holder would work with the PC holder to identify ICs. Once 
identified, the PC holder would apply for an amendment of its PLR.
    The FAA would develop guidance for PC holders and TC holders to 
comply with any conditions and limitations necessary for the individual 
PC holder in order to exercise this privilege. Section 21.147(c) would 
not place a requirement that all ICs manufactured by a PC holder be 
installed prior to shipping. Having these items listed on the PLR would 
allow a PC holder to both ship the ICs loose with its product or 
individually as spares.
    The intent of this proposal is to enhance safety and facilitate 
global manufacturing. With this proposed rule change, product customers 
may no longer need to partially disassemble a supplied product, thereby 
decreasing potential installation errors. The FAA acknowledges that the 
benefits of streamlining manufacturing and eliminating duplicative 
processes may reduce costs.

C. Supplier Control

    The aviation business model has significantly evolved in recent 
decades. Production approval holders are increasingly using suppliers 
to supplement their activities. Many PAHs no longer manufacture 
complete products or articles, but rather assemble aircraft systems and 
components produced by their suppliers into a complete product or 
article.
    As the aviation business model has changed, first-tier suppliers 
have functioned more as integrators of major sub-assemblies (such as 
wings, nose sections, and complete fuselage sections) than as 
manufactures of smaller assemblies or parts (such as altimeters, brake 
assemblies, and build-to-print parts). Accordingly, the manufacture of 
articles and assemblies has been shifted further down the supply chain.
    Another result of the change in the aviation business model is the 
increased use of suppliers located in countries outside the U.S. The 
demands of customers and the economy have caused production to move 
outside the U.S. to accommodate agreements and utilize low-cost labor. 
The FAA seeks to clarify its regulations to reflect the modern 
manufacturing environment and to reinforce that it is a PAH's 
responsibility to ensure that its requirements are communicated 
throughout its supply chain.
    The term `supplier' is mentioned throughout 14 CFR part 21, and the 
term is commonly used within industry. However, there is no definition 
of supplier in the current regulations. This proposal would define the 
term supplier in proposed Sec.  21.1(b) as a person that provides a 
product, article, or service at any tier of the supply chain that is 
used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, or installed on, the 
product or article. Industry has requested that the FAA provide a 
definition of the term `supplier' to clarify those entities the FAA 
recognizes as suppliers. Defining supplier should provide PAHs with a 
clear understanding of the term and, therefore, better ensure 
regulatory compliance.
    Currently, Sec.  21.137(c)(1) requires a PAH to have procedures 
that ensure each supplier-furnished product or article conforms to its 
approved design. This proposal would specify that a supplier must 
comply with a PAH's requirements. The FAA recognizes that many 
supplier-furnished products do not, in fact, conform to an approved 
design when provided to a PAH, and that a supplier may also provide a 
PAH

[[Page 11008]]

with a service. This proposal would allow a PAH to accept products, 
articles, or services from its suppliers that do not meet the approved 
design, yet conform to the PAH's requirements.
    Current industry practice is for a PAH to submit a purchase order 
to a supplier with the PAH's specific requirements outlined for 
manufacturing a product or article, or for providing a service. In many 
cases, a PAH does not require a supplier to provide a product, article, 
or service that conforms to the approved design requirements for the 
finished product or article. For example, the design data for a skin 
section of an aircraft may show the final rivet hole dimension, but a 
PAH will require a supplier to provide pilot holes of a smaller 
diameter. The final diameter of the holes will be achieved during 
assembly when the skin is joined to the aircraft.
    Another example is when a PAH contracts for a machined part that 
requires additional processing that the supplier is not capable of 
performing, such as heat treating or plating. In such a case, a PAH's 
contract would reflect that it wants the article to conform to the 
design data without the additional processing. A PAH would then need to 
contract with another supplier for these processes.
    In addition, this proposal would require a PAH to establish a 
supplier-reporting process for products, articles, or services that 
have been released from a supplier and subsequently found not to 
conform (hereafter referred to as a quality escape) to the PAH's 
requirements. Currently, Sec.  21.137(c)(2) requires each supplier, at 
any tier, to report to the PAH if there has been a quality escape. 
Except for first-tier suppliers who report directly to the PAH, this 
section does not require suppliers within the supply chain to report to 
the next higher tier if there has been a quality escape. This proposal 
would require the PAH to define and establish, as part of its quality 
system, a process for supplier-reporting of quality escapes. This 
process should ensure that those individuals who need to know when a 
quality escape has occurred be informed in a timely manner.
    The FAA determined it was necessary to clarify Sec.  21.137(c)(2) 
because it currently requires each supplier to report to the PAH if a 
product or article has been released from that supplier and 
subsequently found not to conform to the applicable design data. The 
FAA recognizes that such a requirement can impose a significant burden 
on PAHs. Although the FAA has proposed to include a definition of the 
term `supplier' that would include all suppliers within the supply 
chain, the proposal would provide PAHs with the ability to develop 
procedures to identify those suppliers that would be required to report 
quality escapes and to whom they must report. Such procedures would not 
necessarily require all suppliers within the supply chain to make such 
reports to the PAH. The proposal would permit PAHs to establish a means 
of supplier reporting that is more appropriate to its particular 
production process. These procedures would be required to be approved 
as part of the PAH's quality system.
    To comply with proposed Sec.  21.137(c)(2), the FAA expects the 
PAH's quality system to specify which suppliers must report, and to 
whom, when, and how those reports must be provided. In some cases, the 
PAH would want the supplier of certain products, articles, or services 
to report a quality escape to both its immediate customer and directly 
to the PAH. This reporting could continue up through the supply chain 
to the tier where the quality escape has been resolved. A PAH could 
communicate its quality escape reporting requirement as a flow-through 
requirement to its first-tier suppliers and subsequently through the 
supply chain on a purchase order (or equivalent) document.

D. Authorized Release Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and 
Articles

    An airworthiness approval is a document issued by the FAA for an 
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article which certifies that 
the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its 
approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. This proposal 
would revise the definition of airworthiness approval in Sec.  21.1(b) 
to indicate that an airworthiness approval document may also be issued 
for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article when those 
products or articles may not necessarily conform to their approved 
designs. Accordingly, the FAA has added the phrase ``unless otherwise 
specified'' because under part 21, subpart L, for example, export 
airworthiness approvals can be issued for aircraft, aircraft engines, 
propellers, and articles that do not conform to their approved designs 
when such discrepancies are made known to, and accepted by, the 
importing country or jurisdiction.
    The FAA believes a PAH should be permitted to issue authorized 
release documents since the PAH is responsible for ensuring the 
airworthiness of each product and article it manufactures. This 
proposal would amend Sec.  21.137 by adding a new paragraph (o) to 
allow PAHs to issue authorized release documents for new aircraft 
engines, propellers, and articles; and for used aircraft engines, 
propellers, and articles when rebuilt or altered in accordance with 
Sec.  43.3(j).
    Production approval holders that intend to issue these documents 
must include procedures in their quality systems that provide for the 
selection, appointment, training, recordation, removal, and management 
of the individuals authorized by the PAH to issue authorized release 
documents. The intent of this proposed requirement is to ensure that 
only qualified personnel issue these documents. An evaluation of these 
individuals' qualifications would need to include an assessment of 
their knowledge, background, experience, and training. Qualifications 
should be commensurate with the complexity and type of product or 
article for which the PAH issues the authorized release documents. When 
an authorized release document is being used for the purpose of export, 
the production approval holder would be required to comply with the 
procedures applicable to the export of new and used aircraft engines, 
propellers, and articles specified in Sec.  21.331 and the 
responsibilities of exporters specified in Sec.  21.335 of this part.
    Including procedures in a PAH's quality system is a conditional 
requirement that only applies to a PAH that wants to issue an 
authorized release document. Production approval holders not issuing 
these documents can continue to obtain approvals from the FAA. The FAA 
plans to place guidance regarding the qualifications of the individuals 
allowed to issue an authorized release document in guidance material if 
this proposal is adopted. This proposal is modeled after the European 
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012, Annex I, Part 21, 
Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, Parts, and Appliances, 
and of Design and Production Organizations.
    The intent of this proposal is to recognize a practice permitted by 
other authorities and give PAHs in the U.S. the same flexibility and 
responsiveness available to their European and Canadian manufacturing 
counterparts who already issue authorized release documents. The 
proposed changes would harmonize the CFR with regulations of foreign 
civil aviation authorities and facilitate the global movement and 
acceptance of aircraft engines, propellers, and articles.
    All airworthiness certificates would continue to be issued by the 
FAA.

[[Page 11009]]

Production approval holders would not be permitted to issue 
airworthiness certificates under the provisions of this proposal.

E. Marking of Wooden Propellers

    Currently, Sec.  45.11(c) requires each person who produces a 
propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under a TC or PC to mark 
each product or part using an approved fireproof method. The regulation 
does not take into account the inherent difficulty of marking a wooden 
propeller with a fireproof method. Under this proposal, Sec.  45.11(c) 
would continue to require a fixed-pitch wooden propeller to be marked; 
however, the marking would no longer be required to be fireproof. This 
relief is not necessary for variable-pitch wooden propellers, as they 
are constructed with a metal hub which can be marked with a fireproof 
method.
    In 2000, 2003, and 2008, the FAA granted Exemptions Nos. 7559, 
8394, and 9800 (and an extension with an amendment to Exemption No. 
9800 in 2013) to Sensenich Wood Propeller Company, Inc. 
(``Sensenich''). These exemptions permitted Sensenich to place the 
required identification marking directly on the hub of a wooden 
propeller instead of attaching a metal tag with that information. 
(Copies of these exemptions are included in the docket.) In its 
petition for exemption, Sensenich reported that in accidents involving 
damage to wooden propellers, the hub remains intact, thus preserving 
the stamped identification. The FAA also noted that because of the 
flammability properties of a solid wooden propeller, mounting a metal 
tag may be the only way to provide a fireproof identification that will 
not likely be lost or destroyed in an accident.
    The FAA further noted the possible safety risks inherent in 
attaching a metal tag. Attaching a metal tag could: (1) Affect the 
environmental resistance of a wooden propeller because the screws would 
break the moisture seal, which would increase the potential for 
cracking and deterioration of the wooden propeller; (2) increase the 
difficulty in attaining propeller balance; and (3) become ineffective 
because the metal tag could become loose and fall off, leaving the 
propeller with no identification. Therefore, in granting the exemption, 
the FAA found that stamping the hub of the propeller with the 
identification marks would achieve a level of safety equivalent to that 
of the rule. Stamping has been the industry's standard for marking 
wooden propellers. Additionally, the FAA recognizes that engravings and 
etchings are acceptable methods for marking identification.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
Overview of Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Provision                          Costs/benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require Identification of Accountable    Minimal costs--requires
 Manager.                                 identification of an existing
                                          manager who would be
                                          responsible for, and have
                                          authority over, a PAH's
                                          operations, and who would
                                          serve as a PAH's primary
                                          contact with the FAA.
Allow PC Holders to Manufacture and      Codifying the practice,
 Install Interface Components.            currently allowed by
                                          exemption, would reduce
                                          regulatory compliance costs.
Clarify Supplier Control Requirements..  No additional cost. Proposal
                                          clarifies existing
                                          requirements that PAHs are
                                          responsible for conformity
                                          throughout their supply chains
                                          and gives PAHs flexibility in
                                          establishing a supplier-
                                          reporting process for
                                          nonconforming releases.
Allow PAHs to Issue Authorized Release   Voluntary, so inherently cost-
 Documents for Aircraft Engines,          beneficial.
 Propellers and Articles.
Exclude Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers    The FAA found the exemption
 from Fireproof Marking Requirements.     provides an equivalent level
                                          of safety. Codifying the
                                          practice currently allowed by
                                          exemption would reduce
                                          regulatory compliance costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
    Production approval holders (PAHs) and TC (type certificate) 
holders are potentially affected.
Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule
1. Require Identification of an Accountable Manager
    Under this proposal, the FAA would require each applicant for, or 
holder of, a Production Certificate (PC), PMA (Parts Manufacturer 
Approval), or TSO (Technical Standard Order) authorization to identify 
an accountable manager, who would be responsible for, and have 
authority over, a PAH's operations, and who would serve as a

[[Page 11010]]

PAH's primary contact with the FAA. This proposal is not intended to 
require the PAH to create a new position within its organization and 
would not mandate that an individual in a specific position be 
identified as the accountable manager. Consequently, the costs, if any, 
associated with this requirement are minimal.
2. Allow Production Certificate Holders To Manufacture and Install 
Interface Components
    PC holders currently cannot install interface components (ICs) on 
their type-certificated products without an exemption. Current 
regulations governing the production limitation record and the 
amendment of PCs restrict the PC holder to the manufacture of products 
only (aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers) and do not authorize 
installation.\1\ The FAA has granted exemptions to engine 
manufacturers, allowing them to manufacture and install airframe 
components that interface between the engine and the airframe provided 
they own or are licensed to use the IC type design and installation 
data. In granting these exemptions, the FAA found that allowing engine 
manufacturers to produce and install ICs improved safety and efficiency 
by eliminating disassembly, reassembly and retesting, as well as 
related scoring of fatigue sensitive parts; damage to critical parts; 
and air/fuel/oil leaks.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These regulations were Sec.  21.151 (production limitation 
record) and Sec.  21.153 (amendments of production certificates) 
before the 2010 changes in the part 21 rule and Sec.  21.142 and 
Sec.  21.147 in 2012, after the 2010 changes.
    \2\ The production and installation of ICs by engine 
manufacturers also increase efficiency by allowing delivery of 
quick-change replacement engines to end users such as air carriers 
and charter operators. Some piece parts (or kits), such as the 
engine buildup unit (EBU), rather than being installed by the PC 
holder may be shipped separately to an aircraft manufacturer for the 
purpose of just-in-time manufacturing operations, or to an airline 
that may want kits on hand for routine maintenance operations or to 
replace hardware damaged during operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This provision would codify the practice, currently allowed by 
exemption, of allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs, and 
would apply to any articles designated by the TC holder that interface 
between products, therefore including the interface between propeller 
and aircraft engine and between propeller and aircraft, as well as 
between aircraft engine and aircraft. Codifying the practice of 
allowing PC holders to manufacture and install ICs implies no change in 
safety or efficiency benefits already implied by the practice. 
Codifying the practice, however, would reduce regulatory costs since 
paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and 
granting of exemptions would be eliminated.
3. Supplier Control
    With this proposal the FAA intends to clarify existing requirements 
that the PAH is responsible for (1) conformity throughout the supply 
chain and (2) establishing a supplier reporting process for 
nonconforming releases. As there is no definition of supplier in the 
current regulations, the proposed rule would define supplier as ``a 
person that provides a product, article, or service at any tier in the 
supply chain that is used or consumed in the design or manufacture of, 
or installed on, a product or article.''
    The proposed rule would change the language to Sec.  21.137(c) as 
shown in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Current language                     Proposed language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier Control. Procedures that--         Supplier Control. Procedures
                                             that--
    (1) Ensure that each supplier-          (1) Ensure that each
     furnished product or article conforms   supplier-provided product,
     to its approved design; and             article, or service
                                             conforms to the production
                                             approval holder's
                                             requirements; and
    (2) Require each supplier to report to  (2) Establish a supplier-
     the production approval holder if a     reporting process for
     product or article has been released    products, articles, or
     from that supplier and subsequently     services that have been
     found not to conform to the             released from the supplier
     applicable design data.                 and subsequently found not
                                             to conform to the
                                             production approval
                                             holder's requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provision (1) just clarifies the FAA's intent, while provision 
(2) gives the PAHs greater flexibility, any additional costs would be 
minimal.
4. Allow Production Approval Holders To Issue Authorized Release 
Documents for Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and Articles
    This proposal would allow, but not require, PAHs to issue 
authorized release documents using FAA Form 8130-3, ``Authorized 
Release Certificate,'' for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles 
for which the PAH has a production approval. FAA Form 8130-3 is the 
preferred method for issuing an export airworthiness approval 
documenting that an aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to 
its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. PAHs 
choosing not to issue these authorized release documents would continue 
to obtain approvals from the FAA. For aircraft, an export airworthiness 
approval would continue to be issued only by the FAA, using Form 8130-
4, ``Export Certificate of Airworthiness.''
    Although export airworthiness approvals are required only when 
requested by a foreign civil aviation authority, they have become 
increasingly valued in the aviation industry. Several U.S. 
manufacturers have requested the privilege of issuing authorized 
release documents, which is already enjoyed by their European and 
Canadian counterparts. As issuance of authorized release documents is 
voluntary, this provision would be inherently cost beneficial.
5. Marking of Fixed-Pitch Wooden Propellers
    As noted in the preamble above, the FAA granted an exemption to 
Sensenich Wood Propeller Company from the regulations requiring that a 
propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub be marked using an 
approved fireproof method. In granting the exemption, the FAA found 
that stamping the hub of the propeller with the identification marks 
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to the rule. The FAA 
maintains that finding in this proposal and, in any case, codifying the 
practice, currently allowed by exemption, implies no change in safety 
benefits.\3\ Codifying the practice, however, would reduce regulatory 
compliance costs since the costs of fireproof stamping and the costs of 
paperwork requirements involved in periodic application for and 
granting of the exemption would be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Since variable-pitch wooden propellers have metal hubs, a 
metal tag is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that

[[Page 11011]]

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 provisions of this proposed rule (1) are minimal cost, (2) 
would impose no additional costs because the provisions would clarify 
only or are current practice, or (3) are voluntary and therefore 
inherently cost-beneficial.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments 
regarding this determination. Specifically, the FAA requests comments 
on whether the proposed rule creates any specific compliance costs 
unique to small entities. Please provide detailed economic analysis to 
support any cost claims. The FAA also invites comments regarding other 
small-entity concerns with respect to the proposed rule.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and 
determined that the rule's provision allowing PAHs to issue authorized 
release documents would be in accord with the Trade Agreements Act as 
this provision uses European standards as the basis for United States 
regulation. The remaining provisions have a minimal domestic impact 
only and therefore no effect on international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 12866

    See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' discussion in the ``Regulatory 
Notices and Analyses'' section elsewhere in this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

[[Page 11012]]

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency 
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, 
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written 
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should 
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well 
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this 
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before 
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed 
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without 
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in 
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should 
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the 
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting 
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the FAA is aware of proprietary 
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the 
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have 
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received 
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, 
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of 
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR Part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    Copies may also be obtained 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. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 
(1) above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 21

    Amendment of production certificates, Issuance of export 
airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and articles, 
Organization and Quality system.

14 CFR Part 45

    Marking of products.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 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, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

0
2. Amend Sec.  21.1 by revising paragraph (b)(1), redesignating 
paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) as (b)(6) through (9), and adding new 
paragraph (b)(5) and paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.1  Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Airworthiness approval means a document issued by the FAA for 
an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article which certifies 
that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to 
its approved design, unless otherwise specified, and is in a condition 
for safe operation.
* * * * *
    (5) Interface component means an article that serves as a 
functional interface between an aircraft and an aircraft engine, an 
aircraft engine and a propeller, or an aircraft and a propeller. An 
interface component is designated by the holder of the type certificate 
or the supplemental type certificate who controls the approved design 
data for that article.
* * * * *
    (10) Supplier means a person that provides a product, article, or 
service at any tier in the supply chain that is used or consumed in the 
design or manufacture of, or installed on a product or article.

0
3. Revise Sec.  21.135 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.135  Organization.

    (a) Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate must 
provide the FAA with a document describing how its organization will 
ensure compliance with the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the 
document must identify an accountable manager and describe assigned 
responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional 
relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other 
organizational components.
    (b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production 
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval 
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures 
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of 
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as 
the primary contact with the FAA.

0
4. Amend Sec.  21.137, by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding 
paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.137  Quality system.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Ensure that each supplier-provided product, article, or service 
conforms to the production approval holder's requirements; and
    (2) Establish a supplier-reporting process for products, articles, 
or services that have been released from or provided by the supplier 
and subsequently found not to conform to the production approval 
holder's requirements.
* * * * *
    (o) Issuing authorized release documents. Procedures for issuing 
authorized release documents for aircraft engines, propellers, and 
articles

[[Page 11013]]

if the production approval holder intends to issue those documents. 
These procedures must provide for the selection, appointment, training, 
management, and removal of individuals authorized by the production 
approval holder to issue authorized release documents. These documents 
may be issued for new aircraft engines, propellers, and articles; and 
for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles when rebuilt, or 
altered, in accordance with Sec.  43.3(j) of this chapter. When an 
authorized release document is being used for the purpose of export, 
the production approval holder must comply with the procedures 
applicable to the export of new and used aircraft engines, propellers, 
and articles specified in Sec.  21.331 and the responsibilities of 
exporters specified in Sec.  21.335 of this part.

0
5. Revise Sec.  21.142 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.142  Production limitation record.

    The FAA issues a production limitation record as part of a 
production certificate. The record lists the type certificate number 
and model of every product that the production certificate holder is 
authorized to manufacture, and identifies every interface component 
that the production certificate holder is authorized to manufacture and 
install.

0
6. Revise Sec.  21.147 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.147  Amendment of production certificates.

    (a) The holder of a production certificate must apply for an 
amendment to a production certificate in a form and manner prescribed 
by the FAA.
    (b) The applicant for an amendment to a production certificate to 
add a type certificate or model, or both, must comply with the 
applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  21.137, 21.138, and 21.150.
    (c) The applicant for an amendment to a production certificate may 
have its production limitation record amended to allow the manufacture 
and installation of an interface component, provided--
    (1) The design and installation data for the interface component is 
owned by, or licensed to, the applicant and made available to the FAA 
upon request;
    (2) The interface component is manufactured by the applicant;
    (3) The applicant's product conforms to its approved type design 
and the interface component conforms to its approved type design data;
    (4) The assembled product with the installed interface component is 
in a condition for safe operation; and
    (5) The applicant complies with any other conditions and 
limitations the FAA considers necessary.

0
7. Revise Sec.  21.305 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.305  Organization.

    (a) Each applicant for or holder of a PMA must provide the FAA with 
a document describing how its organization will ensure compliance with 
the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the document must identify 
an accountable manager and describe assigned responsibilities, 
delegated authorities, and the functional relationship of those 
responsible for quality to management and other organizational 
components.
    (b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production 
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval 
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures 
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of 
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as 
the primary contact with the FAA.

0
8. Revise Sec.  21.605 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.605  Organization.

    (a) Each applicant for or holder of a TSO authorization must 
provide the FAA with a document describing how its organization will 
ensure compliance with the provisions of this subpart. In addition, the 
document must identify an accountable manager and describe assigned 
responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional 
relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other 
organizational components.
    (b) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section is responsible for, and has the authority over, all production 
operations that are conducted under this part. The production approval 
holder must ensure that the accountable manager confirms the procedures 
described in the quality manual are in place and the requirements of 
the applicable regulations are met. The accountable manager serves as 
the primary contact with the FAA.

PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING

0
9. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-44105, 
44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725, 45302-
45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.

0
10. Amend Sec.  45.11 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  45.11  Marking of products.

* * * * *
    (c) Propellers and propeller blades and hubs. Each person who 
produces a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under a type 
certificate or production certificate must mark each product or part. 
Except for a fixed-pitch wooden propeller, the marking must be 
accomplished using an approved fireproof method. The marking must--
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2014.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04330 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P