AD 02-17743

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47998-48004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 02-17743]



[[Page 47997]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 39



Airworthiness Directives; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 47998]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2000-8460; Amdt. No. 39-9474]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates several standard provisions 
previously included in most airworthiness directives into the Code of 
Federal Regulations. FAA will no longer include these provisions in 
individual airworthiness directives. FAA is taking this action to 
standardize the way we write airworthiness directives. This action will 
enhance aviation safety by making it easier for users to focus on 
specific safety concerns addressed in airworthiness directives.

DATES: Effective August 21, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, 
Regulations Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this document through the 
Government Printing Office's web page at <a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html">http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html</a> or from the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page on the Internet at 
<a href="http://dms.dot.gov">http://dms.dot.gov</a>. Use the search function to search for Docket Number 
8460. This document will be the last item in the list of items under 
that number. You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Ask for the final rule 
for Docket Number 8460.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about 
SBREFA at our Web site, <a href="http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm">http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm</a>, or e-
mail us at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c45513d2b3d512f3e2e393a3d3c1a1d1d521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a73670b1d0b671908180f0c0b0a2c2b2b642d253c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

Background

1. New Provisions

    FAA is revising part 39 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) by adding several provisions currently found in 
airworthiness directives (ADs). This action will allow us to omit those 
provisions from individual ADs. Omitting this language from ADs will 
place the focus of ADs on the unsafe condition that created the need 
for the directive. Many operators have indicated that this boilerplate 
language imposed a burden on the reader without contributing to 
aviation safety. The standard provisions currently found in ADs make it 
hard for the reader to focus on the safety aspects of the AD. 
Therefore, FAA is moving several of these standard provisions to part 
39.
    Specifically, FAA is adding to part 39 the language explaining that 
ADs apply even if products have been modified, altered, or repaired in 
the area addressed by the directive. FAA also is adding the language 
about the use of special flight permits if operators are not able to 
move their aircraft to a repair facility within the time limits imposed 
by the AD. Further, the new part 39 will contain procedures for asking 
FAA to approve alternative methods of compliance with the AD. Finally, 
FAA is adding the language that requires operators to comply with the 
requirements of an AD when the AD and a service document referenced in 
an AD conflict.

2. Clearer Regulatory Format

    In addition to moving certain provisions currently found in 
individual ADs to part 39, FAA wrote this regulation in plain language. 
We reorganized and reworded the regulation using plain language 
techniques. Plain language elements in the proposal include--
    a. Section headings in the form of questions to help direct the 
readers to specific material they need;
    b. Personal pronouns to reduce passive voice and draw readers into 
the writing; and
    c. Active verbs to make clear who is responsible for what actions.

3. Related Activity

    As part of FAA's effort to improve the way we issue ADs, we will 
start to issue them in a new, streamlined format. Simpler ADs will 
appear as charts, with all regulatory information contained within the 
chart. More complex ADs will make greater use of tables to present 
complex materials in a clearer manner.

4. Discussion of Comments

    FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing 
changes to part 39, as described previously (66 FR 3382; January 12, 
2001). FAA received fifteen comments on the proposal from individuals, 
representatives of industry associations, and businesses who 
participate in the aviation industry.
    General comments: Several commenters generally supported the 
proposal. They stated that they support the concept of writing ADs in a 
clear style. They agree that eliminating the standard language from 
most ADs will help readers focus on the safety information specific to 
each AD.
    One commenter generally objected to the proposal and several 
commenters, while supporting the proposal in general, objected to the 
question and answer format. They stated that it was more difficult to 
find material with question headings. One commenter stated that 
``question headings fail to communicate a clear standard.''
    We find that question headings help guide readers through the 
document, especially in non-technical regulations such as this one; 
therefore, FAA will continue to consider the use of question headings. 
However, we do agree that use of question headings is not always 
appropriate. This is particularly true of standard sections at the 
beginning of many regulations, such as the purpose of the regulation 
and definitions used in the regulation. On the other hand, switching 
back and forth between two heading types throughout a regulation may be 
distracting and confusing to some readers. Accordingly, we have 
retained the question headings in most of this regulation, but have 
used the more traditional statement style for the first two sections of 
the final rule, ``Purpose of the Regulation'' and ``Definition of 
Airworthiness Directives.''
    We do not agree with the comment that question headings fail to 
provide a clear standard. Standards of a regulation are within the text 
of each section, not in the heading. Traditional headings in statement 
form such as ``applications'' and ``general'' were never intended to 
provide a ``clear standard'' to the reader, and neither are question 
headings.
    Several commenters stated they found pronouns confusing. FAA finds 
that

[[Page 47999]]

pronouns help readers relate to a document. However, we agree that it 
is critical that the referent for each pronoun be clear, and we have 
tried to achieve that in this final rule.
    Several commenters cautioned that if we eliminate the boilerplate 
notes from specific ADs, we should mention this new part 39 in the 
preamble to each AD. While we note that any operator of aircraft 
regulated by FAA has an obligation to be familiar with FAA regulations, 
we will refer to part 39 in the preamble of each AD to alert operators 
to these provisions.
    Two commenters stated the rule does nothing to enhance aviation 
safety. FAA disagrees. As we stated above, we find that this action 
will allow readers of ADs to focus on the safety related material. We 
find that clear communication is a safety issue, and this final rule 
will clarify the provisions of ADs, thereby enhancing aviation safety. 
Several commenters agreed that removing the boilerplate will allow 
readers to focus on the safety issues.
    Several commenters indicated that FAA should not introduce new 
regulatory requirements in part 39 in this rulemaking action. The only 
example that commenters gave was the change to Sec. 39.17, which tells 
people where to send requests for FAA approval of alternative methods 
of complying with ADs. We discuss this issue in the section-by-section 
analysis below. FAA notes that this rulemaking action does not 
introduce any new regulatory requirements. We are simply moving 
provisions currently found in ADs to part 39.
    Several commenters stated that some headings did not adequately 
cover the material in the following section, or that FAA needed 
additional material clarifying the proposed provisions. We agree with 
several of the comments; therefore, we added new sections to the final 
rule, and renumbered succeeding sections accordingly.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments

Section 39.1  Purpose of This Regulation
    This section explains that part 39 establishes the regulatory basis 
for FAA's airworthiness directives. This would replace similar material 
found currently in part 39.
    One commenter objected to the term ``set up'' in the proposal, and 
suggested alternative language. While we have not used the commenter's 
suggested language, which was much longer, we agree the term ``set up'' 
may not be appropriate for a regulation. We have reworded this section 
to provide a more precise description of the role of part 39.
Section 39.3  Definition of Airworthiness Directives
    This section explains that ADs are legally enforceable rules that 
apply toaircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. We 
refer to these items as ``products.'' This definition is similar to 
that in the prior version of Secs. 39.1 and 39.3.
    Two commenters suggested that we either define products, which they 
note is defined only in 14 CFR part 21, or eliminate the term from this 
section. The prior version of part 39 included the same definition of 
``product,'' that is, ``aircraft, aircraft engine, propellers, or 
appliances.'' We have decided not to change this definition. The 
definition of ``product'' in part 21 is similar, but does not include 
the term ``appliance.'' We will continue to issue ADs applicable to 
``appliances.'' To clarify that we will use this term in this part, we 
have revised the wording in this section to state that ADs cover the 
following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and 
appliances.
    Proposed Sec. 39.3 stated the conditions under which FAA will issue 
an AD. We have moved this provision into a new section in the final 
rule, Sec. 39.5. See the discussion of that section below. One 
commenter suggested the heading of this section did not capture the 
entire contents of the section. According to the commenter, the section 
also refers to the conditions that must be present when FAA issues an 
AD. We agree with the commenter; therefore, we have separated this 
material into two sections.
Section 39.5 (New Section in Final Rule)  When Does FAA Issue 
Airworthiness Directives?
    This is a new section in the final rule. This material, which is 
similar to that found in current Sec. 39.1, was in proposed Sec. 39.3. 
The section describes the conditions under which FAA would issue an AD. 
FAA issues ADs when we find that an unsafe condition exists in a 
product and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other 
products of the same type design. We have renumbered subsequent 
sections accordingly to accommodate this new section.
    One commenter stated that the language in this section could be 
interpreted to exclude issuing an AD against parts. FAA does not intend 
this provision to change AD applicability to parts. Except for 
``appliances,'' which are included in the definition of ``products,'' 
FAA has not issued ADs that apply to ``parts,'' independently of the 
products on which they are installed. Rather, if we find an unsafe 
condition is caused by a particular part, we issue an AD against the 
product or products on which the part is installed. For ease of 
identifying those products, we may specify the part in the 
applicability provision, ``as installed on'' particular products. If we 
are not certain of all the products on which the part is installed, we 
may identify the products we do know about, but indicate that others 
may also be affected. In all of these cases, however, the AD applies to 
the products on which these parts are installed, rather than to the 
parts themselves, simply because parts that are not installed on 
products do not create an unsafe condition. This new version of part 39 
will not change this practice.
Section 39.7 (Proposed Sec. 39.5)  Who Must Comply With Airworthiness 
Directives?
    This section clarifies that anyone operating a product listed in an 
AD must comply with the AD. Proposed Sec. 39.5 also specified that each 
flight taken without complying with the AD is a separate violation. 
This material is similar to the prior version of Sec. 39.3.
    One commenter noted that the heading of this section does not 
capture the entire content of the section because the section also 
addresses the consequences of non-compliance. FAA agrees. Many readers 
will also want to find information about compliance. Therefore, we have 
separated this information into a new section, Sec. 39.9, for easy 
reference.
    In considering this comment, we recognized that prior version of 
Sec. 39.3, which proposed Sec. 39.5 was intended to replace, does not 
state who must comply with ADs. Rather, it states that no person may 
operate a product that is subject to an AD except in accordance with 
the requirements of that AD. This is a statement of the legal effect of 
failing to comply with ADs. The question of who must accomplish the 
actions specified in an AD is actually answered by other rules. For 
example, many ADs require maintenance actions. Other regulations, 
including those in 14 CFR parts 65, 121, and 145, identify who is 
authorized to do maintenance. Further, in the past when FAA took 
enforcement action relating to failures to comply with an AD, we cited 
Sec. 39.3 as the regulation that was violated, not the AD itself.
    To prevent confusion and to be consistent with past practice, we 
are revising the question heading for Sec. 39.7 to state, ``What is the 
legal effect of failing to comply with an AD?'' We have

[[Page 48000]]

changed the section to read, ``It is a violation of this section for 
anyone to operate a product when it is not in compliance with an AD 
that applies to it.''
    We are re-writing Sec. 39.9 to refer to Sec. 39.7, which is the 
rule that operators will violate if they fail to operate or use a 
product without complying with an AD that applies to that product.
Section 39.9 (New Section in Final Rule)  What If I operate or Use a 
Product That Does Not Meet the Requirements of an Airworthiness 
Directive?
    This section specifies that if the requirements of an airworthiness 
directive have not been met, then each time you operate the aircraft or 
use the product, you violate Sec. 39.7. In the proposal, this material 
was in Secs. 39.3 and 39.7. We made this change in response to a 
comment that the title of proposed Sec. 39.5 did not adequately cover 
this issue.
Section 39.11 (Proposed 39.7)  What Actions Do Airworthiness Directives 
Require?
    This section identifies what actions ADs can require. This rule is 
similar to the prior version of Sec. 39.11. As under the former 
provisions in part 39, FAA intends to retain broad authority to require 
whatever types of corrective actions we determine to be most effective 
in addressing identified unsafe conditions. This includes inspections, 
repairs, modifications, operating limitations, airworthiness 
limitations, and maintenance program requirements. We received no 
comments on this section, and adopt it as proposed.
Section 39.13  Are Airworthiness Directives Part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations?
    This section specifies that ADs are amendments to Sec. 39.13. 
However, ADs are not codified in the annual edition of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. As with other regulations, ADs are published in 
full in the Federal Register.
    One commenter stated this language is not needed in the rule, and 
recommended we move it to the preamble. While this language may appear 
to be just informative and not regulatory, the Office of the Federal 
Register requires us to include it in part 39. This language has the 
legal effect of including ADs in the Code of Federal Regulations by 
publishing them in the Federal Register, without codifying them in the 
annual edition of the Code. Therefore, we adopt this section as 
proposed.
Section 39.15  Does an Airworthiness Directive Apply If the Product Has 
Been Changed?
    This section specifies that ADs apply to products even if they have 
been modified, altered, or repaired in the area addressed by the AD. 
Proposed Sec. 39.15 also specified what to do if the change prevents 
complying with the AD.
    One commenter suggested that the heading as proposed did not cover 
all the material in the section. The section not only specified that 
ADs apply to products even if they have been modified, altered, or 
repaired, but also included material on what to do if products had been 
changed in a way that affected an operator's ability to comply with an 
AD. We agree with the commenter. Therefore, we have moved that second 
provision into a new section, Sec. 39.17. We discuss this issue and 
comments received on proposed Sec. 39.15 in the discussion of new 
Sec. 39.17.
    Several commenters expressed confusion about the meaning of the 
first two sentences of this section as proposed. We agree that the 
proposed wording was confusing, and have accepted language suggested by 
one of the commenters. This change in the final rule language is 
consistent with both past practice and with our intent in the NPRM.
    Another commenter suggested that we define product, series, model, 
and individual aircraft. As discussed previously, we define ``product'' 
in Sec. 39.3. We do not agree that the terms ``series, ``model,'' and 
``individual aircraft'' need a regulatory definition. An aircraft 
``model'' typically refers to all aircraft covered by a particular type 
certificate, such as ``Boeing Model 747 airplanes.'' A ``series'' 
typically refers to a specific subset of the model that is identified 
on the type certificate data sheet for the model, such as ``Boeing 
Model 747-400 series airplanes.'' In addition, the applicability 
provisions of ADs frequently refer to individual aircraft, as 
identified by unique line numbers or serial numbers.
Section 39.17 (New Section in Final Rule)  What Must I Do If a Change 
in a Product Affects My Ability To Accomplish the Actions Required in 
an Airworthiness Directive?
    This new section contains material we proposed in Sec. 39.15. We 
have moved it into a separate section in response to comments. It 
specifies that if a change in a product affects your ability to comply 
with the AD, you must ask FAA's permission to use an alternative method 
of compliance, and your request must either show that the change 
eliminated the unsafe condition or include the specific actions you 
propose. Although this material is new to part 39, it currently appears 
as a note in individual ADs.
    Several commenters suggested that we retain current language for 
``alternative method of compliance'' and that we use this language 
consistently. We agree with this suggestion.
    One commenter suggested that we change the first sentence to say 
``that'' change rather than ``a'' change. We have accepted this 
suggestion. The same commenter further suggested that we clarify this 
provision by stating that it applies to cases where the change alters 
existing approved actions. We do not agree. As stated in the NPRM 
regarding this provision, ``This material is new to part 39 but 
currently appears in most individual ADs.'' This section simply 
explains the legal effect of the applicability provision of each AD, 
and this effect is unchanged by the adoption of this final rule. In the 
past, as in the future, all products identified in the applicability 
provision of an AD are subject to the AD, and operators must either 
comply with the provisions of the AD or request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance. No change to the final rule is 
necessary.
    One commenter suggested repeating the language about products that 
are ``modified, altered or repaired * * *'' We find that the term 
``change'' adequately covers these three concepts and therefore this 
more detailed language is not necessary.
    Another commenter noted that if a prior change has made the 
aircraft safe, FAA should not ground the aircraft pending completion of 
actions required by an AD. The comment stated this is an ``additional 
requirement'' on safely modified aircraft and FAA should not impose 
such requirements.
    FAA does not agree. ADs apply to a specific product, even if the 
product has been changed. We cannot tell whether a change satisfies the 
safety concern until the operator demonstrates that to us. If the 
operator demonstrated to FAA that the change satisfied the safety 
concern, we may approve the change as an alternative method of 
compliance.
    One of the reasons why ADs have become so complex is that FAA has 
tried to address all configuration variations. However, we cannot cover 
all possible changes under an AD. We issue ADs to address the main 
configurations approved under type certificates or, in some cases, 
under supplemental type certificates. If operators have made additional 
changes, they are responsible for making

[[Page 48001]]

their aircraft airworthy and getting the necessary approvals to do so.
    Similarly, two commenters questioned whether FAA should make a 
blanket statement that ADs apply to changed products, since the 
situation may be very complex. One commenter noted,

    It may not be advisable to automatically make the statement the 
airworthiness directive applies to changed products. This may take 
away some needed considerations of affected configurations during 
the formulation of the AD. By this statement, I am saying that there 
may be a propensity to think the responsibility of consideration of 
changed configurations can just be thrown to the owner/operator. 
There are some very complex changes to products on airplanes that 
cannot be reliably delegated to field operations FAA and maintenance 
personnel. Those complex changes are the very reasons for the 
omission of the applicability statement to changed products 
referenced in the Proposed Rule as having historically occurred on 
airworthiness directive's [sic]. It is frequently necessary to 
develop airworthiness directive's [sic] that adequately cover known 
changes to airplanes. Having this automatic responsibility statement 
may well promote a lack of effort in properly creating the 
airworthiness directive's [sic] needed to cover various 
configurations.

    Presumably, the purpose of an operator's alternative method of 
compliance would be to avoid having to undertake the actions required 
by an AD. If the operator of a product that has been modified, altered, 
or repaired can show that the change makes the aircraft safe, FAA will 
approve the new configuration as an alternative method of compliance 
and the operator would not have to take the actions specified in the 
AD. This is not a new requirement. All products identified in the 
applicability provision of an AD have always been subject to the 
directive. Originally, we began including this note in ADs because some 
operators had taken the legally incorrect position that, because they 
had changed their aircraft, they did not have to comply.
    In the final rule, we have moved this provision into its own 
section. We have used the term ``alternative method of compliance'' 
rather than a similar term used in the proposal.
Section 39.19 (Proposed Sec. 39.17)  May I Address the Unsafe Condition 
in a Way Other Than That Set Out in the Airworthiness Directive?
    This section allows anyone to propose to FAA an alternative method 
of compliance, including proposals to change the amount of time given 
to comply with an AD, as long as the proposal provides an acceptable 
level of safety. This section explains how to ask FAA to approve a 
proposed alternative. This material is new to part 39 but currently 
appears in most individual ADs.
    One commenter noted that sending copies to ``assigned FAA principal 
or aviation safety inspector'' differs from the current process of 
sending requests for alternative methods of compliance to FAA. Another 
commenter suggested the method specified in the proposal adds a new 
burden to operators. We have changed the language in the final rule to 
clarify that operators who do not have principal inspectors should send 
their requests directly to the FAA manager responsible for the AD for 
which they seek approval of an alternative method of compliance. We 
have also changed the language to allow operators to send a copy of 
their request simultaneously to the principal inspector and the 
manager, rather than requiring it. Since the final rule language does 
not require sending copies to two offices at once, there should be no 
additional burden imposed by the rule. However, if operators want to 
send copies to both the inspector and the manager at the same time to 
expedite the process or for some other reason, the final rule language 
allows them to do so. Operators can work with their principal inspector 
and manager to determine which works best for each case.
    We have also added language authorizing FAA to designate an 
alternative process for submitting requests should the need arise. This 
flexibility accommodates particular unusual cases or improved 
processing of these requests, such as increased use of electronic 
transmissions. We have deleted the reference to Safety Inspectors and 
instead use the more specific term Principal Inspector.
    Several commenters stated that FAA does not always designate 
managers as contact points for approval of an alternative method of 
compliance, and suggested that we use a more general term. We are not 
aware of any cases in which we designate someone other than a manager 
as a contact for approval of an alternative method of compliance. While 
some managers may have delegated that function to staff, the manager 
remains responsible for responding to the requests. Therefore we 
disagree with this comment.
    Two commenters suggested that FAA indicate what standards we will 
use in reviewing requests for alternative methods of compliance. 
Further, they suggested that we indicate we will grant the request if 
the applicant shows the proposal would provide a level of safety at 
least equal to that provided by the AD. Given the range of unsafe 
conditions and possible alternative methods, FAA does not find it 
appropriate that we provide specific standards. We already state that 
we will approve these requests if they provide an acceptable level of 
safety. We are not arbitrary in our review of proposals for alternative 
methods of compliance, and have always approved them if they provide an 
acceptable level of safety. If FAA determines a proposed alternative is 
``acceptable'' we will approve it, even if it may not be technically 
``equivalent'' or ``at least equal to'' the method specified in the AD. 
Thus, the AD itself specifies the standard for approving an alternative 
method of compliance.
    Several commenters stated FAA has previously approved alternative 
methods of compliance through other regulatory provisions, specifically 
14 CFR 21.305(d) and 43.13(c), as well as 14 CFR part 11. The 
commenters recommend that FAA should continue this practice. This new 
version of part 39 will not change or eliminate any current bases for 
FAA's approval of alternative methods of compliance. However, we do not 
find that we have used these other authorities as the basis for 
approval. Approvals we have granted under Sec. 21.305(d) or 
Sec. 43.13(c) do not affect in any way an operator's obligation to 
either follow the requirements of an AD or get approval for an 
alternative method of compliance under part 39.
Section 39.21 (Proposed Sec. 39.19)  Where Can I Get Information About 
FAA-Approved Alternative Methods of Compliance?
    This section informs you where to get information about alternative 
methods of compliance with ADs that FAA has already approved for other 
certificate holders. This material is new to part 39 but currently 
appears in most individual ADs.
    Several commenters stated that if FAA's language means we will make 
alternative methods of compliance public when they are approved, FAA 
would be making proprietary information publicly available in violation 
of 18 U.S.C. 1905.
    We derived this new paragraph in part 39 from a provision used in 
ADs for many years. By providing information about FAA-approved 
alternative methods of compliance, FAA does not reveal proprietary 
information; we simply identify whether we have approved alternative 
methods of compliance with a particular directive. We handle requests 
for further information regarding the content or substance of the 
alternative method of compliance under the Freedom of

[[Page 48002]]

Information Act, which provides an exception from disclosure for 
proprietary information.
Section 39.23 (Proposed Sec. 39.21)  May I Fly My Aircraft to a Repair 
Facility To Do the Work Required by an Airworthiness Directive?
    This section explains that if you do not already have authority in 
your approved maintenance program to fly your aircraft to a repair 
facility, FAA may issue you a special flight permit, sometimes called a 
``ferry permit,'' allowing you to fly your aircraft to a place where 
you can comply with the AD. This material is new to part 39 but 
currently appears in most individual ADs. Moving this provision to part 
39 does not mean that you have authority under previously issued ADs to 
fly your aircraft to a repair facility.
    Since we will allow you to move an aircraft only if it is safe to 
do so, this section also provides that FAA may add special requirements 
for flying a specific product to a repair facility to ensure aviation 
safety. Furthermore, FAA may specify in particular ADs that we will not 
issue special flight permits for products covered by that particular 
directive. FAA may take this position when the safety issue addressed 
by the AD is so serious that moving an aircraft to a repair facility 
would create an unacceptable safety risk. We may also decline to issue 
special flight permits in individual cases because of the condition of 
a specific aircraft.
    Several commenters raised the issue of ``continuing'' authority to 
fly aircraft to a repair facility. We agree this was not specified in 
the proposed rule language, and have added language clarifying this in 
the final version of this section.
    One commenter stated that FAA should explain that the local Flight 
Standards District Office, not the Office where the aircraft is based, 
issues special flight permits. We have incorporated the commenter's 
suggestions by adding reference to the local office to the final rule.
    Several commenters suggested that we reference requirements in 
other parts of FAA's regulations concerning how to get a special flight 
permit. FAA agrees with this comment; therefore, we have added a new 
section, Sec. 39.25, to the final rule.
Section 39.25 (New Section in Final Rule)  How Do I Get a Special 
Flight Permit?
    This section specifies that you can obtain a special flight permit 
under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199. We added this section 
to the final rule in response to comments on proposed Sec. 39.21 (final 
rule Sec. 39.23) requesting that we address the requirements for 
obtaining special flight permits.
Section 39.27 (Proposed Sec. 39.25)  What Do I Do If the Airworthiness 
Directive Conflicts With the Service Document on Which It Is Based?
    This section clarifies that in the case of conflicts between an AD 
and a service document, the AD prevails. This material is new to part 
39 but currently appears in some ADs.
    One commenter suggested that we change the reference to service 
bulletins to some broader term because sometimes ADs refer to other 
technical data besides service bulletins. FAA agrees with this comment 
and has changed the final rule language to reference ``service 
documents.''
    Finally, one commenter suggested that FAA make available to the 
public any service bulletin incorporated by reference in an AD. We 
include a statement in every AD that service documents are available 
for viewing at FAA. To get your own copy, you must obtain it from the 
publisher.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA determined 
there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond 
to these regulations.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from 
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 
written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of $100 million or more, in any one year 
(adjusted for inflation).
    For regulations with an expected minimal impact, however, the 
analyses specified above are not required. The Department of 
Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If we determine 
that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not 
warrant a full Evaluation, we include a statement to that effect and 
the basis for it in proposed regulation.
    This final rule simply moves existing provisions from individual 
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) into part 39. This action streamlines 
individual Ads, which is expected to improve the focus of the safety 
issued addressed in the AD. This final rule imposes no new 
requirements. No comments were received disputing the facts that the 
action streamlines individual ADs and imposes no new requirements.
    In analyzing this final rule, FAA has determined the rule has 
benefits which justify the costs, is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is 
not ``significant'' as defined in the Department of Transportation 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. As the expected impact of this rule 
will have minimal cost, if any, a full regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted, and FAA did not prepare one.
    Additionally, FAA certifies the rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, has no effect on 
barriers to international trade, and does not impose an Unfunded 
Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private 
sector.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational

[[Page 48003]]

requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that 
principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. 
The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it would, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This action simply moves existing provisions from individual 
airworthiness directives into part 39. As a result, the cost is 
expected to be minimal. FAA did not receive any comments disagreeing 
with the assessment of minimal cost. Consequently, FAA certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    FAA has accordingly assessed the potential effect of this final 
rule to be minimal and therefore determined that this rule will not 
result in an impact on international trade by companies doing business 
in or with the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.

Executive Order 3132, Federalism

    FAA analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined this action will not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
We determined that this final rule, therefore, does not have federalism 
implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    FAA has assessed the energy impact of the final rule under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined that the 
final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the 
EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the above, the Federal Aviation Administration 
revises part 39 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as 
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

Sec.
39.1   Purpose of this regulation.
39.3   Definition of airworthiness directives.
39.5   When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?
39.7   What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an 
airworthiness directive?
39.9   What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not 
meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?
39.11   What actions do airworthiness directives require?
39.13   Are airworthiness directives part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations?
39.15   Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has 
been changed?
39.17   What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability 
to accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?
39.19   May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that 
set out in the airworthiness directive?
39.21   Where can I get information about FAA-approved alternative 
methods of compliance?
39.23   May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work 
required by an airworthiness directive?
39.25   How do I get a special flight permit?
39.27   What do I do if the airworthiness directive conflicts with 
the service document on which it is based?

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


Sec. 39.1  Purpose of this regulation.

    The regulations in this part provide a legal framework for FAA's 
system of Airworthiness Directives.


Sec. 39.3  Definition of airworthiness directives.

    FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that 
apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, 
propellers, and appliances.


Sec. 39.5  When does FAA issue airworthiness directives?

    FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we 
find that:
    (a) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and
    (b) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products 
of the same type design.


Sec. 39.7  What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an 
airworthiness directive?

    Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements 
of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this 
section.


Sec. 39.9  What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not 
meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?

    If the requirements of an airworthiness directive have not been 
met, you violate Sec. 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or use 
the product.


Sec. 39.11  What actions do airworthiness directives require?

    Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out, 
conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you 
must take to resolve an unsafe condition.

[[Page 48004]]

Sec. 39.13  Are airworthiness directives part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations?

    Yes, airworthiness directives are part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, but they are not codified in the annual edition. FAA 
publishes airworthiness directives in full in the Federal Register as 
amendments to Sec. 39.13.


Sec. 39.15  Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has 
been changed?

    Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified 
in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been 
changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed 
by the airworthiness directive.


Sec. 39.17  What must I do if a change in a product affects my ability 
to accomplish the actions required in an airworthiness directive?

    If a change in a product affects your ability to accomplish the 
actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, you must 
request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance. Unless you 
can show the change eliminated the unsafe condition, your request 
should include the specific actions that you propose to address the 
unsafe condition. Submit your request in the manner described in 
Sec. 39.19.


Sec. 39.19  May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that 
set out in the airworthiness directive?

    Yes, anyone may propose to FAA an alternative method of compliance 
or a change in the compliance time, if the proposal provides an 
acceptable level of safety. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your 
proposal to your principal inspector. Include the specific actions you 
are proposing to address the unsafe condition. The principal inspector 
may add comments and will send your request to the manager of the 
office identified in the airworthiness directive (manager). You may 
send a copy to the manager at the same time you send it to the 
principal inspector. If you do not have a principal inspector send your 
proposal directly to the manager. You may use the alternative you 
propose only if the manager approves it.


Sec. 39.21  Where can I get information about FAA-approved alternative 
methods of compliance?

    Each airworthiness directive identifies the office responsible for 
approving alternative methods of compliance. That office can provide 
information about alternatives it has already approved.


Sec. 39.23  May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work 
required by an airworthiness directive?

    Yes, the operations specifications giving some operators authority 
to operate include a provision that allow them to fly their aircraft to 
a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness 
directive. If you do not have this authority, the local Flight 
Standards District Office of FAA may issue you a special flight permit 
unless the airworthiness directive states otherwise. To ensure aviation 
safety, FAA may add special requirements for operating your aircraft to 
a place where the repairs or modifications can be accomplished. FAA may 
also decline to issue a special flight permit in particular cases if we 
determine you cannot move the aircraft safely.


Sec. 39.25  How do I get a special flight permit?

    Apply to FAA for a special flight permit following the procedures 
in 14 CFR 21.199.


Sec. 39.27  What do I do if the airworthiness directive conflicts with 
the service document on which it is based?

    In some cases an airworthiness directive incorporates by reference 
a manufacturer's service document. In these cases, the service document 
becomes part of the airworthiness directive. In some cases the 
directions in the service document may be modified by the airworthiness 
directive. If there is a conflict between the service document and the 
airworthiness directive, you must follow the requirements of the 
airworthiness directive.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2002.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-17743 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P