Air Tractor, Inc., Models AT-802 and AT-802A Airplanes

Comment on [Docket No. FAA-2005-20591; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-14-AD; Amendment 39-14565; AD 2006-08-09]RIN 2120-AA64 The authority for the issuance of Airworthiness Directives is set forth in this action under the section entitled "Authority for This Rulemaking." The cited authorities are 49 USC, more specifically, 49 USC, Subtitle I, Chapter 1, § 106 which directs the Administrator to carry out the duties of the Secretary of Transportation with respect to aviation matters, and 49 USC, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, § 40113 which provides the Administrator with authority to issue regulations to effectuate the law, and 49 USC, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, § 44701 which provides the FAA Administrator with authority to prescribe regulations to promote safety in air commerce. and 14 CFR 39 and part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations all stipulate that that the authority of the FAA Administrator is limited to actions affecting aircraft engaged in air commerce. The definitions of air commerce differ slightly between the enabling statute and the CFR, to wit: Definition contained in 49 USC (3) "air commerce" means foreign air commerce, interstate air commerce, the transportation of mail by aircraft, the operation of aircraft within the limits of a Federal airway, or the operation of aircraft that directly affects, or may endanger safety in, foreign or interstate air commerce. Definition contained in part 39 of the FAR Air commerce means interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any operation or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any Federal airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. Since Congress established a restriction limiting such actions to aircraft engaged in air commerce it follows that there must be some aircraft that operate in a manner that is not in air commerce and therefore are not subject to airworthiness directives. One would logically assume the most likely aircraft to not be engaged in air commerce would be agricultural application aircraft. (Or perhaps a trapper checking his trap line by Super Cub on the Lower Kuskokwim river of Alaska) They are not operating interstate, overseas or in foreign airspace; do not transport mail and do not operate on federal airways or at altitudes or areas that would pose a danger to aircraft that do operate in air commerce. Indeed it would be strange to see a Boeing 747 chugging along at an altitude of 50 feet AGL in uncontrolled airspace where the crop duster could pose a direct danger. The authority for all airworthiness directives is somewhat weak being derived from perhaps overly generous interpretations of rather general language in the statute and perhaps open to challenge for this reason. However, the system has worked amazingly well through all these decades and no serious person could argue that aviation safety and the general public have not benefited immensely from the system. There does seem to be this air commerce exception however, that probably needs to be filled by some statutory mechanism. No request is being made in this comment; my purpose is merely to illustrate what appears to be an exception to the airworthiness directive mandate exemplified most clearly when applied to agricultural application aircraft. The point is simply that airworthiness directives don't necessarily apply to what they purport to. Jack Buster Aviation Data Research Note: Submitted as an individual and not on behalf of MARPA