[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23808-23817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10946]
[[Page 23807]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 3
False and Misleading Statements Regarding Aircraft Products, Parts, and
Materials; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 86 / Monday, May 5, 2003 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 23808]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. FAA-2003-15062; Notice No. 03-07]
RIN 2120-AG08
False and Misleading Statements Regarding Aircraft Products,
Parts, and Materials
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes additional rules that would prohibit certain
false or misleading statements regarding type certificated products,
and parts and materials that may be used on type certificated products.
The proposals would also allow increased inspection by the FAA of
records and parts regarding the quality of aircraft parts. The
additional rules are needed to help prevent persons from representing
parts as suitable for use on type certificated products when in fact
they may not be. The proposals are intended to provide assurance that
aircraft owners and operators, and persons who maintain aircraft, have
factual information on which to determine whether a part may be used in
a given type certificated product application.
DATES: Send your comments by August 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System (DMS),
U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza Level 401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket
number ``FAA-2003-15062'' at the beginning of your comments, and you
should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive
confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Sharkey, Suspected Unapproved
Parts Program Office (AVR-20), Federal Aviation Administration, 45005
Aviation Drive, Suite 214, Dulles, VA 20166-7541; telephone (703) 661-
0580, facsimile (703) 661-0113, e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to take part in this rulemaking
by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments
on 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. We
ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
about this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we
receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or
delay. We may change this proposal because of the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.
Availability of NPRMs
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this proposed rule. Click on
``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
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, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
Background
Statement of the Problem
There has been a growing concern about the representation of parts
used on aircraft. Under FAA regulations, the person installing parts on
an aircraft is responsible for ensuring the parts are airworthy.
Because airworthiness cannot be determined simply by inspecting a part,
parts installers often have to rely on information provided by the
persons who sold them the parts. Most parts in the aviation system are
of the quality and condition described in their records. There have
been cases, however, in which false or misleading statements in
advertisements and other records have led a person installing the part
to believe the part was suitable for a particular use when, in fact, it
was not.
Currently, there are few regulations concerning false or misleading
statements regarding aircraft parts. Further, it may be difficult for
the FAA to investigate apparent false or misleading statements because
the FAA does not regulate parts distributors.
The FAA proposes to issue additional rules that would (1) help
prevent misleading statements by extending the prohibition on
fraudulent or intentionally false statements beyond those now covered
by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 21 and 43; (2)
provide a regulation covering fraudulent and intentionally false
statements that, if violated, would be addressed by FAA enforcement
action; and (3) provide for FAA investigation of representations made
regarding the quality of aircraft parts.
Petition for Rulemaking
The FAA received a petition for rulemaking to amend part 21 to
prohibit false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations
associated with the sale or transfer of aircraft parts. The
[[Page 23809]]
petition, submitted by Roger C. Forshee (Docket No. FAA-2000-8053),
proposed rulemaking to address aircraft parts that are being offered
for sale as ``aircraft quality,'' when, in fact, the quality and origin
of the parts are unknown. The FAA denied the petition as a separate
rulemaking action because FAA had already undertaken the present
rulemaking, which it considers responsive to the issues raised in Mr.
Forshee's petition.
Current Requirements
Determining Status of Parts
Persons who own or operate aircraft are responsible for maintaining
the aircraft in an airworthy condition. See, for instance, 14 CFR
91.403.
Under 14 CFR 43.13, persons performing maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations are required to use materials of such a
quality that the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or
appliance after the maintenance is at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition. Persons must use replacement products,
parts, and materials that will allow them to return the aircraft to
service in an airworthy condition.
To determine that a product, part, or material is suitable for use
in a particular installation on a type certificated product, the person
maintaining the product must use various information sources. For
aircraft, the airworthiness certificate and the maintenance records for
the airframe and powerplant must be reviewed.
For airframes, engines, propellers, appliances, other parts, and
materials, several items must be reviewed. For instance, the part
number is important, and it is critical to know whether the part was
produced by an FAA production approval holder (PAH) \1\ or a PAH
approved supplier. If the part is required to be replaced or serviced
after a specified time in service, or has a limited shelf life, it is
essential to know time in service or time since manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Production approval holders are persons that have been
approved by the FAA to produce aircraft products or parts.
Production approvals include parts manufacturer approvals (PMA)
(Part 21, Subpart K), production certificates (PC) (Part 21, Subpart
G), technical standard order authorizations (TSAO) (Part 21, Subpart
O), and approved production inspection systems (APIS) (Part 21,
Subpart F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a used part, it is important to know whether maintenance has
been performed on the part, what was done, who performed the work, and
whether the part has been approved for return to service by an
appropriately certificated person. If it is a life-limited part, the
installer must know the current life status of the part. All of this
information is used to determine whether the part may be used in a
given application, and whether it must be serviced in any way before
use.
Similarly, persons producing aircraft, engines, propellers,
appliances, and other parts must use materials and parts that will
allow them to produce a product that conforms to the approved design.
They obtain materials and parts from various sources. Producers have
extensive procedures in place to assure that they are using quality
parts, but they, too, must rely on representations made by others
regarding the parts and materials.
There are several sources of this information. The status of a part
is not completely apparent simply by visual examination, and usually
various records must be used.
This may start with an advertisement claiming the part meets FAA
standards, or is of aviation quality. On receiving the part, the
installer must make sure the part is appropriate for the intended use.
Some parts are required to be marked, and those markings contain some
of the required information. Markings, however, do not contain
information regarding the part's time in service, overhaul, or repair
history. Additional information needed may be on an FAA Form 8130-3
(Authorized Release Certificate--Airworthiness Approval Tag), a Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA) Form One (Authorized Release Certificate),
or another record completed by a repair station or appropriately
authorized person.
Other necessary information may come from a shipping document,
invoice, maintenance log, or other record showing the manufacturer,
part number, time in service, and other information.
Current Regulations and Laws
Existing laws and regulations partially cover the statements made
in parts records regarding quality and condition of such parts. For
instance, 14 CFR 21.2 prohibits fraudulent and intentionally false
statements, but only on applications for certificates or approvals
under part 21, and on records that are kept, made, or used to show
compliance with part 21. Part 21 does not cover all distribution and
sale of aircraft parts by brokers, dealers, and other persons who are
not producing those parts.
Similarly, 14 CFR 43.12 prohibits fraudulent and intentionally
false statements, but only on records kept, made, or used to show
compliance with part 43. That part applies to the maintenance,
preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration of type certificated
aircraft. While it covers some records used in distributing parts, it
does not cover all of them.
Some criminal sanctions may apply. The Aircraft Safety Act of 2000
added section 38 to Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 38)
to safeguard against the dangers posed by the installation of
nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit aircraft and space vehicle
parts. This law prohibits certain false or fraudulent representations
regarding the sale or installation of aircraft and space vehicle parts.
Specifically, the law prohibits any falsification or concealment of any
material fact concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part; prohibits
any materially fraudulent representation concerning any aircraft or
space vehicle part; and prohibits the making or use of any materially
false writing, entry, certification, document, record, data plate,
label, or electronic communication concerning any aircraft or space
vehicle part. The law also prohibits fraudulent representations
relating to the export, import, introduction, sale, trade, or
installation of aircraft or space vehicle parts. There are criminal
sanctions for violations of section 38, as well as civil remedies, such
as ordering the destruction of the parts.
Also, 18 U.S.C. 1001, provides criminal penalties for whomever, in
any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the
United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers
up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes or uses
any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
Existing laws and regulations also provide the FAA with the means
to investigate potential violations. The FAA may conduct
investigations, as necessary, to carry out its duties under 49 U.S.C.
40113. Parts dealers and other persons that do not hold FAA
certificates, however, are not required to cooperate with the
investigation unless the FAA issues a subpoena.
General Discussion of the Proposals
New Part 3
The additional rules proposed here would not fit well within any
existing CFR part. The FAA proposes to create a new part 3 that would
contain rules that apply broadly. It would have two sections, dealing
with applicability (Sec. 3.1) and false and misleading
[[Page 23810]]
statements regarding aircraft parts (Sec. 3.5).
Aircraft and parts may be bought and sold, and records about them
created, by various persons, some of which are currently subject to FAA
regulation, such as manufacturers (see part 21), repair stations and
mechanics (see parts 43, 65, and 145), and air carriers or other
aircraft operators (see parts 119, 121, 125, and 135). These proposals
would also cover persons who are not currently directly regulated by
the FAA, such as distributors and brokers. Note that 18 U.S.C. 38
applies to both certificated and non-certificated persons.
Eventually part 3 may contain other rules of broad applicability.
Section 3.1 Applicability
This part applies to persons engaged in aviation-related
activities, as set forth in this part.
Section 3.5(a) Applicability of this Section
Paragraph (a) would set forth the applicability of this section.
The section would apply to all records regarding aircraft and aircraft
products, parts, and materials, except that paragraph (c) of this
section does not apply to records made under part 43, Maintenance,
preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration. That part already
has a section prohibiting intentional falsification and fraud (Sec.
43.12), and other sections that govern the content and meaning of
records under that part, such as Sec. 43.2, Records of overhauling and
rebuilding; and Sec. 43.9, Content, form, and disposition of
maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration
records. For this reason, the new requirements of proposed Sec. 3.5(c)
would not be necessary for part 43 records. While part 43 already
contains prohibitions against false or fraudulent statements, it does
not address misleading statements. This proposal intends to address
misleading statements in records including those required under part 43
by applying proposed Sec. 3.5(d).
Section 3.5(b) Terms Used in this Section
Paragraph (b) would define two terms used in this section.
The term ``product'' means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or
propeller. This is the same meaning as in Sec. 21.1(b).
The term ``record'' includes all forms of records, including paper,
microfilm, identification plates, stamped marks on parts, bar codes,
and electronic records. ``Record'' includes logbooks, inspection
records, reports, advertisements, and labels. The term is defined
broadly to include any means that communicates to aircraft owners,
operators, producers, mechanics, and repairmen the airworthiness of a
type certificated product, or acceptability of a part or material for
use on type certificated products. Examples of marks on parts include
the marks required under Sec. 45.14 on critical components and the
marks required under Sec. 45.15 on parts produced under a PMA. An
example of an electronic record is a company's web page that represents
the quality of aircraft parts the company is offering for sale.
There are other terms used in this proposal that are not
specifically defined in proposed Sec. 3.5(b) Throughout the FAA's
enabling statute and regulations, there are various words and phrases
used to describe aircraft parts, including such terms as appliance,
equipment, apparatus, component, accessory, assembly, airframe, and
appurtenance. The FAA has attempted to avoid being unduly wordy, yet to
use the words in a manner consistent with the statute, the regulations,
and with common industry practice. The FAA, therefore, refers
throughout the proposed rule to ``part or material for use on a type
certificated product.''
In this proposal, the term ``part or material for use on a type
certificated product'' is used extensively, but is not defined in the
rule itself. ``Aircraft part'' frequently is used broadly in the
industry to refer to anything that is, or could be, used as a piece of
an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller, including appliances and
component parts. The FAA proposes to use this term in the same manner
here. For instance, the word ``part'' is used in Sec. 21.303 to refer
to all portions of an aircraft, including standard parts. Software, as
used in some flight systems and instruments, also is considered a
``part'' for purposes of these rules. Under this proposed rule, false
or misleading statements regarding the acceptability of the software
would be prohibited.
``Material'' normally is used to refer to the substances of which a
thing is made or composed. It generally includes such things as sheet
metal, unformed wood, and bolts of fabric. The concepts of ``part'' and
``material'' often overlap in common usage, but for this proposed rule
it does not matter whether an item is a ``part'' or a ``material,''
both are considered under this proposal.
The proposed rule also refers to the ``acceptability'' of aircraft
products, parts, and materials. There are various ways a part can be
shown to be ``acceptable.'' The most common is for the part to be an
approved part. ``Approved,'' under part 1, means approved by the
Administrator, and, in this context, generally means the part was
produced by a PAH or a PAH approved supplier. To be acceptable, used
parts must also have been maintained in accordance with the
regulations. This derives from Sec. 43.13 which requires that the
condition of the product or part used in maintenance be at least equal
to its original or properly altered condition.
The FAA intends these terms to be interpreted broadly to fulfill
the purposes of the rule. The FAA specifically requests comments on
whether these terms are sufficiently clear, whether they should be
defined in the regulations, or whether different terms should be used.
This proposal does not cover statements regarding fluids, that is,
substances that are used to service an aircraft or product or that may
be added to an engine, container, or fitting. Fluids include fuel, oil,
grease, and metal treatments. Fuel and other fluids are not approved
(nor does FAA develop the standard) as a material under part 21,
Subpart K--Approval of Materials, Parts, Processes, and Appliances. The
FAA only judges acceptability of a fluid for use in a proposed type
design. The FAA recognizes that false or misleading records regarding
fluids could have a detrimental safety impact. The FAA is considering
adding to the final rule prohibitions on false or misleading statements
regarding fluids. We request comments on whether there is a significant
problem with false or misleading records regarding fluids used in
aviation, and whether the final rule should apply to records regarding
fluids.
Section 3.5(c) Prohibition Against False Statements
The proposed rules would apply to statements representing the
airworthiness of a product for which the FAA has issued a type
certificate; or the acceptability of any part, or material for use on a
product for which the FAA has issued a type certificate. The FAA issues
type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers.
Applying the proposed rules to type certificated products means, for
instance, that the proposed rules would not apply to aircraft for which
Special Airworthiness Certificates in the experimental category
(experimental aircraft) have been issued, or military aircraft.
Paragraph (c)(1) would prohibit any fraudulent or intentionally
false statement in any record that represents the airworthiness of a
type certificated product, or the acceptability of any part
[[Page 23811]]
or material for use on type certificated products. Such records are the
kind that are relied on by owners, operators, producers, and
maintainers to determine the airworthiness of an aircraft, or the
acceptability of aircraft products and parts for a given application;
therefore, they must be truthful.
Paragraph (c)(2) would prohibit any reproduction or alteration, for
fraudulent or intentionally false purpose, of any record that
represents the airworthiness of a type certificated product, or the
acceptability of any part or material for use on type certificated
products.
Paragraph (c) is modeled on similar provisions elsewhere in the
regulations, such as Sec. Sec. 21.2, 43.12, 61.59, and 65.20. These
provisions have long been in the regulations and have worked well.
An intentionally false statement consists of (1) a false
representation, (2) in reference to a material fact, (3) made with
knowledge of its falsity. A fraudulent statement consists of these
three elements, plus (4) it was made with the intent to deceive, and
(5) action was taken in reliance upon the representation. See, Hart v.
McLucus, 535 F.2d 516, 519 (9th Cir. 1976). There have been many cases
under the existing rules interpreting these terms, which will assist in
understanding the proposed rule.
Some differences from the current rules should be noted, however.
Currently, Sec. 21.2 refers to ``* * * a false entry in any record or
report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance
with any requirement for the issuance or the exercise of the privileges
of any certificate or approval issued under this part.'' (Emphasis
added.) For the most part, although a person may be required to show
that an acceptable part was installed on an aircraft, the rules do not
require any particular records to be used to document aircraft
products, parts, and materials, and, as discussed above, various
records are used. To avoid any misunderstanding, the word ``required''
is not included in the proposed rule. The proposal is intended to cover
any records that, in fact, represent the airworthiness of a type
certificated product, or the acceptability of a part or material for
installation on a type certificated product.
In addition, the words ``kept, made, or used'' that appear in
current rules are not used in the proposed Sec. 3.5(c); rather, the
proposal refers to ``any record that represents the airworthiness. * *
*'' The words of the current rules might be read by some as focusing on
the intent of the person making the record. It is the FAA's view,
however, that the important issue is whether the record represents to
the reader that an aircraft is airworthy, or a part is acceptable,
because the reader may rely on the record in making decisions that
affect safety. The proposed wording is intended to avoid confusion on
this point.
Section 3.5(d) Preventing Misleading Statements
Proposed Sec. 3.5(d) would provide that no person in any record
may express or imply, or cause to be expressed or implied, that a type
certificated product is airworthy, or a part or material is acceptable
for installation on type certificated products, unless the person can
show with appropriate records the representation is true. Under this
rule, a person would have to have a demonstrable basis for stating or
implying the aircraft is airworthy, or part or material is acceptable
for installation. Examples of a demonstrable basis include that the
part was produced under a production certificate (PC), parts
manufacturer approval (PMA), or technical standard order authorization
(TSOA).
There currently is little regulation concerning misleading
statements. Some statements may be literally true, but mislead. A
statement that a part ``fits'' a Cessna 172, for instance, may be
literally true. But, that statement may mislead a potential buyer to
think the part is acceptable for use in a Cessna 172, when it may not
be.
In advertisements, shipping papers, inserts in parts boxes, and
other records the FAA has seen examples of statements that are worded
in such a way that a person may be misled to believe the part is
approved by the Administrator or is otherwise acceptable, when neither
fact has been demonstrated. Proposed Sec. 3.5(d) is intended to
prevent such statements.
In developing this proposal, we have reviewed the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC) regulation of deceptive advertising, and discussed
with the FTC staff the relevance to this proposal of their approach.
Although our purposes are quite different--the FTC is concerned
primarily with consumer protection, whereas we are concerned
exclusively with aviation safety--we've concluded that the FTC's
regulatory approach to deceptive advertising establishes an excellent
model for this proposal. Therefore, we intend to rely heavily on
precedents established by the FTC in resolving interpretative issues
that may arise in the application of this proposed rule. The following
discussion is, therefore, derived from our review of the FTC regulatory
scheme.
For the purposes of this rule a misleading statement requires (1) a
material representation or omission (2) that is likely to mislead the
consumer (3) acting reasonably under the circumstances.
Misleading statements include misrepresentations as well as a
failure to disclose material information regarding the product. A
misrepresentation is an express or implied statement that is contrary
to fact. A misleading omission occurs when information necessary to
prevent a representation, or a reasonable expectation or belief, from
being misleading is not disclosed. In determining whether the omission
is deceptive or misleading, we will examine the overall impression
created by the representation. Unlike the definition of an
intentionally false statement, there does not have to be knowledge that
the statement would mislead; nor must there be the intent to deceive.
The issue with which the FAA is concerned is whether the representation
is likely to mislead rather than whether it causes actual deception.
A representation or omission is considered material if it is likely
to affect the consumer's decisions about the product. The claim must be
likely to be believed and acted on in a certain way, and injury must be
found likely to exist because of the representation. Injury exists if
the consumer would have chosen differently but for the deception. Some
statements, especially those affecting health or safety, are
presumptively material in nature.
Finally, a representation or omission will be considered from the
perspective of a reasonable consumer under the circumstances. In
evaluating a particular representation, we will look to the effect of
the representation on a reasonable member of the targeted audience. To
be considered reasonable, an interpretation of a statement does not
have to be the only one. For instance, if an advertiser's
representation suggests more than one meaning to a reasonable consumer,
one of which is misleading, the advertiser would be liable for the
misleading interpretation.
Proposed Sec. 3.5(d) is also intended to prevent persons from
stating or implying that a part is acceptable when the person does not
know whether it is acceptable. An example is where a person obtains
surplus military parts that lack sufficient documentation to determine
whether the parts are approved or acceptable for use on type
certificated products, yet advertises them as acceptable parts. Under
this proposed paragraph, the person would
[[Page 23812]]
be prohibited from advertising the part as acceptable for use in type
certificated products.
The ``appropriate records'' that would form a basis for stating or
implying that a part is acceptable would be the records that a mechanic
or repairman would use in determining that a part properly could be
installed on an aircraft. Guidance on such records is found in Advisory
Circulars (ACs) 21-9, 20-62, and 00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor
Accreditation Program.
Section 3.5(e) FAA Airworthiness Standards
Proposed paragraph (e) would apply to records that make statements
regarding FAA airworthiness standards. It would provide that if a
person expresses or implies, or causes to be expressed or implied, in
any record that a product, part, or material meets FAA airworthiness
standards, the person must ensure that either (1) the product, part, or
material was produced under an FAA production approval, such as a
production certificate, parts manufacturer approval, or technical
standard order authorization; or (2) the record clearly and expressly
states that the part was not produced under an FAA production approval.
To obtain an FAA design approval, an applicant must show compliance
with FAA airworthiness standards, which the FAA adopts to establish the
minimum level of safety. They are set forth in 14 CFR parts 23-35.
Under 14 CFR part 21, these approvals are issued in the form of type
certificates, changes to type certificates (supplemental and amended
type certificates), TSOAs, and PMAs. The FAA also issues production
approvals to persons who demonstrate that they can consistently produce
a product or part that meets the design standard. An example of a
production approval is a production certificate under part 21 to
manufacture the Boeing 777. Some approvals include both a design
approval and a production approval, such as a TSOA and a PMA.
Statements that a product, part, or material is produced under a
production approval essentially is a statement that it meets FAA
airworthiness standards. For instance, a statement that a part ``is
PMA'd'' is heavily relied on by the industry to show the part is
acceptable for use. If the statement is false or misleading, the person
installing the part could install a part that does not meet the FAA
airworthiness standards and may create a danger in flight. Similarly,
if a record states that a part ``meets TSO XXX'' it implies the part
was made under a TSOA or otherwise has an approved design and has been
produced under an FAA approval. If this is not true, the product or
part may not in fact be eligible for installation. Standard parts,
described in Sec. 21.303(b)(4) as nuts, bolts, etc., conform to
established industry of U.S. specifications. The FAA does not require
that standard parts be produced under an FAA production approval. The
subject of standard parts is discussed in more detail later in this
document.
Section 3.5(f) Inspection
To allow the FAA to better monitor compliance with this proposed
rule, Sec. 3.5(f) would provide that the FAA could inspect aircraft,
and aircraft products, parts, and materials to determine compliance
with the statute and Sec. 3.5. This would apply to any person who
expressly or by implication represents, or causes to be expressly or by
implication represented, in any record that a type certificated product
is airworthy, or a part or material is acceptable for installation on a
type certificated product. This would give the FAA more tools to use in
investigating possible false and misleading statements under proposed
Sec. 3.5.
The design, manufacture, and maintenance of aircraft products,
parts, and materials used in the civil aviation industry are highly
regulated. Promoting the integrity of records in the system is equally
important. If any person chooses to represent a type certificated
product as airworthy or a part or material as acceptable for
installation on a type certificated product, that person must be
prepared to show why the representation is true. The proposed rule
would not apply to persons who do not represent parts as acceptable for
aviation products. Persons who sell items without representing those
parts as acceptable for type certificated product use would not be
subject to Sec. 3.5(f).
Application of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule refers to statements that a type certificated
product is airworthy, or that a part or material is acceptable for
installation on type certificated product. These terms are intended to
cover any statements that express or imply the product, part, or
material is acceptable for use on type certificated products.
A statement regarding the airworthiness of a type certificated
product or the acceptability of a part or material for installation on
type certificated product includes records that represent that the
product, part, or material is approved by the FAA, or otherwise is
acceptable for use in maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
alteration, or production of type certificated products, airframes,
aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts. These
statements may take many forms.
Statements made in advertisements or shipping documents that
compare an aircraft part to aviation standards or FAA approvals, such
as ``aviation quality,'' ``TSO'd,'' ``FAA certification,'' ``FAA/PMA,''
and ``STC'd,'' imply the part has been found acceptable for
installation on type certificated products. Similarly, statements made
regarding the ability to use an aircraft part on type certificated
products, such as ``direct replacement for aircraft XX,'' ``ready to
use in your aircraft,'' ``reproduction of part number XX,'' ``fits
aircraft model number XX,'' ``original,'' ``direct replacement,'' and
``replaces aircraft model XX part number YY,'' can be reasonably
interpreted to mean that all FAA requirements for use on a specific
type certificated product have been met. Under the proposed Sec.
3.5(c) and (d), such statements would be prohibited if they were false
or misleading. If a record states the part ``fits aircraft model number
XX,'' but the part is not approved or otherwise acceptable for use on
the aircraft, the statement would be in violation of the proposed rule.
Under proposed Sec. 3.5(e), the person making the statement must
ensure that either the product, part, or material was produced under an
FAA production approval, or must state the product, part, or material
was not produced under an FAA production approval.
Less direct statements, but just as misleading, include statements
that suggest the producer of the part was authorized to produce
approved parts, when in fact the part being sold is not approved.
Statements on an invoice or advertisement, such as ``authorized
supplier to (an aircraft producer)'' imply the part is made under that
authorization, unless the record clearly states the part is not
approved. Statements on an invoice letterhead that the producer is a
PMA holder imply the part was made under the PMA, unless the record
clearly states that it was not.
The use of a part number, or a number confusingly similar to a part
number, used on an aircraft product, part, or material that is approved
by or acceptable to the FAA, is a direct method of stating or implying
the product, part, or material is approved or acceptable to the FAA.
For instance, it is a common practice for PMA holders who produce
replacement parts to use a part number that is the same as the original
part, with a prefix or suffix to
[[Page 23813]]
show who produced the replacement part. This practice helps in
identifying what parts may be used as replacements for the original,
and the FAA allows this practice.
The proposed Sec. Sec. 3.5(c) and (d) would prohibit the use of
such numbers when they are false or misleading. For instance, if a
producer assigned a part number to a replacement part that was the same
as, or confusingly similar to an approved part, but the replacement
part was not approved or acceptable, the producer would be in violation
of the proposed Sec. Sec. 3.5(c) or (d). The producer of the part
might also be in violation of Sec. 3.5(e) unless the producer clearly
stated the part was not produced under an FAA production approval.
Another example is a PAH that produces a part with both a type-
certificated application and a military application. The military
version may not be produced under all the requirements of the FAA
production approval, including design and quality control standards. If
the military part is assigned the same part number as the FAA-approved
version, that number could erroneously imply the part is acceptable for
use on type certificated product. That practice would constitute a
violation of the proposed Sec. 3.5(d). A military part, however, may
be eligible for installation on a type-certificated product provided
the documentation accompanying the part establishes the part meets the
standards to which it was manufactured, interchangeability with the
original part can be established, and the part is in compliance with
all applicable airworthiness directives (ADs).
Another example is where a PAH contracts with a supplier to produce
a given number of approved parts under the PAHs approval. The PAH is
responsible under the regulations for ensuring the parts conform to the
approved design and that all approved processes and materials were used
in the production of the parts. If the supplier produces additional
parts not authorized by the PAH and marks them with the PAHs part
number, that supplier is stating or implying that those additional
parts were made under the PAHs approval when in fact they were not. The
additional parts are not approved parts.
Illustrated parts catalogues (IPC) are another type of document
that may contain misleading statements regarding what parts are
approved or acceptable for use in maintaining an aircraft.
Manufacturers typically publish IPCs to inform their customers of
sources of replacement parts, and operators and repair stations widely
use IPCs for that purpose. Some manufacturers make little or no effort
to ensure their IPCs are current or the identified suppliers have
obtained FAA production approvals (for example, PMA). Thus, a
manufacturer's ``current'' IPC might include suppliers who not only do
not have PMA, but whose contracts with the manufacturer may have been
canceled for various reasons. Yet many parts buyers assume that,
because a supplier is listed in an IPC, their parts are acceptable. The
FAA recognizes that for business reasons the manufacturers often do not
wish to expend the resources necessary to ensure the IPC is always
current. The FAA also recognizes, however, that given the potential
reliance on the IPC it should avoid misleading people who use it to
maintain aircraft. The IPC would comply with this rule if it clearly
stated that the suppliers listed may not currently hold FAA approvals
and the maintainer must determine whether the supplier's parts can be
used.
Other statements may be misleading when representing a part's life
status, such as the cycles or hours accumulated on the part. For
instance, a record may indicate that a life-limited part has no time in
service (is new) when, in fact, the part actually has some time in
service. This may influence an aircraft owner to use the part beyond
its service life. Such a statement would be in violation of either
Sec. 3.5(c) or (d), or both.
Continuing Responsibility of Owners, Operators, Mechanics, and Repair
Stations
The owner or operator of an aircraft is responsible for maintaining
the aircraft in an airworthy condition. See, for instance, Sec.
91.403(a). Further, each person maintaining or altering an aircraft, or
performing preventive maintenance, is responsible for ensuring the
aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered
condition. See Sec. 43.13(b). The proposed Sec. 3.5 would not change
these responsibilities.
These proposed rules are intended to assist owners, operators, and
maintainers by prohibiting false and misleading statements in the
records they rely on. But, these rules would not replace the current
responsibility of owners, operators, and maintainers to obtain
appropriate documentation for aircraft and products, parts, and
materials. For instance, even though these rules would prohibit false
and misleading statements in advertisements, advertisements alone are
not sufficient documentation for parts used to maintain or alter
aircraft. Before a person returns an aircraft to service following
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration, the person must
have a reasonable basis to believe the aircraft will be in at least its
original or properly altered condition, in accordance with Sec. 43.13.
To do so, the person must take care to obtain and examine the records
on replacement and alteration products, parts, and materials, to ensure
they are appropriate for the task. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-62 has
further guidance regarding the documentation that should be used.
Relationship of Proposal to Standard Parts
Standard parts are described in Sec. 21.303(b)(4) as nuts, bolts,
etc., conforming to established industry or U.S. specifications. The
FAA does not require they be produced under an FAA production approval.
They are not unique to aviation and may be used in many different
applications outside civil aviation.
Parts distributors and others, however, may actively advertise to
the aviation industry as being able to provide standard parts for use
in aviation. Records regarding standard parts would be subject to this
proposed rule where the records express or imply that the standard
parts are suitable for use on type certificated products. Records would
also be subject to the proposed rule if, under the circumstances of the
sale, it was apparent the standard parts were being sold for use on
type certificated products, such as when the parts are sold to an
aircraft producer. And, a record would be subject to the proposal if it
expresses or implies that a part conforms to a particular standard. In
such cases, the record would have to be not fraudulent or intentionally
false under proposed Sec. 3.5(c), and not misleading under proposed
Sec. 3.5(d).
Relationship of Proposal to Aircraft Parts Distributors
The FAA does not certificate or regulate aircraft parts
distributors. Distributors include brokers, dealers, resellers, or
other persons and agencies engaged in the sale of parts that might be
installed in type-certificated aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers,
and appliances.
Past initiatives addressing direct FAA certification and regulation
of distributors concluded that detailed regulation is not practicable
because of the potential size of the group, estimated at several
thousand entities, and the FAA's limited resources to conduct the
required oversight. The FAA does, however, recognize the significant
role distributors play in providing parts to the aviation industry,
[[Page 23814]]
and that the documentation they provide is critical in establishing
acceptability of a part for use on type certificated products. When
distributors do not provide necessary or forthright documentation, the
airworthiness of a part is questionable.
The FAA strongly endorses the voluntary industry oversight of
distributors through third-party accreditation. In 1996, the FAA
published AC 00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation
Program. Under this type of accreditation, an independent entity, other
than the distributor and the buyer, provides a quality system standard
that describes acceptable system elements, including mandatory
documentation, which are subsequently audited for adherence to that
standard. Parts procured from such ``accredited distributors'' should
convey an assurance to the buyer that the parts are the quality stated
and that the appropriate documentation is on file at the distributor's
place of business.
The Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA) is the trade association
that represents the interests of the aircraft parts distributor
community. ASA was formed in 1993 and was one of the organizations that
helped FAA in developing the Voluntary Industry Distributor
Accreditation Program. ASA currently maintains the program database
that tracks distributors accredited in accordance with AC 00-56. Since
1998, the number of accredited distributors has increased from 86 to
218.
Although increasing numbers of distributors are restructuring
company procedures to meet the accreditation requirements, some
distributors continue to be less than forthright in their documentation
associated with the sale of aircraft parts. The FAA's Suspected
Unapproved Parts (SUP) Program Office database shows that parts
distributors were either the primary or secondary focus in 22 percent
of all SUP investigations conducted between 1998 and 2001.
Approximately one-fourth of all SUP investigations relates to
distributors.
The proposed rule would apply to all persons who make records
regarding the airworthiness of a type certificated product, or the
acceptability of any part or material for use on a type certificated
product, whether the person holds an FAA certificate or not. It would,
therefore, apply to parts distributors, which are the source of many of
the parts for mechanics, repair stations, and others who maintain
aircraft.
Relationship of Proposal to Compliance and Enforcement
The FAA could take compliance and enforcement action for violation
of the proposed rules. The action could range from counseling and
corrective action through civil penalties (currently $1,100 per
infraction) under 49 U.S.C. 46301 and 14 CFR 13.15 and 13.16, and
suspension or revocation of an FAA certificate held by the violator
under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and 14 CFR 13.19. The action taken by the FAA
would depend on all the circumstances of the violation.
If the FAA believed that the person had made misleading statements
in violation of proposed Sec. 3.5, for instance, in the first instance
the FAA might first seek to have the person take corrective action to
avoid misleading owners, operators, maintainers, and others in
aviation. If the statements were not corrected, the FAA might take
stronger action. Depending on the seriousness of the offense, however,
even the first instance of making misleading statements in violation of
the rule could result in the FAA taking strong enforcement action.
If the evidence establishes that a person made fraudulent or
intentionally false statements, however, the FAA generally takes the
strongest enforcement action, including revocation of any FAA
certificates held by the person. In appropriate cases, the FAA refers
such cases for criminal investigation.
Relationship of Proposal to Experimental Aircraft
Not all experimental aircraft must be maintained in accordance with
part 43, and for most parts, the regulatory standards are far less
stringent than for aircraft that must be maintained under part 43.
Although it is important that people who build and maintain these
aircraft have accurate information on which to make informed decisions
as to which parts to use, applying the rule to experimental aircraft,
parts, and materials may have an unduly chilling effect on the
experimental aircraft community. Persons who build experimental
aircraft are responsible for evaluating claims and making decisions
accordingly regarding which parts and materials to use on such
aircraft. They use both FAA-approved products and parts, and items not
otherwise considered to be aviation products and parts. The FAA is not
aware of significant problems with false or misleading statements
regarding products, parts, and materials used in experimental aircraft.
For instance, an engine manufacturer that does not have any FAA
design or production approval may be aware that its engine is used for
experimental aircraft. That manufacturer may provide information to
builders regarding the engine's performance, maintenance requirements,
and so on. If proposed Sec. 3.5 were to apply to those statements, the
manufacturer might hesitate to provide such information, because it may
not have developed that information using all the rigorous requirements
called for in the FAA regulations for FAA-approved engines. The FAA
does not want to discourage such a manufacturer from providing
information to persons who build experimental aircraft. Thus, the
manufacturer could provide such information to the experimental
aircraft builder without being subject to proposed Sec. 3.5, so long
as the information did not express or imply that the engine was
acceptable for use in a type certificated product. The manufacturer
would be subject to proposed Sec. 3.5(e), however, if it expressed or
implied that the engine met FAA airworthiness standards, without also
clearly and expressly stating that engine was not produced under an FAA
production approval.
This exception for experimental aircraft does not apply, however,
if FAA regulations or the terms of the aircraft's airworthiness
certificate require certain parts to be approved. Statements made in
records regarding these parts, even when installed in experimental
aircraft, must be truthful and not misleading. The fact that the part
or material is eventually installed on an experimental aircraft does
not make the false or misleading statement acceptable.
Relationship of Proposal to Parts for Military Aircraft
Military aircraft are not civil aircraft, and proposed Sec. 3.5
would not apply to parts that are for military aircraft and are not
represented to be acceptable for civil application. If the records
regarding military parts, by implication, represent, however, that they
are acceptable for use in type certificated products, proposed Sec.
3.5 would apply.
Some former military aircraft have been put into civil use and are
now operated on a special or standard airworthiness certificate. Some
unique parts that otherwise are only manufactured for military designed
aircraft may be needed to maintain these aircraft. Records regarding
these parts should not state or imply that the parts are acceptable for
use in type certificated products, other than the
[[Page 23815]]
product for which acceptability has been determined.
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. We have determined there are
no new information collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule.
The FAA has considered whether proposed Sec. 3.5(d) would create a
burden within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That section
would require that if a person made certain representations regarding
type certificated products, or parts and materials to be used on type
certificated products, the person would have to have records to support
those representations (except for statements made under part 43, as
explained above). It is FAA's experience that the industry in the
normal course of its activities transfers the records called for under
the proposed rule. For instance, when air carriers buy parts, the usual
and customary practice is for the air carrier to require the dealer to
provide the records that substantiate the source and quality of the
part. The major practical effect of the proposal would be to provide
for FAA enforcement action if those records proved to be intentionally
false, fraudulent, or misleading within the meaning of the rule.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the resources necessary to
comply with the proposal are excluded from the ``burden'' under 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2), and there are no information collection requirements
associated with this proposed rule within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
The FAA requests comments on this determination. Individuals and
organizations may submit comments by August 4, 2003, and should direct
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when changing regulations in Title 14
of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed
rule would apply to all persons who may make or cause to be made
records regarding products, parts, or material for use on type
certificated products, it could if adopted, affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically, requests comments on
whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule
differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only on a 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 also requires agencies to consider international standards and,
where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that the
economic impact of this proposed rule does not meet the standards for a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation. The FAA has determined, however, that
because of the public interest in the subject of aircraft parts, this
proposed rule is considered significant and, therefore, is subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule will not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; will
not constitute a barrier to international trade; and does not impose an
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized
below.
Costs
The FAA estimates that the total cost expected to accrue from
implementation of the proposed rule to be $176,700 annually in 2000
dollars or $1,241,000 over the next 10 years when costs are discounted
at 7 percent. The FAA expects to incur all of the above costs. Costs to
industry cannot be quantified with any degree of accuracy, but are
expected to be small.
The FAA is seeking cost and benefits data to better quantify the
impact of the proposed rule on potentially affected entities. To that
extent, the FAA seeks information on the costs and benefits that
manufacturers and operators would incur to comply with the proposed
rule. Such cost estimates should include equipment costs, modification
costs, etc. Documentation such as sources for the cost data should also
be provided. Similarly, benefits estimates should include estimates of
cost savings, etc. Again, documentation of these estimates should be
included.
Benefits
The potential benefits of the proposed rule are enhanced safety to
the aviation community and flying public by ensuring that aircraft
owners and operators and persons who maintain aircraft have factual
information on which to determine whether a part may be used in a given
civil aircraft.
Enhanced safety would be achieved because this rulemaking (1) would
fill in gaps in the legal and regulatory structure, to extend the
prohibition on fraudulent or intentionally false statements beyond
those now covered by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
parts 21 and 43; (2) would provide FAA enforcement action for some
fraudulent and intentionally false statements; and (3) would provide
for investigation of representations made regarding the quality of
aircraft parts.
For example, unapproved parts manufacturers might be less likely to
fraudulently state the parts as coming from the prime manufacturer, and
ship them with look-alike packaging and paperwork. Thus, the frequency
of a part being a look-alike and unsuitable
[[Page 23816]]
for its intended function may be reduced.
Reducing the likelihood of an unapproved part from being installed
would lessen the potential for an accident or an incident. The FAA has
documented cases of fatal aircraft accidents where unapproved parts
(that could have been installed due to false or misleading statements)
have been installed on the subject aircraft. Unapproved parts that have
been found installed in aircraft involved in accidents include fuel
lines, propeller system/drive assemblies, engine bearings, and
electrical systems.
Conclusions
Based on the low compliance cost coupled with the potential safety
benefits, the FAA concludes that the proposed rule is cost beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
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 requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies
to request and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the reason for their actions. 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 proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
If an agency determines, however, 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.
For the entities that would be affected by this proposed rule, the
FAA expects the annualized compliance costs to be minimal. Thus, the
FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments
from the public regarding this finding.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it will
have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on any trade-
sensitive activity.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to
prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a
proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C.
1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to
permit timely input by elected officers (or their designees) of State,
local, and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant intergovernmental
mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal agency regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533,
which supplements section 204(a), provides that before establishing any
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, the agency shall have developed a plan that, among
other things, provides for notice to potentially affected small
governments, if any, and for a meaningful and timely opportunity to
provide input in the development of regulatory proposals.
This proposed rule does not meet the cost thresholds described
above. Further, this proposed rule would not impose a significant cost
on small governments and would not uniquely affect those small
governments. The requirements of Title II of the Act of 1995,
therefore, do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on 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, therefore, that this notice of proposed
rulemaking would 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies
for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public
Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has
been determined that the proposed rule is not a major regulatory action
under the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 3
Aircraft, Aviation safety, False, Fraud, Misleading.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to add a new part 3 to Chapter I of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 3--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
3.1 Applicability.
3.5 Statements regarding aircraft, and aircraft products, parts, and
materials.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, and 44704.
Sec. 3.1 Applicability.
This part applies to persons engaged in aviation-related
activities, as set forth in this part.
Sec. 3.5 Statements regarding aircraft, and aircraft products, parts,
and materials.
(a) Applicability of this section. This section applies to all
records regarding type certificated products, and to parts
[[Page 23817]]
and materials that may be used on type certificated products, except
that paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to records made under
part 43 of this chapter.
(b) Terms used in this section.
Product means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.
Record includes all forms of records, including paper, microfilm,
identification plates, stamped marks on parts, bar codes, and
electronic records. ``Record'' includes logbooks, inspection records,
reports, advertisements, and labels.
(c) Prohibition against false statements. No person may make or
cause to be made--
(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any record
that represents the airworthiness of a type certificated product, or
the acceptability of any part or material for use on type certificated
product.
(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false reproduction or
alteration of any record that represents the airworthiness of any type
certificated product, or the acceptability of any part or material for
use on type certificated product.
(d) Preventing misleading statements. No person in any record may
express or imply, or cause to be expressed or implied, that a type
certificated product is airworthy, or that a part or material is
acceptable for installation on type certificated product, unless the
person can show with appropriate records that the product is airworthy
or that the part or material is acceptable for installation on a type
certificated product.
(e) FAA airworthiness standards. If a person expresses or implies,
or causes to be expressed or implied, in any record that a product,
part, or material meets FAA airworthiness standards, the person must
ensure that--
(1) The product, part, or material was produced under an FAA
production approval, such as a production certificate, parts
manufacturer approval, or technical standard order authorization;
(2) The record clearly and expressly states that the part was not
produced under an FAA production approval; or
(3) The part is a standard part (such as bolts and nuts) conforming
to established industry or United States specifications.
(f) Inspection. In order for the Administrator to determine
compliance with 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII and this section, each person
who expressly or by implication represents, or causes to be expressly
or by implication represented, in any record that a type certificated
product is airworthy, or a part or material is acceptable for
installation on type certificated product, shall allow the
Administrator to--
(1) Inspect and copy records relating to the source and
acceptability of the product, part, or material; and
(2) Inspect the product, part, or material.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2003.
Beverly Sharkey,
Acting Manager, Suspected Unapproved Parts Program Office.
[FR Doc. 03-10946 Filed 5-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P