[Federal Register: July 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 140)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47997-48004]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jy02-16]
[[Page 47997]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 39
Airworthiness Directives; Final Rule
[[Page 47998]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2000-8460; Amdt. No. 39-9474]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates several standard provisions
previously included in most airworthiness directives into the Code of
Federal Regulations. FAA will no longer include these provisions in
individual airworthiness directives. FAA is taking this action to
standardize the way we write airworthiness directives. This action will
enhance aviation safety by making it easier for users to focus on
specific safety concerns addressed in airworthiness directives.
DATES: Effective August 21, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel,
Regulations Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of this document through the
Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su--
docs/aces/aces140.html or from the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page on the Internet at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov. Use the search function to search for Docket Number
8460. This document will be the last item in the list of items under
that number. You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Ask for the final rule
for Docket Number 8460.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about
SBREFA at our Web site, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, or e-
mail us at 9-AWA-SBREFA@faa.gov.
Background
1. New Provisions
FAA is revising part 39 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) by adding several provisions currently found in
airworthiness directives (ADs). This action will allow us to omit those
provisions from individual ADs. Omitting this language from ADs will
place the focus of ADs on the unsafe condition that created the need
for the directive. Many operators have indicated that this boilerplate
language imposed a burden on the reader without contributing to
aviation safety. The standard provisions currently found in ADs make it
hard for the reader to focus on the safety aspects of the AD.
Therefore, FAA is moving several of these standard provisions to part
39.
Specifically, FAA is adding to part 39 the language explaining that
ADs apply even if products have been modified, altered, or repaired in
the area addressed by the directive. FAA also is adding the language
about the use of special flight permits if operators are not able to
move their aircraft to a repair facility within the time limits imposed
by the AD. Further, the new part 39 will contain procedures for asking
FAA to approve alternative methods of compliance with the AD. Finally,
FAA is adding the language that requires operators to comply with the
requirements of an AD when the AD and a service document referenced in
an AD conflict.
2. Clearer Regulatory Format
In addition to moving certain provisions currently found in
individual ADs to part 39, FAA wrote this regulation in plain language.
We reorganized and reworded the regulation using plain language
techniques. Plain language elements in the proposal include--
a. Section headings in the form of questions to help direct the
readers to specific material they need;
b. Personal pronouns to reduce passive voice and draw readers into
the writing; and
c. Active verbs to make clear who is responsible for what actions.
3. Related Activity
As part of FAA's effort to improve the way we issue ADs, we will
start to issue them in a new, streamlined format. Simpler ADs will
appear as charts, with all regulatory information contained within the
chart. More complex ADs will make greater use of tables to present
complex materials in a clearer manner.
4. Discussion of Comments
FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing
changes to part 39, as described previously (66 FR 3382; January 12,
2001). FAA received fifteen comments on the proposal from individuals,
representatives of industry associations, and businesses who
participate in the aviation industry.
General comments: Several commenters generally supported the
proposal. They stated that they support the concept of writing ADs in a
clear style. They agree that eliminating the standard language from
most ADs will help readers focus on the safety information specific to
each AD.
One commenter generally objected to the proposal and several
commenters, while supporting the proposal in general, objected to the
question and answer format. They stated that it was more difficult to
find material with question headings. One commenter stated that
``question headings fail to communicate a clear standard.''
We find that question headings help guide readers through the
document, especially in non-technical regulations such as this one;
therefore, FAA will continue to consider the use of question headings.
However, we do agree that use of question headings is not always
appropriate. This is particularly true of standard sections at the
beginning of many regulations, such as the purpose of the regulation
and definitions used in the regulation. On the other hand, switching
back and forth between two heading types throughout a regulation may be
distracting and confusing to some readers. Accordingly, we have
retained the question headings in most of this regulation, but have
used the more traditional statement style for the first two sections of
the final rule, ``Purpose of the Regulation'' and ``Definition of
Airworthiness Directives.''
We do not agree with the comment that question headings fail to
provide a clear standard. Standards of a regulation are within the text
of each section, not in the heading. Traditional headings in statement
form such as ``applications'' and ``general'' were never intended to
provide a ``clear standard'' to the reader, and neither are question
headings.
Several commenters stated they found pronouns confusing. FAA finds
that
[[Page 47999]]
pronouns help readers relate to a document. However, we agree that it
is critical that the referent for each pronoun be clear, and we have
tried to achieve that in this final rule.
Several commenters cautioned that if we eliminate the boilerplate
notes from specific ADs, we should mention this new part 39 in the
preamble to each AD. While we note that any operator of aircraft
regulated by FAA has an obligation to be familiar with FAA regulations,
we will refer to part 39 in the preamble of each AD to alert operators
to these provisions.
Two commenters stated the rule does nothing to enhance aviation
safety. FAA disagrees. As we stated above, we find that this action
will allow readers of ADs to focus on the safety related material. We
find that clear communication is a safety issue, and this final rule
will clarify the provisions of ADs, thereby enhancing aviation safety.
Several commenters agreed that removing the boilerplate will allow
readers to focus on the safety issues.
Several commenters indicated that FAA should not introduce new
regulatory requirements in part 39 in this rulemaking action. The only
example that commenters gave was the change to Sec. 39.17, which tells
people where to send requests for FAA approval of alternative methods
of complying with ADs. We discuss this issue in the section-by-section
analysis below. FAA notes that this rulemaking action does not
introduce any new regulatory requirements. We are simply moving
provisions currently found in ADs to part 39.
Several commenters stated that some headings did not adequately
cover the material in the following section, or that FAA needed
additional material clarifying the proposed provisions. We agree with
several of the comments; therefore, we added new sections to the final
rule, and renumbered succeeding sections accordingly.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments
Section 39.1 Purpose of This Regulation
This section explains that part 39 establishes the regulatory basis
for FAA's airworthiness directives. This would replace similar material
found currently in part 39.
One commenter objected to the term ``set up'' in the proposal, and
suggested alternative language. While we have not used the commenter's
suggested language, which was much longer, we agree the term ``set up''
may not be appropriate for a regulation. We have reworded this section
to provide a more precise description of the role of part 39.
Section 39.3 Definition of Airworthiness Directives
This section explains that ADs are legally enforceable rules that
apply toaircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. We
refer to these items as ``products.'' This definition is similar to
that in the prior version of Secs. 39.1 and 39.3.
Two commenters suggested that we either define products, which they
note is defined only in 14 CFR part 21, or eliminate the term from this
section. The prior version of part 39 included the same definition of
``product,'' that is, ``aircraft, aircraft engine, propellers, or
appliances.'' We have decided not to change this definition. The
definition of ``product'' in part 21 is similar, but does not include
the term ``appliance.'' We will continue to issue ADs applicable to
``appliances.'' To clarify that we will use this term in this part, we
have revised the wording in this section to state that ADs cover the
following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
appliances.
Proposed Sec. 39.3 stated the conditions under which FAA will issue
an AD. We have moved this provision into a new section in the final
rule, Sec. 39.5. See the discussion of that section below. One
commenter suggested the heading of this section did not capture the
entire contents of the section. According to the commenter, the section
also refers to the conditions that must be present when FAA issues an
AD. We agree with the commenter; therefore, we have separated this
material into two sections.
Section 39.5 (New Section in Final Rule) When Does FAA Issue
Airworthiness Directives?
This is a new section in the final rule. This material, which is
similar to that found in current Sec. 39.1, was in proposed Sec. 39.3.
The section describes the conditions under which FAA would issue an AD.
FAA issues ADs when we find that an unsafe condition exists in a
product and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design. We have renumbered subsequent
sections accordingly to accommodate this new section.
One commenter stated that the language in this section could be
interpreted to exclude issuing an AD against parts. FAA does not intend
this provision to change AD applicability to parts. Except for
``appliances,'' which are included in the definition of ``products,''
FAA has not issued ADs that apply to ``parts,'' independently of the
products on which they are installed. Rather, if we find an unsafe
condition is caused by a particular part, we issue an AD against the
product or products on which the part is installed. For ease of
identifying those products, we may specify the part in the
applicability provision, ``as installed on'' particular products. If we
are not certain of all the products on which the part is installed, we
may identify the products we do know about, but indicate that others
may also be affected. In all of these cases, however, the AD applies to
the products on which these parts are installed, rather than to the
parts themselves, simply because parts that are not installed on
products do not create an unsafe condition. This new version of part 39
will not change this practice.
Section 39.7 (Proposed Sec. 39.5) Who Must Comply With Airworthiness
Directives?
This section clarifies that anyone operating a product listed in an
AD must comply with the AD. Proposed Sec. 39.5 also specified that each
flight taken without complying with the AD is a separate violation.
This material is similar to the prior version of Sec. 39.3.
One commenter noted that the heading of this section does not
capture the entire content of the section because the section also
addresses the consequences of non-compliance. FAA agrees. Many readers
will also want to find information about compliance. Therefore, we have
separated this information into a new section, Sec. 39.9, for easy
reference.
In considering this comment, we recognized that prior version of
Sec. 39.3, which proposed Sec. 39.5 was intended to replace, does not
state who must comply with ADs. Rather, it states that no person may
operate a product that is subject to an AD except in accordance with
the requirements of that AD. This is a statement of the legal effect of
failing to comply with ADs. The question of who must accomplish the
actions specified in an AD is actually answered by other rules. For
example, many ADs require maintenance actions. Other regulations,
including those in 14 CFR parts 65, 121, and 145, identify who is
authorized to do maintenance. Further, in the past when FAA took
enforcement action relating to failures to comply with an AD, we cited
Sec. 39.3 as the regulation that was violated, not the AD itself.
To prevent confusion and to be consistent with past practice, we
are revising the question heading for Sec. 39.7 to state, ``What is the
legal effect of failing to comply with an AD?'' We have
[[Page 48000]]
changed the section to read, ``It is a violation of this section for
anyone to operate a product when it is not in compliance with an AD
that applies to it.''
We are re-writing Sec. 39.9 to refer to Sec. 39.7, which is the
rule that operators will violate if they fail to operate or use a
product without complying with an AD that applies to that product.
Section 39.9 (New Section in Final Rule) What If I operate or Use a
Product That Does Not Meet the Requirements of an Airworthiness
Directive?
This section specifies that if the requirements of an airworthiness
directive have not been met, then each time you operate the aircraft or
use the product, you violate Sec. 39.7. In the proposal, this material
was in Secs. 39.3 and 39.7. We made this change in response to a
comment that the title of proposed Sec. 39.5 did not adequately cover
this issue.
Section 39.11 (Proposed 39.7) What Actions Do Airworthiness Directives
Require?
This section identifies what actions ADs can require. This rule is
similar to the prior version of Sec. 39.11. As under the former
provisions in part 39, FAA intends to retain broad authority to require
whatever types of corrective actions we determine to be most effective
in addressing identified unsafe conditions. This includes inspections,
repairs, modifications, operating limitations, airworthiness
limitations, and maintenance program requirements. We received no
comments on this section, and adopt it as proposed.
Section 39.13 Are Airworthiness Directives Part of the Code of Federal
Regulations?
This section specifies that ADs are amendments to Sec. 39.13.
However, ADs are not codified in the annual edition of the Code of
Federal Regulations. As with other regulations, ADs are published in
full in the Federal Register.
One commenter stated this language is not needed in the rule, and
recommended we move it to the preamble. While this language may appear
to be just informative and not regulatory, the Office of the Federal
Register requires us to include it in part 39. This language has the
legal effect of including ADs in the Code of Federal Regulations by
publishing them in the Federal Register, without codifying them in the
annual edition of the Code. Therefore, we adopt this section as
proposed.
Section 39.15 Does an Airworthiness Directive Apply If the Product Has
Been Changed?
This section specifies that ADs apply to products even if they have
been modified, altered, or repaired in the area addressed by the AD.
Proposed Sec. 39.15 also specified what to do if the change prevents
complying with the AD.
One commenter suggested that the heading as proposed did not cover
all the material in the section. The section not only specified that
ADs apply to products even if they have been modified, altered, or
repaired, but also included material on what to do if products had been
changed in a way that affected an operator's ability to comply with an
AD. We agree with the commenter. Therefore, we have moved that second
provision into a new section, Sec. 39.17. We discuss this issue and
comments received on proposed Sec. 39.15 in the discussion of new
Sec. 39.17.
Several commenters expressed confusion about the meaning of the
first two sentences of this section as proposed. We agree that the
proposed wording was confusing, and have accepted language suggested by
one of the commenters. This change in the final rule language is
consistent with both past practice and with our intent in the NPRM.
Another commenter suggested that we define product, series, model,
and individual aircraft. As discussed previously, we define ``product''
in Sec. 39.3. We do not agree that the terms ``series, ``model,'' and
``individual aircraft'' need a regulatory definition. An aircraft
``model'' typically refers to all aircraft covered by a particular type
certificate, such as ``Boeing Model 747 airplanes.'' A ``series''
typically refers to a specific subset of the model that is identified
on the type certificate data sheet for the model, such as ``Boeing
Model 747-400 series airplanes.'' In addition, the applicability
provisions of ADs frequently refer to individual aircraft, as
identified by unique line numbers or serial numbers.
Section 39.17 (New Section in Final Rule) What Must I Do If a Change
in a Product Affects My Ability To Accomplish the Actions Required in
an Airworthiness Directive?
This new section contains material we proposed in Sec. 39.15. We
have moved it into a separate section in response to comments. It
specifies that if a change in a product affects your ability to comply
with the AD, you must ask FAA's permission to use an alternative method
of compliance, and your request must either show that the change
eliminated the unsafe condition or include the specific actions you
propose. Although this material is new to part 39, it currently appears
as a note in individual ADs.
Several commenters suggested that we retain current language for
``alternative method of compliance'' and that we use this language
consistently. We agree with this suggestion.
One commenter suggested that we change the first sentence to say
``that'' change rather than ``a'' change. We have accepted this
suggestion. The same commenter further suggested that we clarify this
provision by stating that it applies to cases where the change alters
existing approved actions. We do not agree. As stated in the NPRM
regarding this provision, ``This material is new to part 39 but
currently appears in most individual ADs.'' This section simply
explains the legal effect of the applicability provision of each AD,
and this effect is unchanged by the adoption of this final rule. In the
past, as in the future, all products identified in the applicability
provision of an AD are subject to the AD, and operators must either
comply with the provisions of the AD or request approval for an
alternative method of compliance. No change to the final rule is
necessary.
One commenter suggested repeating the language about products that
are ``modified, altered or repaired * * *'' We find that the term
``change'' adequately covers these three concepts and therefore this
more detailed language is not necessary.
Another commenter noted that if a prior change has made the
aircraft safe, FAA should not ground the aircraft pending completion of
actions required by an AD. The comment stated this is an ``additional
requirement'' on safely modified aircraft and FAA should not impose
such requirements.
FAA does not agree. ADs apply to a specific product, even if the
product has been changed. We cannot tell whether a change satisfies the
safety concern until the operator demonstrates that to us. If the
operator demonstrated to FAA that the change satisfied the safety
concern, we may approve the change as an alternative method of
compliance.
One of the reasons why ADs have become so complex is that FAA has
tried to address all configuration variations. However, we cannot cover
all possible changes under an AD. We issue ADs to address the main
configurations approved under type certificates or, in some cases,
under supplemental type certificates. If operators have made additional
changes, they are responsible for making
[[Page 48001]]
their aircraft airworthy and getting the necessary approvals to do so.
Similarly, two commenters questioned whether FAA should make a
blanket statement that ADs apply to changed products, since the
situation may be very complex. One commenter noted,
It may not be advisable to automatically make the statement the
airworthiness directive applies to changed products. This may take
away some needed considerations of affected configurations during
the formulation of the AD. By this statement, I am saying that there
may be a propensity to think the responsibility of consideration of
changed configurations can just be thrown to the owner/operator.
There are some very complex changes to products on airplanes that
cannot be reliably delegated to field operations FAA and maintenance
personnel. Those complex changes are the very reasons for the
omission of the applicability statement to changed products
referenced in the Proposed Rule as having historically occurred on
airworthiness directive's [sic]. It is frequently necessary to
develop airworthiness directive's [sic] that adequately cover known
changes to airplanes. Having this automatic responsibility statement
may well promote a lack of effort in properly creating the
airworthiness directive's [sic] needed to cover various
configurations.
Presumably, the purpose of an operator's alternative method of
compliance would be to avoid having to undertake the actions required
by an AD. If the operator of a product that has been modified, altered,
or repaired can show that the change makes the aircraft safe, FAA will
approve the new configuration as an alternative method of compliance
and the operator would not have to take the actions specified in the
AD. This is not a new requirement. All products identified in the
applicability provision of an AD have always been subject to the
directive. Originally, we began including this note in ADs because some
operators had taken the legally incorrect position that, because they
had changed their aircraft, they did not have to comply.
In the final rule, we have moved this provision into its own
section. We have used the term ``alternative method of compliance''
rather than a similar term used in the proposal.
Section 39.19 (Proposed Sec. 39.17) May I Address the Unsafe Condition
in a Way Other Than That Set Out in the Airworthiness Directive?
This section allows anyone to propose to FAA an alternative method
of compliance, including proposals to change the amount of time given
to comply with an AD, as long as the proposal provides an acceptable
level of safety. This section explains how to ask FAA to approve a
proposed alternative. This material is new to part 39 but currently
appears in most individual ADs.
One commenter noted that sending copies to ``assigned FAA principal
or aviation safety inspector'' differs from the current process of
sending requests for alternative methods of compliance to FAA. Another
commenter suggested the method specified in the proposal adds a new
burden to operators. We have changed the language in the final rule to
clarify that operators who do not have principal inspectors should send
their requests directly to the FAA manager responsible for the AD for
which they seek approval of an alternative method of compliance. We
have also changed the language to allow operators to send a copy of
their request simultaneously to the principal inspector and the
manager, rather than requiring it. Since the final rule language does
not require sending copies to two offices at once, there should be no
additional burden imposed by the rule. However, if operators want to
send copies to both the inspector and the manager at the same time to
expedite the process or for some other reason, the final rule language
allows them to do so. Operators can work with their principal inspector
and manager to determine which works best for each case.
We have also added language authorizing FAA to designate an
alternative process for submitting requests should the need arise. This
flexibility accommodates particular unusual cases or improved
processing of these requests, such as increased use of electronic
transmissions. We have deleted the reference to Safety Inspectors and
instead use the more specific term Principal Inspector.
Several commenters stated that FAA does not always designate
managers as contact points for approval of an alternative method of
compliance, and suggested that we use a more general term. We are not
aware of any cases in which we designate someone other than a manager
as a contact for approval of an alternative method of compliance. While
some managers may have delegated that function to staff, the manager
remains responsible for responding to the requests. Therefore we
disagree with this comment.
Two commenters suggested that FAA indicate what standards we will
use in reviewing requests for alternative methods of compliance.
Further, they suggested that we indicate we will grant the request if
the applicant shows the proposal would provide a level of safety at
least equal to that provided by the AD. Given the range of unsafe
conditions and possible alternative methods, FAA does not find it
appropriate that we provide specific standards. We already state that
we will approve these requests if they provide an acceptable level of
safety. We are not arbitrary in our review of proposals for alternative
methods of compliance, and have always approved them if they provide an
acceptable level of safety. If FAA determines a proposed alternative is
``acceptable'' we will approve it, even if it may not be technically
``equivalent'' or ``at least equal to'' the method specified in the AD.
Thus, the AD itself specifies the standard for approving an alternative
method of compliance.
Several commenters stated FAA has previously approved alternative
methods of compliance through other regulatory provisions, specifically
14 CFR 21.305(d) and 43.13(c), as well as 14 CFR part 11. The
commenters recommend that FAA should continue this practice. This new
version of part 39 will not change or eliminate any current bases for
FAA's approval of alternative methods of compliance. However, we do not
find that we have used these other authorities as the basis for
approval. Approvals we have granted under Sec. 21.305(d) or
Sec. 43.13(c) do not affect in any way an operator's obligation to
either follow the requirements of an AD or get approval for an
alternative method of compliance under part 39.
Section 39.21 (Proposed Sec. 39.19) Where Can I Get Information About
FAA-Approved Alternative Methods of Compliance?
This section informs you where to get information about alternative
methods of compliance with ADs that FAA has already approved for other
certificate holders. This material is new to part 39 but currently
appears in most individual ADs.
Several commenters stated that if FAA's language means we will make
alternative methods of compliance public when they are approved, FAA
would be making proprietary information publicly available in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 1905.
We derived this new paragraph in part 39 from a provision used in
ADs for many years. By providing information about FAA-approved
alternative methods of compliance, FAA does not reveal proprietary
information; we simply identify whether we have approved alternative
methods of compliance with a particular directive. We handle requests
for further information regarding the content or substance of the
alternative method of compliance under the Freedom of
[[Page 48002]]
Information Act, which provides an exception from disclosure for
proprietary information.
Section 39.23 (Proposed Sec. 39.21) May I Fly My Aircraft to a Repair
Facility To Do the Work Required by an Airworthiness Directive?
This section explains that if you do not already have authority in
your approved maintenance program to fly your aircraft to a repair
facility, FAA may issue you a special flight permit, sometimes called a
``ferry permit,'' allowing you to fly your aircraft to a place where
you can comply with the AD. This material is new to part 39 but
currently appears in most individual ADs. Moving this provision to part
39 does not mean that you have authority under previously issued ADs to
fly your aircraft to a repair facility.
Since we will allow you to move an aircraft only if it is safe to
do so, this section also provides that FAA may add special requirements
for flying a specific product to a repair facility to ensure aviation
safety. Furthermore, FAA may specify in particular ADs that we will not
issue special flight permits for products covered by that particular
directive. FAA may take this position when the safety issue addressed
by the AD is so serious that moving an aircraft to a repair facility
would create an unacceptable safety risk. We may also decline to issue
special flight permits in individual cases because of the condition of
a specific aircraft.
Several commenters raised the issue of ``continuing'' authority to
fly aircraft to a repair facility. We agree this was not specified in
the proposed rule language, and have added language clarifying this in
the final version of this section.
One commenter stated that FAA should explain that the local Flight
Standards District Office, not the Office where the aircraft is based,
issues special flight permits. We have incorporated the commenter's
suggestions by adding reference to the local office to the final rule.
Several commenters suggested that we reference requirements in
other parts of FAA's regulations concerning how to get a special flight
permit. FAA agrees with this comment; therefore, we have added a new
section, Sec. 39.25, to the final rule.
Section 39.25 (New Section in Final Rule) How Do I Get a Special
Flight Permit?
This section specifies that you can obtain a special flight permit
under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199. We added this section
to the final rule in response to comments on proposed Sec. 39.21 (final
rule Sec. 39.23) requesting that we address the requirements for
obtaining special flight permits.
Section 39.27 (Proposed Sec. 39.25) What Do I Do If the Airworthiness
Directive Conflicts With the Service Document on Which It Is Based?
This section clarifies that in the case of conflicts between an AD
and a service document, the AD prevails. This material is new to part
39 but currently appears in some ADs.
One commenter suggested that we change the reference to service
bulletins to some broader term because sometimes ADs refer to other
technical data besides service bulletins. FAA agrees with this comment
and has changed the final rule language to reference ``service
documents.''
Finally, one commenter suggested that FAA make available to the
public any service bulletin incorporated by reference in an AD. We
include a statement in every AD that service documents are available
for viewing at FAA. To get your own copy, you must obtain it from the
publisher.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
are no new information collection requirements associated with this
rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA determined
there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond
to these regulations.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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, in any one year
(adjusted for inflation).
For regulations with an expected minimal impact, however, the
analyses specified above are not required. The Department of
Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If we determine
that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not
warrant a full Evaluation, we include a statement to that effect and
the basis for it in proposed regulation.
This final rule simply moves existing provisions from individual
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) into part 39. This action streamlines
individual Ads, which is expected to improve the focus of the safety
issued addressed in the AD. This final rule imposes no new
requirements. No comments were received disputing the facts that the
action streamlines individual ADs and imposes no new requirements.
In analyzing this final rule, FAA has determined the rule has
benefits which justify the costs, is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is
not ``significant'' as defined in the Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. As the expected impact of this rule
will have minimal cost, if any, a full regulatory evaluation is not
warranted, and FAA did not prepare one.
Additionally, FAA certifies the rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, has no effect on
barriers to international trade, and does not impose an Unfunded
Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational
[[Page 48003]]
requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that
principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
The Act 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 proposed or
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it would, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final 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.
This action simply moves existing provisions from individual
airworthiness directives into part 39. As a result, the cost is
expected to be minimal. FAA did not receive any comments disagreeing
with the assessment of minimal cost. Consequently, FAA certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
FAA has accordingly assessed the potential effect of this final
rule to be minimal and therefore determined that this rule will not
result in an impact on international trade by companies doing business
in or with the United States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) 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.''
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
Executive Order 3132, Federalism
FAA analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
We determined that this final rule, therefore, does not have federalism
implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a
categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
FAA has assessed the energy impact of the final rule under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined that the
final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the
EPCA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the above, the Federal Aviation Administration
revises part 39 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Sec.
39.1 Purpose of this regulation.
39.3 Definition of airworthiness directives.
39.5 When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?
39.7 What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an
airworthiness directive?
39.9 What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not
meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?
39.11 What actions do airworthiness directives require?
39.13 Are airworthiness directives part of the Code of Federal
Regulations?
39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has
been changed?
39.17 What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability
to accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?
39.19 May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that
set out in the airworthiness directive?
39.21 Where can I get information about FAA-approved alternative
methods of compliance?
39.23 May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work
required by an airworthiness directive?
39.25 How do I get a special flight permit?
39.27 What do I do if the airworthiness directive conflicts with
the service document on which it is based?
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.1 Purpose of this regulation.
The regulations in this part provide a legal framework for FAA's
system of Airworthiness Directives.
Sec. 39.3 Definition of airworthiness directives.
FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that
apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers, and appliances.
Sec. 39.5 When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?
FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we
find that:
(a) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and
(b) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products
of the same type design.
Sec. 39.7 What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an
airworthiness directive?
Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements
of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this
section.
Sec. 39.9 What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not
meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?
If the requirements of an airworthiness directive have not been
met, you violate Sec. 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or use
the product.
Sec. 39.11 What actions do airworthiness directives require?
Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out,
conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you
must take to resolve an unsafe condition.
[[Page 48004]]
Sec. 39.13 Are airworthiness directives part of the Code of Federal
Regulations?
Yes, airworthiness directives are part of the Code of Federal
Regulations, but they are not codified in the annual edition. FAA
publishes airworthiness directives in full in the Federal Register as
amendments to Sec. 39.13.
Sec. 39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has
been changed?
Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified
in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been
changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed
by the airworthiness directive.
Sec. 39.17 What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability
to accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?
If a change in a product affects your ability to accomplish the
actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, you must
request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance. Unless you
can show the change eliminated the unsafe condition, your request
should include the specific actions that you propose to address the
unsafe condition. Submit your request in the manner described in
Sec. 39.19.
Sec. 39.19 May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that
set out in the airworthiness directive?
Yes, anyone may propose to FAA an alternative method of compliance
or a change in the compliance time, if the proposal provides an
acceptable level of safety. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your
proposal to your principal inspector. Include the specific actions you
are proposing to address the unsafe condition. The principal inspector
may add comments and will send your request to the manager of the
office identified in the airworthiness directive (manager). You may
send a copy to the manager at the same time you send it to the
principal inspector. If you do not have a principal inspector send your
proposal directly to the manager. You may use the alternative you
propose only if the manager approves it.
Sec. 39.21 Where can I get information about FAA-approved alternative
methods of compliance?
Each airworthiness directive identifies the office responsible for
approving alternative methods of compliance. That office can provide
information about alternatives it has already approved.
Sec. 39.23 May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work
required by an airworthiness directive?
Yes, the operations specifications giving some operators authority
to operate include a provision that allow them to fly their aircraft to
a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness
directive. If you do not have this authority, the local Flight
Standards District Office of FAA may issue you a special flight permit
unless the airworthiness directive states otherwise. To ensure aviation
safety, FAA may add special requirements for operating your aircraft to
a place where the repairs or modifications can be accomplished. FAA may
also decline to issue a special flight permit in particular cases if we
determine you cannot move the aircraft safely.
Sec. 39.25 How do I get a special flight permit?
Apply to FAA for a special flight permit following the procedures
in 14 CFR 21.199.
Sec. 39.27 What do I do if the airworthiness directive conflicts with
the service document on which it is based?
In some cases an airworthiness directive incorporates by reference
a manufacturer's service document. In these cases, the service document
becomes part of the airworthiness directive. In some cases the
directions in the service document may be modified by the airworthiness
directive. If there is a conflict between the service document and the
airworthiness directive, you must follow the requirements of the
airworthiness directive.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2002.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-17743 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P