[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10316-10318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5040]



[[Page 10315]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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







14 CFR Part 47



Aircraft Registration Requirements; Clarification of ``Court of 
Competent Jurisdiction''; Final rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 10316]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 47

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12377; Amendment No. 47-26]
RIN 2120--AH75


Aircraft Registration Requirements; Clarification of ``Court of 
Competent Jurisdiction''

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FAA is amending language in the aircraft registration 
regulations governing aircraft last previously registered in a foreign 
country. This amendment clarifies the term ``court of competent 
jurisdiction'', and what the Administrator considers satisfactory 
evidence that foreign registration of an aircraft has ended or is 
invalid. This amendment is necessary for FAA compliance with 
obligations from the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

DATES: Effective April 3, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Stanford, Aircraft 
Registration Branch, AFS-750, Civil Aviation Registry, Flight Standards 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Post Office Box 25504, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73125; Telephone (405) 954-3131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at (3) http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.

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 about 
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about 
SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, or by 
e-mailing us at [email protected].

Background

    On August 9, 1946, the United States became a party to the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation, 61 Stat. 1180 (Chicago 
Convention). Under the Chicago Convention, the contracting parties 
agreed on certain principles and arrangements so international civil 
aviation could develop in a safe and orderly manner.
    In considering the orderly registration of aircraft, Chapter III-
NATIONALITY OF AIRCRAFT, Article 17 of the Chicago Convention, provides 
that ``aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are 
registered.'' Therefore, ``an aircraft cannot be validly registered in 
more than one State, but its registration may be changed from one State 
to another'' (Article 18). The rules for changing registration mandate 
that ``the registration or transfer of registration of aircraft in any 
contracting State shall be made in accordance with its laws and 
regulations'' (Article 19). Before registering an aircraft, an 
importing State must first ensure that the exporting State has removed 
the aircraft from its registry. Under Article 21 of the Chicago 
Convention, the importing State requests proof from the State of last 
registration that registration of a specific aircraft has ended and the 
aircraft is no longer on the exporting State's registry.
    In promulgating Sec.  47.37(b)(2), the Administrator determined 
that ``a final judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction 
that determines, under the law of the country concerned, that the 
registration has in fact become invalid'' is satisfactory evidence of 
termination of foreign registration. The Administrator interprets the 
phrase ``court of competent jurisdiction'' to be a court of the country 
where the aircraft was last registered.
    In two recent cases (IAL Aircraft Holding, Inc. v. Federal Aviation 
Administration, 206 F.3d 1042, vacated, 216 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2000) 
[hereinafter referred to as IAL Aircraft] and Air One Helicopters, Inc. 
v. Federal Aviation Admin., 86 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 1996) [hereinafter 
referred to as Air One]), a divided panel of the court interpreted the 
phrase ``court of competent jurisdiction'' differently from FAA. In Air 
One, the Ninth Circuit decided that a United States court of appeals 
was itself a ``court of competent jurisdiction'' capable of rejecting a 
determination of the Spanish registry that the aircraft's Spanish 
registry was valid. In IAL Aircraft, the Eleventh Circuit held that a 
state trial court having jurisdiction over the aircraft in rem was a 
``court of competent jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a state trial court 
could determine that a Brazilian registration was invalid, despite 
Brazil's continued insistence that its registration remained valid.
    On July 6, 2000, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its earlier decision. 
The Eleventh Circuit found the court lacked Article III jurisdiction at 
the time it issued its decision. IAL Aircraft had not disclosed the 
sale of the aircraft while the case was pending before the court.
    FAA does not agree with these decisions, which reject the agency's 
interpretation of its own regulation. Moreover, continuing to litigate 
such cases of interpretation would adversely impact FAA resources. 
Therefore, on May 17, 2002, FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to amend Sec.  47.37(b)(2). The proposed amendment would add language 
to that section to clearly state that the ``court of competent 
jurisdiction'' must be a court of the country where the aircraft was 
last registered. FAA did not receive any comments about the proposal.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no current or new requirements for information collection 
associated with this amendment.

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 has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations. This amendment is 
necessary for FAA compliance with the agreements contained in the 
Convention.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs FAA 
to assess both the costs and the benefits of a regulatory change. We 
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a 
reasoned determination the

[[Page 10317]]

benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Our assessment 
of this rulemaking shows that its economic impact is minimal because 
the issues addressed by this change rarely occur. FAA is aware of only 
two cases where judgments were pursued and obtained in countries other 
than where the aircraft was last registered (IAL Aircraft Holding, Inc. 
v. Federal Aviation Administration, 206 F.3d 1042, 1045, vacated, 216 
F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2000) and Air One Helicopters, Inc. v. Federal 
Aviation Admin., 86 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 1996). The judgment occurred in 
the country where the aircraft was last registered in other similar 
aircraft registration changes.
    This amendment will affect only those few cases where the change in 
aircraft registration is filed in the United States rather than the 
country where the aircraft was last registered. While there may be some 
costs associated with these cases, such costs would vary depending on 
the country of last registration. Sometimes, the costs may be less than 
those normally associated with obtaining a proper judgment from a court 
of the United States.
    We have not prepared a ``regulatory impact analysis'' because the 
costs and benefits of this action do not make it a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Order. Similarly, we have not 
prepared a full ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/
benefit analysis normally required for all rulemaking under the DOT 
Regulatory and Policies and Procedures. We do not need to prepare a 
full evaluation where the economic impact of a rule is minimal.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) established ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statues, to 
fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact of a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a 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 final rules clarifies the term ``court of competent 
jurisdiction.'' This action will have a minimal impact on small 
entities in the aviation industry. Consequently, FAA certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities in the aviation industry.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not 
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. FAA has assessed the potential 
effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it will impose the 
same costs on domestic and international entities, and thus have a 
neutral trade impact.

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 13132, Federalism

    FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that 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, and therefore does not have federalism implications.

Plain English

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier 
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
    [sbull] Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
    [sbull] Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were 
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
    [sbull] Is the description in the preamble helpful in understanding 
the proposed regulations?

Please send your comments to the address in the ADDRESSES section.

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 in accordance 
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, 
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined 
the final rule is not a major regulatory action under the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 47

    Aircraft; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 47 of Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 47--AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION

    1. The authority citation for part 47 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113-40114, 44101-44108, 44110-
44111, 44703-44704, 44713, 45302, 46104, 46301; 4 U.S.T. 1830.

    2. Amend Sec.  47.37(b)(2) to read as follows:

[[Page 10318]]

Sec.  47.37  Aircraft last previously registered in a foreign country.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A final judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction 
of the foreign country, determining that, under the laws of that 
country, the registration has become invalid.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2003.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-5040 Filed 3-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P