[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 11, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26254-26258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10643]



[[Page 26253]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 43



Implementing the Maintenance Provisions of Bilateral Agreements; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 11, 2004 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 26254]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. FAA-2004-17683; Notice No. 04-07]
RIN 2120-AI19


Implementing the Maintenance Provisions of Bilateral Agreements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend its regulations governing 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on U.S.-registered 
aircraft located in Canada. FAA has revised the Bilateral Aviation 
Agreement between the United States and Canada to a Bilateral Aviation 
Safety Agreement (BASA), and plans to include maintenance 
implementation procedures (MIP) with that BASA. Certain requirements 
found in Part 43.17, as presently written, provide constraints that are 
not in accordance with standards for other MIPs. This rulemaking action 
would remove those constraints and provide flexibility to implement a 
MIP.

DATES: Send your comments on or before August 9, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
2004-17683 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two 
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA 
received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to 
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the 
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review 
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo J. Weston, Flight Standards, 
Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-306, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-3811; facsimile (202) 267-5112, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite 
comments about the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic 
impact that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. 
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting 
data. Please include cost estimates with your substantive comments. 
Comments must identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be 
submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules Docket address specified above.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
about this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments 
filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or 
delay. We may change this proposal because of the comments we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the 
Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Background

    Statement of the Problem: 14 CFR 43.17 applies to certain Canadian 
maintenance activities. It contains constraints that inhibit 
negotiating Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) under the 
current Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). The BASA/MIP would 
expand the allowable maintenance capabilities in the U.S. and Canada. 
The proposed changes would allow work in Canada, with respect to U.S.-
registered aircraft, to be more in line with the maintenance allowed by 
other FAA-certificated domestic and foreign repair stations.
    Section 43.17 contains the following constraints.
    (1) It requires aeronautical products for use in maintaining or 
altering U.S.-registered aircraft to be transported to Canada from the 
U.S.
    (2) It requires that work be performed in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  43.13, 43.15, and 43.16 and recorded in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  43.2 (a), 43.9, and 43.11.
    FAA proposes to revise Sec.  43.17 to resolve these constraints.
    (1) FAA proposes to allow shipment of parts direct to Canada from 
their location. The parts would not have to be transported first to the 
U.S. and then to Canada.
    (2) FAA proposes to remove references to specific regulations and 
replace it with a reference to ``an agreement between the United States 
and Canada.'' The effect of this change would be to facilitate 
agreements between the U.S. and Canada.
    History: After World War II, the number of U.S. civil aircraft 
flying in Canadian airspace increased. At that time, the U.S. Civil 
Aeronautics Board (CAB) regulations only allowed U.S.-certificated 
mechanics and repair stations to perform maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered aircraft. In 1951, to 
alleviate the difficulties caused when

[[Page 26255]]

U.S.-registered aircraft required maintenance while in Canada, the 
Canadian government proposed a reciprocal maintenance arrangement with 
the United States. The CAB agreed and issued Special Civil Air 
Regulation No. SR-377 (SR-377), titled ``Mechanical Work Performed on 
United States Registered Aircraft by Certain Canadian Mechanics,'' on 
November 13, 1951. The preamble to SR-377 noted the CAB considered the 
Canadian standards to be of a ``high caliber'' and to ``compare 
favorably with those in force in the United States.''
    SR-377 allowed Canadian maintenance persons to perform work on 
U.S.-registered aircraft located in Canada without holding U.S. airman 
certificates. The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (1938 Act), however, 
required mechanics in the United States, to hold certificates to 
perform maintenance on U.S.-registered aircraft. The CAB relied on 
section 1(6) of the 1938 Act to exempt Canadian mechanics employed 
outside the United States from the definition of ``airman'' and thus 
from the requirement to hold a valid U.S. airman certificate. SR-377 
did not specifically address Canadian maintenance companies.
    In October 1964, SR-377 was reissued as Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation (SFAR) No. 10, and on April 13, 1966, the FAA reissued SFAR 
No. 10 as 14 CFR 43.17. In October 1968, the FAA issued an amendment to 
Sec.  43.17 ``to extend to authorized employees of approved Canadian 
companies the privileges presently granted Canadian Aircraft 
Maintenance Engineers.'' The FAA did not extend similar privileges to 
Canadian maintenance companies to perform work on U.S.-registered 
aircraft or aeronautical parts.
    In 1984, the United States and Canada signed the current Agreement 
Concerning the Airworthiness and Environmental Certification, Approval, 
or Acceptance of Imported Civil Aeronautical Products (the U.S./Canada 
Bilateral Aviation Agreement (BAA)). This agreement included provisions 
for aircraft certification and maintenance. The BAA provided for an 
agency-to-agency Implementation Procedure (IP), which included both 
maintenance and aircraft certification procedures in more detail than 
those included in BAAs previously concluded with other countries. The 
BAA and IP allow authorized persons and companies in each country to 
perform maintenance, alterations, or modifications on aircraft under 
the regulatory control of the other country if such work is performed 
in accordance with the laws, regulations, standards, and requirements 
of the country regulating the airworthiness of the affected aircraft or 
product. It also expanded the provisions of the previous agreement to 
include maintenance and alterations by Canadian Approved Maintenance 
Organizations (AMOs) of all aeronautical products shipped between the 
United States and Canada. In 1985, the United States and Canada signed 
the IP to carry out the objectives of the BAA. Although the IP were 
revised in 1988, no changes were made to provisions affecting 
maintenance. In 1991, the FAA published an amendment to Sec.  43.17 to 
conform to the airworthiness maintenance provisions of the BAA and IP. 
This amendment also changed the language of the rule to expand 
applicability of Sec.  43.17 to include Canadian AMOs.
    Section 43.17 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.17) 
currently defines the scope of mechanical work authorized to be 
performed by Canadian persons on U.S.-registered aircraft. An 
appropriately rated Canadian aircraft maintenance engineer or 
authorized employee of an approved Canadian maintenance company (AMO), 
with respect to U.S.-registered aircraft located in Canada, may:
    (1) Perform maintenance and alterations if the work is performed 
and recorded in accordance with the requirements of Part 43 of 14 CFR.
    (2) Approve the work accomplished to return the aircraft to service 
(except that only a Canadian airworthiness inspector or an approved 
inspector may approve a major repair or major alteration).
    Section 43.17(c) also states that Canadian persons are allowed to 
perform mechanical work with respect to a U.S.-registered aircraft only 
when the aircraft is located in Canada.
    The need to maintain products used in U.S. and Canadian aircraft 
operations created the need for the United States and Canada to 
restructure their bilateral airworthiness agreement. In addition to 
including the present provisions of Sec.  43.17 to maintain and alter 
U.S. registered aircraft in Canada, this agreement provides for the 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of aeronautical 
products shipped between the United States and Canada.
    In 1992, the United States and Canada began negotiating a new 
agreement to expand the scope of the 1984 BAA and align it with the new 
``umbrella'' format of bilateral agreements the United States seeks 
with other countries. These executive agreements, termed Bilateral 
Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs), provide for development of IP 
between the aviation authorities of each country. IP address the 
technical details of the agreement in areas such as certification, 
maintenance, simulators, and operations. Maintenance Implementation 
Procedures (MIP) would provide for reciprocal acceptance of inspections 
and surveillance of repair stations and AMOs using agreed-on standards.
    The BASA/MIP is the vehicle now used to enter a new agreement or 
revise a present agreement with a country where an original agreement 
has been established under a Bilateral Aviation Agreement (BAA). The 
FAA has negotiated a BASA with Canada that revised the previous BAA. 
Negotiations are underway to establish Maintenance Implementation 
Procedures (MIP) that will set forth the provisions for the acceptance 
of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations under the terms 
of the MIP. The present agreement with Canada includes provisions for 
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AMOs and TCCA maintenance airmen 
located in Canada, to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations on U.S.-registered aircraft. The requirements for persons 
to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are set 
forth in Sec.  43.17.
    The BASA/MIP system provides procedures for mutual acceptance by 
the Foreign Civil Aviation Authority (FCAA) and the FAA to accept 
maintenance organizations and maintenance airmen. The MIP would set 
forth any specific conditions required by the FAA or TCCA for 
compliance with the terms of the agreement. Since the 1991 BAA 
agreement, TCCA has changed their regulations to harmonize those 
regulations with the FAA and Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).
    Reference Material: Agreement between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of Canada for Promotion of 
Aviation Safety, June 12, 2000; Implementation Procedures for Design 
Approval, Production Activities, Export Airworthiness Approval, Post 
Design Approval Activities, and Technical Assistance between 
Authorities, under the Agreement between the United States of America 
and the Government of Canada for Promotion of Aviation Safety, October 
2000; U.S./Canadian Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement, August 31, 1984; 
Schedule of Implementation, May 18, 1988.
    All references are available on the following Web site: http://www2.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/.

General Discussion of the Proposals

    The FAA and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) plan to 
negotiate a MIP under the current BASA that expands

[[Page 26256]]

the maintenance that can be performed in the U.S. and Canada. Revisions 
proposed in this rulemaking will allow maintenance in Canada, with 
respect to U.S.-registered aircraft, to be more in line with the 
maintenance allowed by other foreign repair stations. In this 
rulemaking action, FAA proposes changes to Sec.  43.17 that will bring 
this regulation into line with a negotiated agreement.
    By ``agreement,'' the FAA means the terms of the BASA and the MIP 
that sets forth the procedures to comply with the BASA.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals

Section 43.17(a), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), and (e)(2)

    The identification of the Canadian agency has been changed from 
``Canadian Department of Transport'' to ``Transport Canada Civil 
Aviation (TCCA).'' This change reflects the current name of the agency 
and uses the name found in the BASA.

Section 43.17(a)

    FAA proposes minor wording changes to the definitions. The purpose 
is to make the language flow more smoothly, not to make any substantive 
change.

Section 43.17(c)(2)

    The current language requires that aeronautical products for use in 
maintaining or altering U.S.-registered aircraft be transported to 
Canada from the U.S. FAA proposes to remove this language to allow 
parts to be shipped directly to Canada from any location. The part, 
when located outside the U.S., no longer has to be transported first to 
the U.S. and then to Canada.
    The current rule refers to ``a person who is an authorized 
employee.'' When this was written, FAA used this language to be 
consistent with the Canadian rule. The Canadian rule has since changed. 
The FAA proposes to remove this reference to maintain consistency with 
the Canadian rule.

Section 43.17(d)(2)

    The current language requires work to be performed in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  43.13, 43.15, and 43.16.
    FAA proposes to remove references to the specific regulations and 
replace it with a reference to ``an agreement between the United States 
and Canada.'' The effect of this change would be to facilitate 
agreements between the U.S. and Canada by not requiring a change to 
Sec.  43.17 each time a new U.S./Canadian agreement is negotiated. Any 
maintenance performance standards would be set forth in those 
agreements.

Section 43.17(d)(4)

    The current language requires that work be recorded in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  43.2 (a), 43.9, and 43.11.
    FAA proposes to remove references to the specific regulations and 
replace it with a reference to ``an agreement between the United States 
and Canada.'' The effect of this change would be to facilitate 
agreements between the U.S. and Canada. Any maintenance performance 
standards would be set forth in an agreement.

Section 43.17 (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4)

    To clarify the rule, the word ``work'' has been changed to 
``maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration.''

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
proposed 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. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the 
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We 
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify the costs. Our assessment of this proposal indicates that its 
economic impact is minimal. Since its costs and benefits do not make it 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have 
not prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/
benefit analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking proposals under 
the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do the 
latter analysis where the economic impact is minimal.
    The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR 43.17. The FAA has revised the 
Bilateral Aviation Agreement between the United States and Canada to a 
Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA), and plans to include 
maintenance implementation procedures (MIP) with that BASA. Currently, 
some requirements written in Sec.  43.17, provide constraints that are 
not in accordance with standards for other MIPs that are in place now. 
This rulemaking action would remove those constraints and make the 
implementation of BASA/MIP more beneficial to all parties by providing 
greater flexibility to implement a MIP.
    The Canadian BASA/MIP would expand the maintenance that can be 
performed in the U.S. and Canada. Currently, Sec.  43.17 contains two 
provisions among its requirements that present constraints with the 
expansion of the BAA. The FAA proposes to revise Sec.  43.17 by 
removing the constraints allowing the implementation of the BASA. These 
constraints and proposed revisions are discussed below.
    The first constraint is that Sec.  43.17 requires for aeronautical 
products for use in maintaining or altering U.S.-registered aircraft be 
transported to Canada from the U.S, even if the products were made 
outside the United States. This rulemaking proposes a change allowing 
shipment of parts directly to Canada from their location. This change 
will extend the same privileges to Canadian maintenance organizations 
that presently apply to FAA-certificated domestic and foreign repair 
stations.
    The second constraint requires work to be performed in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  43.13, 43.15, and 43.16 and recorded in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  43.2(a), 43.9, and 43.11. This rulemaking proposes a change 
that would remove references to the specific regulations and replace 
them with a reference to ``an agreement between the United States and 
Canada.'' The effect of this change would be to facilitate agreements 
between the U.S. and Canada so that changes to an agreement would not 
automatically require changes to the rule.
    The FAA contends that amending Sec.  43.17 would result in a cost 
savings to those entities that would be impacted by this rule and would 
eliminate a barrier to trade. Therefore, the FAA has determined that 
the proposed rule would be cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the Act) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies 
shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of 
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements 
to the scale of the business, organizations, and

[[Page 26257]]

governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that 
principal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rational 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 will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 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 Act provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it is removing a trade 
barrier between Canada and the United States, which should lower costs 
for air carriers that have aircraft maintenance performed in Canada. 
The FAA solicits comments from interested parties. All commenters are 
asked to provide documented information in support of their comments.

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. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would not 
constitute a barrier to international trade, including the export of 
U.S. goods and services to foreign countries or the import of foreign 
goods and services into the United States. In fact, the FAA believes it 
would remove a barrier to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (when 
adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Section 
204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
(or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal 
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local, and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that, 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall 
have developed a plan, which, among other things, must provide for 
notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity for those small governments to 
provide input in the development of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this notice of proposed 
rulemaking would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

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

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance 
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Pub. L. 94-163, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined 
that the notice is not a major regulatory action under the provisions 
of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Air transportation, Aviation 
safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 43 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND 
ALTERATION

    1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44703, 44705, 44707, 
44711, 44713, 44717, 44725.

    2. Revise Sec.  43.17(a); (c)(1) and (2); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); 
and (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  43.17  Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations 
performed on U.S. aeronautical products by certain Canadian persons.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    Aeronautical product means any civil aircraft or airframe, aircraft 
engine, propeller, appliance, component, or part to be installed 
thereon.
    Canadian aeronautical product means any aeronautical product under 
airworthiness regulation by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCAA).
    U.S. aeronautical product means any aeronautical product under 
airworthiness regulation by the FAA.
* * * * *
    (c) Authorized persons. (1) A person holding a valid Transport 
Canada Civil Aviation Aircraft Maintenance Engineer license and 
appropriate ratings may, with respect to a U.S.-registered aircraft 
located in Canada, perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of 
this section and approve the affected aircraft for return to service in 
accordance with

[[Page 26258]]

the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) A Transport Canada Civil Aviation Approved Maintenance 
Organization (AMO) holding appropriate ratings may, with respect to 
U.S.-registered aircraft or other U.S. aeronautical products, perform 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations in accordance with 
the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and approve the 
affected products for return to service in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
    (d) * * *
    (1) The person performing the work is approved by Transport Canada 
Civil Aviation to perform the same type of work with respect to 
Canadian aeronautical products;
    (2) The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is 
performed in accordance with an agreement between the United States and 
Canada;
    (3) The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is 
performed such that the affected product complies with the applicable 
requirements of part 36 of this chapter; and
    (4) The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is 
recorded in accordance with an agreement between the United States and 
Canada.
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) An AMO whose system of quality control for the maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, alteration, and inspection of aeronautical 
products has been approved by Transport Canada Civil Aviation, or an 
authorized employee performing work for such an AMO, may approve 
(certify) a major repair or major alteration performed under this 
section if the work was performed in accordance with technical data 
approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2004.
John M. Allen,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 04-10643 Filed 5-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P