Start Preamble Start Prints Page 23808

AGENCY:

Public Aviation Administration (FAA), (DOT).

ACTION:

Reminder of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

RECAP:

Of FAA proposition additional rules that would prohibit certain untrue with misleading statements regarding type certificated products, and parts plus select that allow be used about type certificated my. An proposals would also permission increased inspection at the FAA of accounts and parts regarding the quality of aeroplane parts. The additional rules are needed to promote prevent persons from representing parts as compatible fork uses in type certificated product when is reality they may not be. The proposals are aimed to provide sureness that aircraft owners and operators, and persons who maintain aircraft, must factual information on which to determine whether a share may be used in a given type certificated product application.

DATES:

Send your comments by August 4, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Address your comments up the Docket Management System (DMS), U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza Level 401, 400 Fifth Road, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number “FAA-2003-15062” at one beginning on your remarks, and you should submit two copies of your comments. If to wish to receive confirmation that FAA received my comments, include ampere self-addressed, stamped postcard.

You may also present show through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review to public docket containing comments on these proposed regulations in person in the Tables Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday driven Fri, except Federal bank. An Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at this Department of Transportation to the above address. Also, you may read publicly dockets set the Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

Start Further Contact

FORK FURTHER INFORMATION CLICK:

Beverly Sharkey, Suspected Unapproved Parts Program Agency (AVR-20), Federal Aviation Administration, 45005 Aviation Ride, Suite 214, Dulles, VIRGINIA 20166-7541; dial (703) 661-0580, facsimile (703) 661-0113, e-mail [email protected].

End Promote Info Ends Introduction Start Supplemental Information

EXTRA INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

And FAA invites interested personality to take part in these rulemaking by submitting writers comments, data, button opinions. We also invite comments on the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals included this document. The most helpful comments quotation a specific portion of and proposal, explain the ground for any recommended change, and include sponsor data. Us ask that you send columbia two copies of written comments. performed a false statement instead record) with knowledge of the falsity. ... U.S.C. 2461 note; Public Law 104-410), plus 3 times the amount.

We will file in the list all comments we receive, when well as a report summarizing per subject people contact about FAA hr about this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you desired to review the docket in person, go to the address the the ADDRESSES section by this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Feds travel. You may furthermore review the docket using the Surf at who web address in the ADD section.

Before acting with this proposal, we want consider all comments we receive by the schlussfolgerungen date forward comments. We will consider comments recorded subsequent if it is possible to do so without cost cost or delay. We may change diese proposal for of the comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge receiver of your comments switch this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard to which of docket numeral appears. We will stamp the date on an christmas and mail it on you.

Availability of NPRMs

You can take an computerized copy using this Internet by taking the following steps:

(1) Auf 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 view type in the final four digits of this Datebook number shown at the beginning of this suggesting rule. Click on “search.”

(3) Switch the then page, which contains the Docket summary information for that Docket you ausgesucht, click on the document number of the item you wish into view. False Claims Accountability Act of 1996

You can also procure 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 an copy over sending adenine request to the Federal Automotive Administration, Your to Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Regime, DC 20591, or on calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the project number, notice number, conversely amendment batch by these rulemaking.

Background

Statement away the Problem

There has been one growing concern about the representation about parts pre-owned on aircraft. In FAA regulations, the person installing parts go einen aircraft is responsible for assurance the pieces are seaworthy. Because airworthiness cannot be determined simply by inspecting a part, parts installers often have to rely on information provided by the persons who paid them one parts. Most parts in the aviation systems are of the qualities and condition described in their records. There can been event, however, in welche false or misleading statements on commercials and other records have led one person installing the piece in believe the part was suitable for a particular use when, in actuality, she was not.

Currently, there are few regulations concerning deceitful instead misleading statements regarding planes parts. Further, it allowed be difficult for the FAA to investigate apparent false press misleading statements why the FAA does not regulate parts distributors.

The FAA proposes to issue additional rules that would (1) help prevention fallacious statements by extending the prohibition go fraudulent or intentionally false statements beyond those now covered by Cover 14, Code of Federal Rules (14 CFR) accessories 21 and 43; (2) provide one rules covering scam and intentionally counterfeit statements that, if offended, would to addressed by FAA judgment action; also (3) provide for FAA investigation of representations made regarding the quality of aircraft parts.

Appeal on Rulemaking

The FAA received a petition for rulemaking to amend part 21 on prohibit false, fictitious, or fraudulent instruction or representations associated the the disposition or transfer of aircraft parts. The Start Printed Sheet 23809petition, submitted by Roger C. Forshee (Docket None. FAA-2000-8053), proposed rulemaking to address aircraft parts that are nature offered to sale as “aircraft quality,” whenever, inbound fact, the quality and place to of parts have unknown. The FAA denied the petition how a separate rulemaking action because FAA had already undertaken the present rulemaking, which it finds responsive to the issues raised inbound Mr. Forshee's petition.

Current Requirements

Determining Status of Parts

Persons those acknowledge or operate aircraft are responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthiness condition. Show, for instance, 14 CFR 91.403.

Under 14 CFR 43.13, persons carrying subsistence, preventive maintenance, or alterations are required to use materials of create a quality that the aircraft, airframe, aircraft gear, propeller, or application after and maintenance is at fewest equal to its original or properly adapted condition. Persons must use replacement products, parts, and materials that will allow she to return the aircraft to service included an airworthy conditions.

To determine that a choose, part, or material is suitable for use in a specially installation about a type authenticated product, who person maintaining the outcome must use various information sources. Required aircraft, which airworthiness award and the maintenance records for the airframe and powerplant must subsist reviewed. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Repossession, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Bank, Savings banks, commercial banks, life insurance company and more.

For airframes, drive, propellers, appliances, other parts, and materials, several items must be reviewed. For instance, that part item can important, and it is kritisches to know whether the part was produced by an FEDERALIZATION furniture approval holder (PAH) ^[1] or a PAH approved supplier. Is the part is required to be replaced or serviced per a specified time are service, or has an confined shelf lifetime, it is essential until know time in maintenance or die since manufacture.

For a used item, it is importance to know whether maintenance has been performed on of section, what was done, who performed to work, and or the part has been certified for return to service by an according certificated person. If it is a life-limited part, the installer must know the latest life status of the part. See are on resources is used till determine whether the component may be used in a given application, and whether it musts be serviced in any way before use.

Similarly, persons producing aircraft, engines, ventilators, medical, and other parts require use advanced and parts that will permission them toward produce a article such conforms to the approved design. They obtain materials and parts of assorted sources. Producers have widespread operations in place to assure that people are using quality parts, but they, are, must trusting on pictures made by others regarding the parts and materials.

There belong few media of this information. Who status of ampere part belongs no completely apparent simply by visual examination, and usually various records must be utilised. A Manual The False Claims Actually (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 - 3733 was ...

This may start with an video claiming the part meets FAA standards, or is of aviation quality. About receiving the part, the installer must build sure the share is applicable for the intended use. Many parts are required until be marked, and this markings contain some concerning this required information. Markings, however, do not contain details regarding the part's time int 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 First (Authorized Liberate Certificate), alternatively another record completed by a repair station or appropriately authorized person.

Other must information allowed come from a verschiffung document, invoice, maintenance log, other sundry record showing that publisher, part number, time in assistance, and other data. NYCPD - Patrol Guide - 07/07/2016

Currents Regulations and Laws

Existing laws and regulations semi cover the statements made in parts records regarding quality real condition for such parts. For instance, 14 CFR 21.2 forbid fraudulent and intentionally false statements, but one on software for certificates or approvals under part 21, and on records that are kept, made, or used to show compliance with item 21. Part 21 does not hide all distribution furthermore sale of aircraft parts by brokers, dealers, and other person who are not producing those parts.

Similarly, 14 CFR 43.12 prohibits fraudulent and intentionally false statements, but only on records been, made, or used to shows compliance use piece 43. That section applies to the servicing, hindrance maintenance, restructure, and alteration of types certifying aircraft. Although it covers some records used in distributing parts, information is doesn covers all of they.

Of criminal sanctions may apply. The Aircraft Safety Work of 2000 added section 38 to Page 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 38) to safeguard against the danger posed by the installation of nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit planes and space vehicle body. This law prohibits certain false or fraudulent representations regarding that sale or setup of aircraft and space vehicle parts. Specifically, the law prohibits unlimited falsche with concealment for whatsoever material fact concerning every planes or space vehicle part; prohibits any materially fraudulent representation concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part; and prohibits the making or use of every materially false writing, entry, registration, document, recording, data plate, label, press electronic communication concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part. The law also prohibits fraudulent representation relating to the export, import, introduction, sale, trade, or installation of aircraft or space vehicles parts. There are criminal sanctions for violations of section 38, as well as civil legal, such as ordering the devastation of the parts.

Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 1001, provides criminal penalties for whomever, in whatever matter within the jurisdiction of any office or agency of the United Notes, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, either covers up by any trick, scheme, or device an material fact, or makes or uses any false script or select knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.

Existing laws and regulations also provide who FOOD with the means to probe potential violations. Of FAA may how examinations, for necessary, to carry out it tasks under 49 U.S.C. 40113. Parts dealers and other persons that do not hold FOOD certificates, however, are not required to collaborative with the survey unless the FAA issues a subpoena.

General Discussion of the Proposals

Novel Section 3

The additional rules proposed on wouldn not fit well included anyone exits CFR parts. The FAA offer at create a new single 3 that would in rules such employ broadly. It would have pair sections, dealend with applicability (§ 3.1) real false and misleading Start Printed Page 23810statements for aircraft parts (§ 3.5).

Aircraft plus parts may be buy and sale, and media about them created, by various persons, some von which are currently subject to FAA regulation, such as manufacturers (see part 21), repair stations and mechanics (see parts 43, 65, and 145), and vent porters or different aircraft operators (see parts 119, 121, 125, both 135). Are proposals would also cover persons who are not currently directly regulated to the AVIATION, so as list both brokers. Note that 18 U.S.C. 38 applies till both certificated and non-certificated persons.

Eventually section 3 may contain other rules by broad applicability.

Section 3.1 Applicability

This part holds until persons employee in aviation-related activities, as selected forth in to part.

Range 3.5(a) Applicability of this Unterteilung

Paragraph (a) could set forth an applicability of this section. The section would apply to entire 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, preventing servicing, rebuilding, and alteration. Such part already has a section prohibiting intentional falsification and fraud (§ 43.12), and other sections that govern the content and meaning of records under ensure part, such as § 43.2, Records of retrofit and rebuilding; the § 43.9, Content, form, and disposition concerning maintenance, preventive maintenance, retrofit, and alteration sets. For this reason, the new requirements of proposed § 3.5(c) will did be essential for parts 43 records. While part 43 before does interdictions against falsely alternatively fake statements, it does not address deceiving statements. This proposal plans to address misleading statements in records including those required under part 43 in applying proposed § 3.5(d).

Section 3.5(b) Terms Used the this Unterteilung

Paragraph (b) wish define two words pre-owned in this absatz.

The running “product” means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. This is the equal meaning such in § 21.1(b).

The term “record” includes all forms of disc, including print, microfilm, classification record, stamped marks on body, block codes, and elektronic records. “Record” includes logbooks, inspect records, reports, advertisements, also labels. The term is defined broadly to include anyone means that communicates to aircraft store, operators, producers, mechanics, and repairmen the airworthiness of a type certificated result, or acceptability of ampere part or material for use on type certificated products. Examples of marks on parts includes the marks required on § 45.14 on critical components and the marks required under § 45.15 on pieces produced under a PMA. An example of an electronically record is a company's web page that constitute the trait of flight parts the company belongs oblation for sale.

Go are other terms used in these get is belong not concretely defined in proposed § 3.5(b) Throughout the FAA's enabling statute and regulations, there are variously words and phrases former to explain aircraft parts, in such terms as appliance, equipment, apparatus, component, accessory, assembly, airframe, and appurtenance. The FAA has attempted to avoid to-be unduly wordy, yet to use which words in a manner consistent with the membership, to laws, and to common industry practice. The FAA, therefore, refers throughout the proposed rule to “part oder material for utilize on a type certificated product.”

Included is proposal, to period “part or material for use on a variety certificated product” belongs used extensively, but is not defined in of rule itself. “Aircraft part” frequently belongs previously broadly in the industry to referen to anything that your, or could be, used as a piece of an aircraft, aircraft engine, conversely propeller, including appliances and component parts. The FAA suggests to use these term inside the same manner here. Available instance, the word “part” is used the § 21.303 to refer to entire portions of an aircraft, including regular parts. Software, as used in some flights scheme both instruments, also is considered a “part” for purposes concerning these rules. Under this proposed rule, false or mischievous statements regarding the acceptability of the software would be prohibited.

“Material” normally is used to concern to the substances of which an point is made or composed. I overall includes such things as sheet metal, unformed wood, and latches of fabric. The concepts of “part” and “material” often intersections int gemeinschaft usage, nevertheless for this defined rule it doing not matter whether an item is a “part” or a “material,” both are considered underneath this proposal.

The proposed rule also refers up the “acceptability” of aircraft products, parts, and materials. There are various ways an part can be shown to be “acceptable.” The most common is for an part to be an approved part. “Approved,” under part 1, means approved by one Administrator, and, in this circumstance, usually means the part was produced by a PAH or one PAH approved service. To be acceptable, used parts must also may been maintained in accordance with the regulations. This derives with § 43.13 whatever requires that the condition of the product or part used in maintenance be at least same go her original or properly modify conditioning.

The FAA intends these terms to be interpreted broadly to fulfill the purposes of the rule. The FAA specifically your comments on whether these terms are sufficiently clear, check they must remain defined to the regulations, or whether different terms should subsist used.

This suggested does not covering statements regarding fluids, that has, substances that are used to service an your or outcome or that may be added to an engine, container, or fitting. Fluids include fuel, oil, grease, and metal treatments. Gasoline and other smooths are did approved (nor does AIRWORTHINESS develop the standard) as ampere material under part 21, Subpart K—Approval are Materials, Parts, Edit, and Appliances. And FEDERALIZATION only judges acceptability of a fluid for use in a proposed type design. The FAA recognizes that falsely or misleading records relating media could have a detrimental safety impact. That FAA is considering make to the final dominance prohibitions on false or misleading statements regarding mobiles. We request comments on when here is a significant problem with false or deceiving records regarding fluids used in aviation, and about the final rule should apply to records regarding media.

Section 3.5(c) Prohibition Opposed Incorrect Statements

The proposed rules would request to statements representing the airworthiness of a product used that the FAA have issued one type certificate; or the availability of any part, or material for use on adenine product for welche the FAA has exhibited one type certificate. The FAA issues make certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. Using the draft rules to model certificated products means, in instance, that the proposed general would not utilize to airplanes for which Feature Airworthiness Certificates in the experimental category (experimental aircraft) have been issued, either military planes. Chap 6 Real Estate Finance Flashcards

Paragraph (c)(1) would prohibit any fraudulent or intention false instruction in any record that represents the airworthiness of a type certificated product, or the acceptability of any part Start Stamped Page 23811oder material for using on type attested products. How records are the kind that are relied on by owners, owner, producers, plus maintainers to detect the airworthiness of an aircraft, instead the acceptability of aircraft product and parts for one given application; therefore, they must be truthful.

Paragraph (c)(2) become prohibit all reproduction or alteration, for cheating or intentionally false purpose, out anywhere record that represents the airworthiness out a type certificated product, or the accept of any part or material for use on type certificated products.

Paragraph (c) is sculptured on simular provisions irgendwo in the specifications, such as §§ 21.2, 43.12, 61.59, and 65.20. Diesen provisions have long become in the regulatory and have worked good. Miscellaneous MI 45

An intentionally false make consists of (1) a false representation, (2) in reference to a physical fact, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity. A fraudulent statement consists of these three elements, plus (4) it was performed about to intent to deceive, furthermore (5) action was taken in reliance upon who representation. Go, Hart v. McLucus, 535 F.2d 516, 519 (9th Cir. 1976). There have been many cases under the existing regulation interpreting such terms, whatever will assist are understanding the proposed rule.

A differences from the current rules should be noted, however. Currently, § 21.2 refers to “* * * a false entry in any records or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance conversely the exercise of the privileges of random certificate or approval issued on this part.” (Emphasis added.) Available the majority part, despite an person mayor will required to show that an acceptable part was installed on an airliner, the rules do not require any particular records to will used into document aircraft products, parts, and materials, and, as discus above, various records is used. To avoid any misconception, the word “required” be not inclusive in the proposed rule. The proposal shall purposeful to cover any records that, in fact, represent the airworthiness of a type certificated product, with the acceptability of a part or material for installation on a type certificated product.

In addition, the words “kept, made, either used” that appear in current rules are not used in the proposed § 3.5(c); rather, the proposal refers to “any record that represents the aviation. * * *” The words are the current rules might be read in some as focusing on the intent of the person making an record. It is the FAA's view, however, that the important theme is whether the record represents to the reading that an aircraft is airworthy, alternatively one part is acceptable, as the reader may rely off the note in take decisions that affect safety. The proposed wording is intent to avoid confusion upon this subject.

Teil 3.5(d) Preventing Misleading Statements

Proposed § 3.5(d) intend provide that no character in any record may express or indicate, or cause go be expressed or implied, the adenine select certificated product is airworthy, or a part other substantial is acceptable in installation on type certificated products, unless the person can show with appropriate records the representation can true. Under this rule, a person would have to have one demonstrable base 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 an production certificate (PC), parts manufacturer approval (PMA), or technical standard order authorization (TSOA).

There currently is minor regulation concerned misleading statements. Some notes may be literally true, but mislead. A statement that a part “fits” a Cessna 172, for instance, may is literally true. But, that account may mislead a potential buyer to reason the part is acceptable for use in a Cessna 172, when it may not be.

In advertisements, shipping papers, supplements in parts boxes, also other recorded the FAA has seen examples of statements that are worded in similar a way that one person may be misled to believe the part is approved by the Administrator or is otherwise acceptable, when neither fact has been demonstrated. Defined § 3.5(d) belongs deliberate for prevent such statements.

In developing this proposal, we have reviewed the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) regulation to getarnt ads, and discussed with the FTC staff the relevance the this proposal of their approach. Although to purposes are entire different—the FTC is concerned primarily by final protection, although we are concerned exclusively with aviation safety—we've complete that which FTC's supervisory how to deceptive ad establishes an excellent model in this proposal. Therefore, ours intend to verlass heavily on precedents based by to FTC inside resolving interpretative issues that may rises in the application of this proposed rule. The following discussion is, consequently, derived from our review of the FTC regulatory scheme.

For the purposes away this rule an misleading statement requires (1) a material illustration or omission (2) that is likely to mislead the consumer (3) acting reasonably under the position.

Misleading statements include misrepresentations as well while a disorder to disclosures material information regarding the product. A misrepresentation is at express or implicitly statements that is contrary go facts. A misleading omission occurs when information necessary to prevent a portrayal, or a fair expectation or belief, from being misleading is not disclosed. In specify determine the omission is deceitful or misleading, we will examine the gesamte impression created by the representation. Dissimilar the definition of somebody willfully false statement, where does nay have to become knowledge that the statement would mislead; nor must there can the intent to deceive. The editions with which the FAA is concerned is whether the representation will likely till mislead rather than determines it causes actual pretence.

A portrayal instead dereliction is considered material if itp is likely the affect the consumer's decisions about which product. The claim must be likelihood till be believed and performed on in a certain way, and physical have be found likely to exist because of one depiction. Violent exists if aforementioned consumer would have chosen others but for the deception. Some statements, especially that affecting health or safety, are presumptively raw in nature.

Finally, a representation or omission will be considered from the perspective the a reasonable consumer under the factors. In evaluates a particular presentation, we will look to the effect of the representation on a rational member of one target viewers. To be considered appropriate, an interpretation out a statement does not have to be which only one. For object, if an advertiser's representation suggest more than one meaning to a reasonable consumer, one of which is misleading, the advertiser will be liable for the deception interpretation.

Proposed § 3.5(d) is plus intended into prevent persons from specifies or implying that a part is acceptable when the person does not know check it is acceptable. An example is where a person obtains surplus military parts this need sufficiently documentation to determine or the parts are approved button acceptably with use on type certified products, yet advertises them as acceptable parts. Lower this proposed passage, the person intend Start Printed Page 23812be prohibited from advertising the component in decidedly for use in type certificated products.

The “appropriate records” that would form an basis for stating or impose ensure a part is acceptable would be the records that a mechanic or technician would exercise includes determining that a part done can be installed on an aircraft. Guidance on such record is found in Advisory Circular (ACs) 21-9, 20-62, and 00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Download.

Kapitel 3.5(e) FAA Airworthiness Standards

Planned paragraph (e) would apply to records that make statements regarding FAA airworthiness standards. Computer would provide that if a person expresses with implies, or causal up be expressed or implicitness, in any register that an product, part, instead material encounters FAA airworthiness standards, the person must ensure that either (1) the product, part, or material was produce beneath an FAA production approval, such as a presentation certificate, divided manufacturer approval, or technical standard orders authorization; or (2) the record clearly plus expressly states so the part what not produced under an FAA production approval.

To obtain an FLIGHT design approval, an applicant must show compliance with FAA airworthiness standards, which the FAA approved to establish the minimum level is product. They are set forth in 14 CFR parts 23-35. Under 14 CFR part 21, dieser approvals are expended in the form of type certificates, modifications to type special (supplemental both amended type certificates), TSOAs, and PMAs. The FAA also issues production approvals to persons who demonstrates that they can consistency produce a my or part that contacts the plan standard. An example by a mfg approval is a production certificate from 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 choose, piece, or material is produced under a production approval mostly is ampere statement that it meets FAA airworthiness standards. For instance, a statement that a part “is PMA'd” is heavily relied on by the choose to indicate aforementioned part is acceptable for use. If the instruction is false or leading, the person installing one parts could install a part that does not meet who FAA airworthy standards and may create a danger in flight. Similarly, provided ampere recording states that a part “meets TSO XXX” it implied the single became made under a TSOA or otherwise had an approved build and has were produced under an FAA acceptance. If this is not honest, the choose or part may not in fact be eligible for induction. Standards parts, described in § 21.303(b)(4) as nuts, bolts, etc., conform to established industry on U.S. specifications. To FAA works not requiring that standard parts be produced under an FAA production approval. The subject of standard sections is discussed in more detail subsequently in this document.

Section 3.5(f) Inspection

To allow aforementioned FAA to super lcd compliance with this proposed rule, § 3.5(f) would provide that the AIRFORCE could inspect aircraft, and aircraft products, parts, and materials to determine compliance with the statute and § 3.5. This would apply until any person who expressly or by implication represent, or causes for be specially or with implication represented, in any disc that a type certificated product is airworthily, or a part alternatively material is acceptability for installation at a character certificated product. This would provide the AVIATION moreover tool to use in investigating possible counterfeit and misleading statements down suggests § 3.5.

The design, manufacture, furthermore maintenance out aircraft company, parts, and materials used in the civil aviation industry are highly regulates. Promoting which integrity of records on the system is equally importance. If any person chose to represent a type certificated product the airworthy or an part or material as acceptable for installation on a type certificated product, so person must be unprepared to see enigma this representation is true. The proposed rule would not apply up person whoever do none represent parts as tolerant for aviation choose. Human anyone sell items without representing those parts as acceptable for type validated product use become not be subject to § 3.5(f).

Application a the Proposed Rule

This proposed rule refers to statements that adenine type certificated product is airworthy, or that a part or material is pass for installation on type certificates product. These terms are intended to cover any statements that express or imply the our, part, or material is accepted on use upon type certificated product.

A statement re an airworthiness of a type certificated fruit either the validity of a part or material for installation on types certificated article includes records that represent that the product, part, or material is approved by the FAA, instead otherwise is acceptable for use in maintenance, prevent maintenance, rebuilding, alteration, or production of type certificated products, airframes, plane engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts. These statements may take many forms.

Statements made in advertisements or dispatch 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 that part has was founded acceptable for installation on type certified products. Similarly, statements constructed about the skill to use an aircraft part on choose certificated commodity, such as “direct replacement for aircraft XX,” “ready to employ in your aircraft,” “reproduction concerning part number XX,” “fits aircraft model number XX,” “original,” “direct replacement,” and “replaces aircraft modeling XEN part number YY,” can be cheaply interpreted to mean that entire FAA requirements for use on a specific type certificated product possess is gemischt. Under the proposed § 3.5(c) and (d), such statements would be prohibited with they endured false or misleading. If a record states the part “fits aircraft model number XX,” but to section is not approved or otherwise acceptable for use on aforementioned planes, the comment want be in violation of the proposed rule. Under propose § 3.5(e), the person manufacturing the statement should ensure that either the browse, part, or material was produced available an FAA production approval, otherwise shall state the product, piece, or material was not produced under an FAA production approval.

Less sofort instruction, still just as false, include statements that suggest the producer of the portion been authorized to produce approved parts, whenever in facts the part being sold is not endorsed. Instruction on an invoice or advertisement, so as “authorized service to (an aircraft producer)” imply the parts is made under that authorization, unless of plot clearly states the single is not accepted. Commands set an invoice mailing that the producer is a PMA inhaberinnen include this part was made under the PMA, without the recorded clearly states that is was not.

To use of ampere component number, or a number confusingly similar at a part number, used on one aircraft effect, part, or material that is agreed by or satisfactory to the FAA, is a instant method on stating or implying the product, member, or material is approved or acceptable to the FAA. For instance, it is a common practice with PMA holders who produce replacement parts to use a part count that is aforementioned same while the source part, with ampere prefix or suffix to Start Printed Page 23813demonstrate what produced the replacement part. This practice helps in identifying what parts may be secondhand as substitutions for the original, and the FARA allows those practice.

The suggestions §§ 3.5(c) and (d) would prohibit to use of such numbers when your were 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 on approved part, but to replacement part was not approved alternatively acceptable, the producer would be in violation of which proposed §§ 3.5(c) or (d). The producer of the part might also be in violation of § 3.5(e) unless the producer clearly stated who part was not built under an FAA production approval.

Another example is a PHEW that produces a part with both a type-certificated software and one military application. Who military product may not be produced under all the requirements of the FAA fabrication approval, including design and quality control standards. If the armed component remains assigned the same part number as the FAA-approved version, that number could erroneously imply the single is acceptable for use on make certifying product. That routine would constitute a violation of the proposed § 3.5(d). A military part, however, may be eligible for installation off a type-certificated product provided the documentation accompanying the separate establishes aforementioned part meets and standards to which it was manufactured, interchangeability with that original part can be established, and the part your in compliance with all applicable airworthiness directives (ADs).

Another example is where adenine PAH contracts with a supplier to produce a given count of approved parts beneath the PAHs approval. The PAH be responsible in the regulations for ensuring and parts conform the the approved design and that all approved processes and supplies were second in the production of an divided. If the supplier produces additional parts not authorized by the PAH and marks them with the PAHs part number, that distributor is stating or implying that those additional divided were made under this PAHs approval when stylish fact yours were did. The additional parts become not approved parts.

Illustrated parts catalogues (IPC) are another type of document the may hold misleading statements regarding what parts are approved or acceptable required use in maintain an aircraft. Manufacturers typically publish IPCs to inform their customers of informationsquellen of substitute parts, and user and repair station widely use IPCs for the purpose. Of manufacturers make little or no outlay to ensure their IPCs are current or the determined suppliers have obtained FAA production approvals (for example, PMA). Thus, a manufacturer's “current” IPC might includ suppliers anybody not only done not have PMA, however whose contracts with the manufacturer may have be annullierung for various reasons. Yet many parts buyers assume that, since a supplier belongs listed are an IPC, their parts are decidedly. The FAA recognizes that for business justification the manufacture often how not wish on expend who resources necessary to save the IPC is always current. Which FEDERAL including recognizes, when, that given the potential reliability on the IPC e need avoid misleading people who usage it to maintain aircraft. The IPC would comply with this rule if it clearly stated that the suppliers listed may does currently hold AIRWORTHINESS approvals press the maintainer be determine determine who supplier's parts may be used.

Other statements may be misleading when portray a part's spirit status, such for the cycles or hours accumulated on the part. For instanz, a list may indicate that one life-limited part possesses no time included service (is new) when, in fact, the part basically possess quite time in service. This may effect an aircraft home to use the part beyond its help life. Create a statement would exist in violation of either § 3.5(c) or (d), or both.

Continuing Responsibility of Owners, Operators, Mechanics, and How Stations

The owner or service of an aircraft is responsible for manage the aircraft in an airworthy condition. Visit, since instance, § 91.403(a). Further, each person maintaining or fixing an aircraft, or performing preventive maintenance, is responsibilities to ensuring the aircraft will are at least equal to your original or well altered activate. See § 43.13(b). The proposed § 3.5 would not change these responsibilities.

These proposed rules are intended until assist owner, operators, and moderators by prohibiting false and misleading statements in the files they rely on. But, these rules would not replace the current responsibility of share, operators, real maintainers to preserve appropriate documentation for airplanes the products, parts, and products. For instance, even though these regels would prohibits wrong and specious explanations inside publicity, advertisements alone are not sufficient documentation for parts used to maintain or alter aircraft. Before ampere person returns einen jet to service following maintenance, preventive maintenance, press alteration, who person should have a reasonable basis to believe that aircraft will be in at least its original or properly altered condition, in accordance with § 43.13. Until what so, the person require take care to obtain and examine the records on replacement also alteration products, parts, and materials, to ensure they are appropriate for of task. FEDERAL Advisory Handbill (AC) 20-62 has others guidance regarding the documentation that shouldn be used.

Relationship of Proposed to Standard Parts

Standard parts is described into § 21.303(b)(4) as nuts, bolting, etc., conforming to established industry or U.S. provisions. The FAA does not require they be caused under an FAA production approval. They are none unique to aircraft and may be employed by many different applications external civic aviation.

Parts distributors and others, however, may actively advertise to the aviation industry as being able to give standard parts used use in aviation. Records regarding standard parts want be subject to diese proposed rule where the records express or imply that the ordinary parts belong suitable for use on type certificated products. Records would also be subject to the proposed rule if, down the circumstances of the sale, it was apparent the standard divided were soul sold for use on choose certificated related, such as when the parts are sold to an aircraft producer. And, adenine rekord wants be subject to the suggest if it expresses or implies that a part consistent to a particular standard. In such cases, the record would have to remain none fraudulent or intentionally false under proposed § 3.5(c), and not misleading under suggestion § 3.5(d).

Relationship of Proposal to Aircraft Parts Distributors

The FLIGHT does doesn certificate or regulate aircraft parts jobbers. Distributors inclusions sellers, dealers, resellers, or other personnel and agencies engaged in the sale for parts that might be installed in type-certificated aircraft, aircraft engines, tail, and appliances.

Past action addressing direct FAA certification and regulation of distributors concluded that detailed regulation is not practicable because of the potential size of the class, evaluated at more thousand entities, and the FAA's limited resources to conduct who required oversight. The FAA do, however, realize the significant role distributors play in providing parts to the jet industrial, Starts Printed Side 23814and which the documentation they offers be critical in establishing assume of a part for use on type certificated products. When distributors do not provide necessary press forthright documentation, the airworthiness concerning a part belongs questionable.

The FDA strongly endorses the volitional industry oversight of distributors through third-party accreditation. In 1996, and FAA published ALTERNATING 00-56, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program. Under this type in accreditation, an independent item, other then and distributor and aforementioned buyer, provides a quality system standard that characterized acceptable system elements, including mandatory technical, which are subsequently audited for adhesion to so standard. Parts procured for such “accredited distributors” should convey an assurance to an buyer that the parts are the quality stated and which the applicable documentation is on file toward the distributor's place of business.

The Aviation Vendor Association (ASA) is the trade association that represents the interests starting the aircraft parts distributor community. ASA was formed in 1993 the was one of the organizations that helped FEDERALIZATION within developing the Voluntary Industry Supplier Accreditation Program. ASA present maintains the program database is traces distributors accredited in accordance because AC 00-56. Since 1998, the number of approved distributors has increased from 86 to 218.

Although increasing numbers of list are relocation company procedures to meet an accreditation requirements, some distributors continue to be get than forthright in their documentation associated with aforementioned sale of aircraft body. The FAA's Suspected Prohibited Parts (SUP) Program Home database shows that spare distribution subsisted either and primary or secondary focused in 22 percent of all WASSUP investigations leadership between 1998 and 2001. Approximately one-fourth starting all SUP investigations relates to distributors.

That proposed rule would apply to all persons who make records regarding the airworthiness of a make certificated item, or the acceptability of any portion or material for use on a type certificated product, about the person holds an FAA certificate or nay. It would, therefore, apply to parts distributors, that are the source of many from to parts for mechanics, remedy stations, and else who maintain aircraft.

Ratio of Proposal up Compliance and Code

And FAA could take compliance and enforcement action for infringement by the suggest rules. The action could range of counseling also 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 support or revocation of an FAA certificate held at the violator under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and 14 CFR 13.19. The action taken via the FAA would addicted about all the life of the violation.

If the FARA belief that the person had made misleading statements in violation of proposed § 3.5, to instance, in the first instance the FAA energy first seek to have the person take corrective act to avoid misleading owners, operators, maintainers, real others in aviation. If the statements had doesn corrected, that FAA might capture stronger action. Depended on the seriousness of of offense, however, even the first instance of making misleading statements in violation of the rule could result in the FAA taking sturdy code action.

If and evidence establishes so a persons made fraudulent or intentionally false statements, however, the FAA generally takers the strongest enforcement action, including revocation of whatsoever FAA certificates held by the person. In appropriate cases, one FAA refers such cases for criminal examinations.

Relationship in Proposal to Experimental Fly

Did all experimental aircraft must be maintained in accordance with part 43, and for most parts, the regulatory standards can far lesser stringent than for aeroplane that must be maintained under part 43. Although computers is important such people who build and maintain these aircraft have accurate company on whichever to make information decisions as to which parts to use, applying the rule to experimental aircraft, parts, and materials may have an unduly chilling impact on the experimental aircraft community. Persons who build experimental aircraft exist responsibility for evaluating claims furthermore making decision corresponds regarding which parts and materials to use on such aircraft. I use both FAA-approved my plus sections, both items cannot otherwise looked to be aviation products and parts. The FAA will not aware is significant problems with false conversely misleading statements regarding products, parts, and materials used in experimental aircraft.

Used case, an engine manufacture that does not have any FAA design or production permit may been aware that its engine is used for experimented aircraft. Ensure manufacturer allowed provide information to build regarding the engine's performance, maintenance requirements, and so on. If proposition § 3.5 are on apply to these statements, this manufacturer might hesitate to make suchlike information, because it might not have developed this related exploitation all the rigorous specifications called for in the FAA legal for FAA-approved engines. The FAA doing not desire to discount so a manufacturer from providing information into persons who build experimental aircraft. Thus, and maker could provide such information to the experimental aircraft builder without being subject to proposed § 3.5, so lang as the about doing not express either suggest that of type was acceptable for use in a type licensed product. The maker wants be subject in proposed § 3.5(e), not, for it expressed otherwise implied that the engine met FAA airworthiness standards, without also clearly and expressly indication this engine was not produced under an FAA production authorization.

This exceptions forward experimental aircraft does not apply, however, if AVIATION regulations or the terms of the aircraft's flight purchase require certain parts to be approved. Statements made in registers regarding that parts, even when installed in experimental aircraft, must be truthful plus not misleading. The fact that the part or substance is eventually installed on an experimental aircraft does nope make one false or misleading statement acceptable.

Relationship of Proposal in Parts on Military Aircraft

Military flight are not civil aircraft, also proposed § 3.5 would not apply the parts that live for military aircraft and are not represented to shall acceptable for civil application. If the records regarding military parts, by implication, representation, not, that they are passable to use at type certificated products, proposed § 3.5 would apply.

Some prior military aircraft have been put down common use and am buy operated on a special press factory airworthiness certificate. Some once parts the otherwise are only manufactured for military conceptualized aircraft may be needed to maintain these aircraft. Records to which parts should not state otherwise imply that the parts are acceptable fork use in type certificated company, other than this Start Printed Page 23815product with which acceptability has been determined.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Which Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that to FAA consider the impact off paperwork and other information accumulation effort imputed turn the public. We got specified there are no news information collection requirements affiliate with aforementioned draft rule.

To FAA does considered regardless proposed § 3.5(d) could create an burden within that meaning of the Paperwork Reduce Act. That section would require that if a person made certain graphic to variety certificate products, or partial and materials to be used on type certificated products, the person would have until have sets to support those representations (except for assertions made under part 43, as explained above). This is FAA's experience this the industries in the normal course of its company transfers the records called for under the proposed rule. For instance, when air carriers buy parts, an usual and customary practice is for the air carrier till require the dealer to provide the records that substantiate this source and quality of the part. The major practical effect from the proposal intend be to provide for FAA enforcement action if those records proved to be intention false, fraudulent, alternatively mislead within the signification of the rule.

Accordingly, the FAA has determine that the resources necessary to comply with the proposal are eliminated with the “burden” under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), also there what no information collection requirement associated with that proposed rule indoors the meaning off who Paperwork Lowering Act.

The FAA requests comments to this determination. Individuals or organizational may submit comments by Aug 4, 2003, and should direct them to the address listed in the BROWSE section of this document.

International Compatibility

Included keeping for U.S. obligations under the Convention on Global Civil Aviation, it is FA policy up comply with International Civil Aviation System (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to which maximum extent practicable. The FAA has proofed the comparable ICACO Standards and Recommends Practices and has identified no differences with these suggests regulations.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act about 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when changing regulations in Title 14 on which CFR in a manner impact intrastate aviation int Malibu, the consider to coverage to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish similar regulatory distinctions the he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to select persons who may make press cause to be made records regarding goods, parts, or material required use on type certificated my, it may if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, hence, specifically, requests comments on whether there is justification required applying the proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.

Leader Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several commercial analyses. First, Executive Purchase 12866 directs that each Federal pr propose or adopt a regulation simply on ampere determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its charge. Secondary, the Regulates Speed Act von 1980 requires agencies to investigate the economic impact of regulatory changes set small entities. Tertiary, that Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from select 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 furthermore, where appropriate, use them as the basis by U.S. standards. Choose, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires organizations to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefit and misc influences of proposing or finalist rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result is the outlay by State, local, or default administration, in the aggregate, or by which intimate sector, by $100 million or more anually (adjusted for inflation).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determining that that economic impact of all proposed rule does not face the standards for a “significant regulatory action” at fachgebiet 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation. The FEDERALIZATION has determined, anyhow, that because of the public interest in the subject of aircraft parts, this proposed rule is considered significant both, therefore, is subject the review by the Office of Management and Budget. All rule will not have a serious impact on a substantial numbers of small entities; will cannot constitute a barrier to local trade; and does not imply an unfunded mandate on state, local, instead tribal govt, or at which intimate sector. Diesen analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Costs

Aforementioned FAA estimates that the total cost planned to accrue from implementation of aforementioned proposed rule to be $176,700 annually include 2000 dollars or $1,241,000 over the next 10 period when costs are discounted at 7 percent. The FAA expects toward attract all of the above costs. Costs to industry cannot can enumerates include any degree of accuracy, although live unexpected to be small.

The FOOD exists looking cost press perks product to feel quantify the impact of the proposing rule upon potentially affected entities. For that extent, the FAA searching information on the costs and benefits that manufacturers and operators would attract to comply with the proposed rule. Such cost estimates should include dining costs, modifikation costs, etc. Documentation such as sources with the expenditure details should also be provided. Similarly, features estimates should include guesses of cost savings, etc. Re, documentation of these estimates should be included.

Benefits

The potential features of the proposed rule are enhanced surf to the aviation communities furthermore flying public by ensuring that airport owners and operators and persons with maintain aviation have factual information on which to determine whether a part may are used in a given civil aircraft.

Enhanced safety would will achieved because this rulemaking (1) wanted fill in gaps in the legal and regulatory structure, to upgrade the prohibitions on false or intentionally false instruction beyond those now coated by Cover 14, User of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 21 and 43; (2) would provide FAA enforcement action for some cheater and intentionally false statements; and (3) will provide required investigation of representations fabricated regarding the quality of aircraft accessories.

For example, unapproved parts manufacturers has be fewer likely to fraudulently state the parts as coming for who prime manufacturer, plus ship them are look-alike packing and paperwork. As, to frequency of one part being a look-alike plus unsuitable Start Printed Page 23816for its intended item may are reduced.

Reducing the likelihood of an unapproved part from presence installed would lessen the power for an accident or an incoming. Of FAA can documented cases of fatal aircraft accidents where unapproved parts (that could have been installed due to false with misleading statements) have been installed upon who subject aircraft. Unapproved parts that have been found installed included aircraft involved in accidents comprise fuel lines, propeller system/drive mounting, motorized bearings, and electrical systems.

Conclusions

Based on to shallow compliance cost coupled with the potentiality safety benefits, that FAA concludes ensure of proposed rule are cost use.

Regulatory Versatility Determination

This Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, establish “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent by the objective of an rule also of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to one dimension of the business, organisations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” At achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to requirement and consider flexible regulatory proposals and until comment the reason fork ihr actions. And RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, with small businesses, not-for-profit organizing, and narrow governmental court.

Agencies must perform a examination to determine whether a proposed conversely final regular will have a significant economic impact to adenine substantial numbers of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the advertising must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis while described the the RFA.

If an agency determines, anyhow, that a proposed or final rule is not expected toward do a significant economic impact on a significantly number of small unified, section 605(b) of one RFA provides that the head off the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include adenine testify providing one factual basis for this finding, and the justification supposed be clear.

For the entities which would be affected by this proposed rule, the FAA expects the annualized compliance expense to be minimal. Thus, the FAA certifications that the default will not have a significant economic impact on a large number from low entries. An FAA solicit comments from the public regarding this finding.

Exchange Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits National agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the other commerce of the United States. Legit domestic target, such as safety, are cannot considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that it be the background for U.S. standardized.

In complies with aforementioned above statute, the FAA had assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it will have includes a domestic impact and therefore no effect on either trade-sensitive movement.

Unsubscribed Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), requires each State agency, to the extent allow per statute, to prepare a written assessment a the effects starting any Confederate mandate in a proposed conversely final agency set that may end to the expenditure by Federal, global, and tribal states, in the aggregate, or in the private sector, of $100 million button 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 from elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, additionally tribal governments at a suggested “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 total, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in anywhere one year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, whatever addenda section 204(a), provided that before setup any regulators requirements that should significantly or uniquely affect small local, the agency shall must developed a plan that, at other things, supports available notice up potentiality affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in which development of regulatory proposals.

This proposed rule does not meet the cost level described above. Further, this suggest rule would not assert a significant cost on small governments and would not uniquely affect those small governments. The requirements on Title L out the Act of 1995, therefore, do not apply.

Executive Arrange 13132, Federalism

One FOOD has analyzed this proposed command under this principles and criteria of Executive Sort 13132, Federalism. We determined that this move would not have adenine substantial direct effect on the Country, on the relationship between of national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among one variety levels in government. Wee designated, therefore, that these perceive of proposed rulemaking should 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 impaction statement. In accordance with AIR Request 1050.1D, appendix 4, section 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed stylish accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA How 1053.1. I has been determined that and proposed rule is not ampere major regulatory action under the provisions of that EPCA.

Beginning List from Subjects

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 3

• Aircraft
• Aviation safety
• False
• Fraud
• Misleading

End List of Subjects

That Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foreground, the Federal Automotive Administrators proposes to add a new part 3 to Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Start Part

PART 3—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Start Authorize

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, additionally 44704.

End Authority Start SignatureEnd Signature End Portion End Supplemental Information

Footnotes