[Federal Register: December 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70253-70273]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01de06-42]
[[Page 70253]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 145
Repair Stations; Proposed Rule
[[Page 70254]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 145
[Docket No. FAA-2006-26408]
RIN 2120-AI53
Repair Stations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the regulations for repair stations
by revising the system of ratings and requiring repair stations to
establish a quality program. The FAA also proposes additional changes
critical to maintaining safety. These include requiring a repair
station to maintain a capability list, designating a chief inspector,
and having permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials,
and personnel. In addition, this proposal also specifies those
instances when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate. The
proposal looks at the particular cases where a previously held
certificate has been revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes to clarify
recent revisions to the repair station regulations. This action is
necessary to reflect changes in aviation technology and repair station
business practices.
DATES: Send your comments on or before March 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-
26408 using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George W. Bean, General Aviation and
Repair Station Branch, AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3109; facsimile (202) 267-5115, e-mail George.W.Bean@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments
about the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts 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. We
ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
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.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
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.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
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 http://
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
[[Page 70255]]
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
title 49, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, General
requirements, and Section 44707, Examining and rating air agencies.
Under section 44701, the FAA may prescribe regulations and standards in
the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. It may also
prescribe equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of,
inspecting, servicing, and overhauling. Under section 44707, the FAA
may examine and rate repair stations.
This regulation is within the scope of section 44701 since it
establishes new regulations for a repair station to establish a quality
program, requires a repair station to maintain a capability list,
designate a chief inspector, and have permanent housing for all its
facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel. This regulation is
within the scope of section 44707 since it revises the system of
ratings for repair stations and specifies those instances when the FAA
may deny the issuance of a repair station certificate, especially when
a previously held certificate has been revoked.
Background
In 1975, industry participants in the FAA's First Biennial
Operations Review recommended that the agency revise Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 145, Repair Stations. The FAA
subsequently adopted minor amendments to part 145; however, the FAA did
not make any major revisions until November 22, 1988 (Amendment No.
145-21, 53 FR 47376). In that amendment, the FAA expanded the scope of
work that U.S.-certificated repair stations located outside the United
States may perform. It also allowed certain repair stations to contract
maintenance functions to noncertificated entities under specific
conditions.
The FAA held four public meetings in 1989 as part of a regulatory
review of 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance,
Rebuilding, and Alteration, 14 CFR part 65, Certification: Airmen Other
than Flight Crewmembers, subpart E, Repairmen, and 14 CFR part 145.
These meetings provided a forum for the public to comment on possible
revisions to the rules governing repair stations. More than 500
representatives of repair stations, airlines, unions, manufacturers,
foreign governments, industry organizations, and individuals attended
the meetings.
The goal of the meetings was to gather enough factual information
from the public to decide whether the FAA should revise the repair
station regulations, and if so, to determine what revisions the FAA
should make. To prepare for the meetings, the FAA identified several
areas of the repair station rules that might need revision. These areas
were:
Organization and format;
Ratings and classes;
Operations and inspection procedures;
Manufacturers' maintenance facilities;
Contracting of maintenance by repair stations;
Repair station privileges;
Facility, housing, and equipment requirements;
Recordkeeping and report requirements; and
Management, inspection personnel, and repairmen
qualifications.
Participants discussed these issues at the FAA public meetings and
sent written comments to Docket No. 25965, which the FAA set up for the
regulatory review. Responses from participants at the meetings and
comments received in the docket showed a need to revise and update
repair station regulations.
After considering the comments and data collected, the FAA issued
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 99-09, ``Part 145 Review: Repair
Stations'' (64 FR 33142, June 21, 1999). On July 30, 2001, the FAA
issued ``Repair Stations; Final rule with request for comments and
direct final rule with request for comments'' (66 FR 41088, August 6,
2001). The FAA requested comments on removing appendix A from part 145,
which the FAA had not proposed originally, and on the paperwork burden.
In that final rule, the FAA:
Reorganized and clarified certain subparts and sections of
part 145;
Removed limited ratings for manufacturers' maintenance
facilities;
Changed repair station housing and equipment requirements;
Included rules for exchanging equipment among satellite
repair stations and for leasing equipment;
Required repair stations to develop a repair station
manual that prescribes its operating procedures;
Required repair stations to develop a quality control
manual that is similar to the previously required inspection procedures
manual;
Provided for the operation of satellite repair stations;
Expanded the scope of contract maintenance; and
Required repair stations to develop a training program.
Although the FAA proposed a new system of ratings and classes in
Notice No. 99-09, the FAA kept the existing system in the final rule.
The FAA received a significant number of comments opposing the
proposal. Commenters agreed the repair station industry needs new
ratings, however, they opposed the FAA's proposed system of ratings and
classes. Therefore, the FAA decided to seek advice and recommendations
from the affected aviation community before developing new rules for
ratings and classes.
Also, the final rule did not include a quality assurance program,
as proposed originally. Again, the FAA decided to seek advice and
recommendations from the affected aviation community before developing
new rules for quality assurance. The FAA also elected to use an
established Federal advisory committee to gather information regarding
ratings and quality assurance.
On October 15, 2001, FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) to address ratings and quality assurance for repair
stations. (66, FR 53281, October 19, 2001) The FAA asked ARAC to
recommend a system of ratings for repair stations that would mitigate
problems associated with the existing system and allow for growth of
the aviation industry. Also, the FAA tasked ARAC to recommend a quality
assurance program that would reflect industry requirements and account
for the varying scope of repair station operations. Specifically, under
the ratings task, the FAA tasked ARAC to:
Review the existing system of ratings and classes
contained in the current part 145 and in any other documents issued by
the FAA pertaining to aeronautical repair stations.
Review comments submitted to the FAA in response to the
public meetings held in 1989 and the system of ratings proposed in June
1999 in Notice No. 99-09.
Review challenges reported by Aviation Safety Inspectors
(ASIs) under the existing system of ratings.
Identify the challenges that aeronautical repair stations
encounter under the existing system of ratings and classes, including
those pertaining to:
[[Page 70256]]
--Current business practices that are not regulated that may require
some form of control;
--Provisions in the current regulation that prevent repair stations
from performing desired business practices; and
--Enforcement problems associated with the current regulations.
Draft a Technical Report that:
--Presents a review of the existing system of ratings and classes;
--Identifies various choices for rating systems;
--Identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each option;
--Provides economic information for each of the alternative rating
systems; and
--Recommends a preferred system of ratings.
Under the quality assurance task, the FAA tasked ARAC to:
Review the discussion about quality assurance in the June
1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 99-09).
Review comments relating to quality assurance submitted to
the FAA in response to the public meetings held in 1989 and the quality
assurance program requirements proposed in Notice No. 99-09.
Review current industry practices relating to quality
assurance issues to:
--Identify quality assurance systems currently used by some repair
stations; and
--Analyze the elements of the systems used by the aviation industry.
Develop a Technical Report that:
--Presents a review of regulatory requirements that comprise a quality
assurance program;
--Identifies various options for regulating quality assurance programs;
--Identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each option;
--Provides information on the economic impacts of applying a quality
assurance system to various segments of the repair station industry;
and
--Recommends a preferred quality assurance program or system.
ARAC sent its technical reports and recommendations to the FAA on
August 13, 2002. The technical reports and recommendations contain
details about each of the various options. Information on ARAC is
available on the ARAC Web site: http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac.
Action
In this rulemaking action, the FAA proposes a new rating system for
repair stations and proposes requirements for a quality system. The FAA
bases this proposed rule on the public meetings held in 1989, comments
to Docket No. 25965, comments to Notice No. 99-09, and recommendations
from ARAC. The FAA also proposes additional changes critical to
maintaining safety. These include: requiring a repair station to
maintain a capability list; designating a chief inspector; and having
permanent housing for all its facilities, equipment, materials, and
personnel. In addition, the proposal also specifies those instances
when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate. The proposal looks
at the particular cases where a previously held certificate has been
revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes several minor amendments to the July
30, 2001 final rule. These amendments are necessary to clarify the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Subpart B--Certification
Section 145.51 Application for Certificate
The FAA proposes to add a provision to the application procedures
that would require an applicant for a repair station certificate to
provide the FAA with a letter explaining how the applicant intends to
comply with the requirements of part 145. Under long-standing FAA
policy and practice, repair station certificate applicants have
provided this letter that the FAA refers to as a ``Letter of
Compliance.'' Since the letter is an essential part of the application
process, the FAA finds it appropriate to include a requirement to
provide the letter in the regulations for application for a repair
station certificate.
The FAA proposes an editorial change to current Sec. 145.51(a)(2)
(proposed Sec. 145.51(a)(3)) to make the wording consistent with
proposed Sec. 145.211(d). It would refer to a ``quality system
manual'' rather than a ``quality control manual.''
The FAA proposes adding the words ``manufacturer'' and ``category''
to proposed Sec. 145.51(a)(4) to ensure consistency with the
capability list requirements found in Sec. 145.215.
The FAA proposes to clarify the text of Sec. 145.51(b) by removing
the ambiguity in the relieving provision concerning the availability of
the equipment at the time of certification. This ambiguity results from
the phrase specifying that the equipment requirement of the paragraph
could be met ``if the applicant has a contract acceptable to the FAA
with another person to make the equipment available to the applicant at
the time of certification. * * * '' The FAA believes that the phrase
lacks clarity and could be subject to arbitrary application in
individual cases; i.e., one inspector might require the contract to be
executed and all the equipment brought to the premises for a pre-
certification inspection, while another inspector might only review the
contract for the specified items. In the first example, the equipment
could be returned to the supplier the next day, and not be returned to
the repair station until the relevant work is being performed, as
required by Sec. 145.109(a).
Consistent with the requirement in Sec. 145.109(a), and as noted
by some of the commenters to the proposal in Notice No. 99-09, it is
important that the equipment be in place when the work is being
performed. That is the safety basis for the equipment requirement. If,
at the time of initial certification or rating approval, an applicant
has a contract acceptable to the FAA to make the equipment available
when the relevant work is being performed, the FAA will be able to
determine that the repair station has assessed its relevant needs, and
that it has the means to obtain the pertinent equipment, tools, and
test apparatus when necessary. The applicant, of course, retains the
option to have the equipment, tools, and test apparatus in place during
the certification process. The requirement remains in Sec. 145.109(a)
that those items be on the premises and under the repair station's
control whenever the work is being performed.
Additionally, the FAA notes that the text of existing Sec.
145.109(a) contains a requirement to have ``tools,'' in addition to
equipment and materials, whereas existing Sec. 145.51(b) does not
refer to tools. Section 145.109(a) currently requires a repair station
to ``have the equipment, tools, and materials necessary to perform the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations. * * * '' [and
that] The equipment, tools, and materials must be located on the
premises and under the repair station's control when the work is being
done.'' The FAA did not include the term ``tools'' in Sec. 145.51(b)
because of possible uncertainty as to what tools should be required for
an applicant to have on site or under contract at the time of
certification. We did not believe that an applicant, in order to obtain
a repair station certificate, should be required to have on site at the
time of initial certification or rating approval all the particular
hand tools, etc., that an individual repairman or mechanic might
possess. The term ``equipment'' in Sec. 145.51(b) was meant to include
items the FAA would consider to be ``tools''
[[Page 70257]]
of the repair station. For example, a repair station's equipment might
include items such as machines, jigs, fixtures, basic shop tools and
associated tooling, necessary for the repair station to perform the
work for which it is rated, as reflected on its proposed operations
specifications and capability list.
We propose to clarify the scope of the kinds of items a repair
station must have for initially obtaining certification by adding both
tools and test apparatus to the list of items a repair station must
have either on site or under contract. While the term equipment could
be interpreted to include many examples of each, i.e., basic shop tools
and test equipment, adding the term ``tools'' to the regulation would
ensure that an applicant for a repair station certificate also includes
on site, or in the contract, certain tools necessary for the rating
sought that individual mechanics or repairmen might not possess. For
example, this might include tools that are of a specialized nature for
the rating or other tools that might be too large or expensive, or of a
limited specialized nature. For the same reasons, and for consistency
with the requirements in 14 CFR Sec. 43.13(a), we propose to add
``test apparatus'' to the list of items a repair station must have in
place for inspection or under contract at the time of initial
certification or rating approval.
The FAA also proposes to remove the modifier ``technical'' from the
term ``data'' for consistency with the other sections of the rule that
use the term ``data.''
The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph (e) to Sec. 145.51 to
detail conditions under which a person may not apply for a repair
station certificate. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, the
following persons could not apply for a repair station certificate (nor
would the FAA accept such an application) for one year from the date a
previously revoked certificate was surrendered pursuant to the FAA's
order of revocation:
Any person who held a repair stations certificate that was
revoked; and
Any person who had a substantial ownership interest or
substantial control over the operations of a repair station that has
had its certificate revoked and who materially contributed to the
circumstances causing the revocation.
The proposed rule would specify that the one-year period would
begin to run on the date the certificate is surrendered to the FAA
pursuant to the order of revocation. This proposed paragraph parallels
Sec. 61.13(d)(2), which pertains to pilots being able to reapply for a
certificate following revocation. Under the proposed text, a person
whose certificate has been revoked needs prior authorization only if
the person wishes to apply before the one-year term is up. The FAA
revokes repair station certificates only for serious infractions of the
regulations. The FAA believes that imposing a waiting period would
serve as an additional deterrent against serious violations of the
repair station regulations, thereby enhancing safety in the repair
station industry.
Section 145.53 Issuance of certificate
Section 145.53 identifies who is entitled to a repair station
certificate and appropriate ratings. Specifically, the section states
that a person who meets the requirements of part 145 is entitled to a
repair station certificate and appropriate ratings. Section 145.53(b)
states, ``if the person is located in a country with which the United
States has a bilateral aviation safety agreement, the FAA may find that
the person meets the requirements of this part based on certification
from the civil aviation authority of that country.'' The FAA proposes
to amend Sec. 145.53(b) to state that the FAA may also base such
finding on certification from an authority acceptable to the FAA.
This change permits the Administrator to base such a finding on a
recommendation from a civil aviation authority that may not necessarily
be the civil aviation authority of the country in which the repair
station is located. Recent changes in Europe, for example, have led to
the European Union forming the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
This new agency will carry out certain civil aviation safety functions
for the European Community. The FAA must consider that over a period of
time the United States may enter into aircraft maintenance agreements
under which the FAA may base its actions on a certification made by a
civil aviation authority other than a national aviation authority.
Therefore, the proposal would revise the current regulation to allow
for these different types of agreements. The FAA has determined that
the change has no additional technical or economic impact on the
regulation.
Also, the FAA proposes to add a new paragraph to Sec. 145.53
identifying reasons the FAA may use to deny the issuance of a repair
station certificate. The FAA proposes to deny a person a repair station
certificate if:
The applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements
for the certificate sought, or does not complete the certification
process.
The applicant previously held a repair station certificate
that was revoked.
The applicant intends to fill or fills a key management
position, (for example, accountable manager or chief inspector), with
an individual who exercised control over or who held the same or a
similar position with a repair station whose certificate was revoked,
or was in the process of being revoked. That individual must have
materially contributed to the circumstances causing the revocation or
revocation process.
The applicant held a key management position with a repair
station certificate holder whose certificate was revoked, or was in the
process of being revoked. The applicant must have materially
contributed to the circumstances causing the revocation or causing the
revocation process.
An individual who will have control over or substantial
ownership interest in the applicant had the same or similar control or
interest in a repair station whose certificate was revoked, or is in
the process of being revoked. That individual must have materially
contributed to the circumstances causing revocation or causing the
revocation process.
The last four criteria for denial are necessary because the FAA is
aware of recent instances where persons whose repair station
certificates were revoked continued to operate by obtaining new repair
station certificates shortly after the revocation process. In a similar
situation, a key management official with decision-making authority
(chief inspector) from a repair station that lost its certificate for
serious maintenance-related safety violations applied for and received
a new repair station certificate. That individual also became the chief
inspector at the newly certificated repair station. While under the
chief inspector's direction, employees of the newly certificated
station performed improper maintenance on a number of propellers, one
of which came apart in flight causing a fatal accident.
As a result of this incident, the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), in a Safety Recommendation dated February 9, 2004 (A-04-
01 and A-04-02), expressed concern that the FAA did not have a
mechanism for preventing individuals who were associated with a
previously revoked repair station, such as the owner described above,
from continuing to operate through a new repair station. The NTSB made
a number of observations.
[[Page 70258]]
The FAA has such a mechanism in place for air carriers and other
commercial operators.
14 CFR Sec. 119.39(b) allows the FAA to deny an application for a
Part 121 or 135 air carrier or operating certificate. This can occur if
the applicant previously held a certificate that was revoked or if a
person who exercised control over (or held a key management position
in) a previously revoked operator will be exercising control over (or
hold a key management position in) the new operator.
The Part 119 rule allows the FAA to deny certification to an
applicant who is substantially owned by (or intends to fill a key
management position with) an individual who had a similar interest in a
certificate holder whose certificate was (or is being) revoked when
that individual materially contributed to the circumstances causing the
revocation.
The NTSB, pointing out the safety concerns offered by the FAA when
it issued the above-described rules for air carriers and commercial
operators, believed the same reasoning should apply equally to Part 145
certificate holders. The FAA agrees. The proposed language is
consistent with other revocations that the FAA imposes. The changes
that we propose are based to a large extent on the language contained
in Sec. 119.39(b). In 1978, when the predecessor regulation to Sec.
119.39(b) was published, the FAA stated:
Noncompliance data is a significant factor to consider with an
application for an ATCO [air taxi/commercial operator] operating
certificate. Similar information has been helpful in evaluating air
carrier applicants and the persons they propose for management
positions. The FAA revokes an operating certificate only for a very
serious infraction of the regulations. If a person contributes
materially to that infraction, the fact should be considered as a
factor in evaluating the new application. This does not mean the
approval of the application or employment position will be
automatically withheld, but that each situation will be carefully
evaluated on its merits. (43 FR 46762, Oct. 10, 1978)
Section 145.59 Ratings
The FAA proposes to revise the ratings and classes that may be
issued to certificated repair stations. A comparison of the proposed
ratings with the current ratings follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Rating Proposed Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airframe Rating Aircraft Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Composite construction of The Aircraft rating, which the
small aircraft. FAA did not divide into
Class 2: Composite construction of classes, would replace the
large aircraft. Airframe rating and its
Class 3: All-metal construction of associated classes. The FAA
small aircraft. proposes to expand the current
Class 4: All-metal construction of Airframe rating to include all
large aircraft. articles except those for
which a Powerplant, Propeller,
or Avionics rating is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant Rating Powerplant Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Reciprocating engines of 400 Class 1: Reciprocating engines.
horsepower or less.
Class 2: Reciprocating engines of more Class 2: Turbine engines.
than 400 horsepower.
Class 3: Turbine engines............... Class 3: Auxiliary power units
(APU).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propeller Rating Propeller Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: All fixed-pitch and ground- This proposed Propeller rating
adjustable propellers of wood, metal, no longer includes classes.
or composite construction. This rating would not include
Class 2: All other propellers, by make. the main and auxiliary rotors
(airframe articles) or
rotating airfoils of aircraft
engines (powerplant articles).
This rating would allow a
repair station to remove and
replace articles attached to
the propeller and to remove
and reinstall the propeller.
Also, the rating would allow a
repair station to remove,
replace, install, and test the
propeller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Rating Avionics Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Communication equipment....... The Avionics rating would
Class 2: Navigational equipment........ combine the Radio, Instrument,
Class 3: Radar equipment............... and parts of the Accessory
ratings into a single rating.
The proposed Avionics rating
would group together items
that operate electrically or
electronically and that
require a unique set of skills
not associated with other
ratings. In addition, this
rating would allow repair
stations to perform
maintenance on in-flight
entertainment units or other
electronic units, as specified
in their operations
specifications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrument Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Mechanical....................
Class 2: Electrical....................
Class 3: Gyroscopic....................
Class 4: Electronic....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessory Rating Component Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Mechanical accessories that The Component rating would
depend on friction, hydraulics, allow a repair station to
mechanical linkage, or pneumatic perform maintenance,
pressure for operation. preventive maintenance, and
Class 2: Electrical accessories that alterations on individual
depend on electrical energy for their component parts that are not
operation.. installed on or in aircraft,
Class 3: Electronic accessories that powerplant, propeller, or
depend on an electron tube, avionics equipment. The
transistor, or similar device.. Component rating would include
any item that is not a
complete aircraft, powerplant,
propeller, or avionics
article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70259]]
Limited Rating (Sec. 145.61) Limitations to a Rating (Sec.
145.61)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airframes; engines; propellers; In response to industry and
instruments; radio equipment; ARAC recommendations, the FAA
accessories; landing gear; components; would no longer issue limited
floats; nondestructive inspection, ratings. Instead, the FAA
testing, and processing; emergency would issue limitations to the
equipment; rotor blades by make and rating of a certificated
model; aircraft fabric work; and other repair station governing
purposes. maintenance or alterations on
a particular type of aircraft,
powerplant, propeller,
avionics, or component part
thereof for which part 43
applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited Rating for Specialized Service Specialized Service Rating
(Sec. 145.61) (Sec. 145.63)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, landing gear components; The proposed Specialized
nondestructive inspection, testing, Service rating is
and processing; emergency equipment; substantially the same as the
aircraft fabric work; and any other existing Limited Specialized
specialized service the FAA finds Service rating. The FAA would
appropriate for this rating. issue the Specialized Service
rating to a repair station
that performs only specific
processes associated with the
maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations
of an aviation article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Rating
Currently, the FAA may issue a repair station an Airframe rating
with any of four class ratings: Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. These classes
are based on aircraft weight (large or small as defined in 14 CFR Sec.
1.1) and construction (composite or all-metal). The FAA finds that
issuing ratings for aircraft based on their construction is no longer
appropriate because modern aircraft are no longer built of either all
composite material or all metal. Further, the FAA finds that
classifying aircraft by weight is no longer appropriate. The FAA
proposes to remove the Airframe rating and its associated class ratings
and establish an Aircraft rating without classes.
In its technical report, ARAC noted that in 1962, most aircraft had
a dope and fabric or wood construction. The aviation industry commonly
referred to aircraft made from a combination of wood, fabric, and metal
materials as aircraft with a ``composite'' construction. ARAC noted
that a better description of the term ``composite'' may have been
``not-all metal.'' The term ``composite material'' also refers to
carbon-carbon compounds and advanced polymers.
Many modern aircraft have an airframe made of both metal and
composite materials. The airframe is metal while certain portions, such
as control surfaces and fairings, are composite materials. This causes
confusion among FAA inspectors and the aviation industry over how much
of an airframe must be of composite or metal construction for various
class ratings within the Airframe category.
Since defining ``composite'' is difficult and the current classes
are no longer suitable for the repair station industry, the FAA has
tentatively determined that a better approach is to adopt general
ratings. ARAC found that a repair station rating based solely on the
type or variety of material in aircraft construction is unduly
restrictive. These factors no longer determine the scope of work repair
stations are able to perform under the Airframe rating. ARAC found that
airframe maintenance capabilities do not depend on the materials used
in aircraft construction.
Further, ARAC found that classification of ratings by weight is no
longer appropriate. Historically, the FAA and the aviation industry
used the weight classification of small and large aircraft to
distinguish aircraft used in commercial air carrier service from
general aviation aircraft. Commercial operations normally used aircraft
over 12,500 pounds while general aviation typically used smaller
aircraft. This distinction also reflected the relative complexity of
the aircraft. Today, however, aircraft weight does not reflect the
complexity or intended use of an aircraft.
The Aircraft rating, which is not divided into classes, would
replace the Airframe rating and its associated classes. Under the
Aircraft rating, a repair station could perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations on the complete aircraft, except those
articles for which a Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating is
required. Replacing the current Airframe rating with an Aircraft rating
would allow for inclusion of future technological advancements in
aircraft construction. The Aircraft rating would allow the repair
station to work on the aircraft electrical distribution system external
to avionics units. In addition, a repair station could remove, replace,
install, and test any powerplant, propeller, or avionics equipment to
perform its rated work on the complete aircraft and approve it for
return to service if the repair station has the capabilities.
At the time of application, the FAA would require an applicant for
an Aircraft rating to identify the manufacturer, type, make, model, or
series of aircraft on which the repair station intends to perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance and alterations. The repair station
must list the aircraft on its capability list, which would be required
by Sec. 145.215. The FAA would require the repair station to
demonstrate that it has on its premises and under its control the
necessary housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test apparatus,
trained personnel, and data to perform the maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations on the aircraft listed.
After the FAA certificates a repair station, the repair station
could add additional capabilities as needed. The repair station could
change its capability list after performing a self-evaluation that is
part of the repair station's quality system. This internal review would
ensure that the FAA could evaluate the work being performed under the
rating and confirm that a repair station has the capabilities to
perform the specified maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations.
It is not the FAA's intent to allow a repair station to change its
ratings simply by performing the self-evaluation. The self-evaluation
is used to add capabilities to its capability list that are within the
scope of its rating. Aircraft-rated repair stations would be required
to list the type, make, model, or series of aircraft on its capability
list. The Aircraft rating, along with the types of aircraft the repair
station may maintain, constitutes its rating. An Aircraft-rated repair
station could not add different aircraft types to its capability list
by performing the self-evaluation. For example, if its operations
specifications authorize the repair station to maintain B-737 aircraft
types, and it was currently maintaining only B-737-100-500 models, it
could perform the self-evaluation to add other B-737 models to its
capability list, but it could not add B-757 aircraft.
[[Page 70260]]
The word ``aircraft type'' when used in the text associated with an
Aircraft rating is defined in 14 CFR part 1 and means those aircraft
that are similar in design. Examples include: DC-7 and DC-7C; 1049G and
1049H; and F27 and F27F.
Powerplant Rating
The current Powerplant rating has three classes: Class 1:
Reciprocating engines of 400 horsepower or less, Class 2: Reciprocating
engines of more than 400 horsepower, and Class 3: Turbine engines.
When the FAA established the current Powerplant ratings,
reciprocating radial engines that produced more than 400 horsepower
powered nearly all large aircraft. In its report, ARAC noted that these
engines differed substantially from the horizontally opposed
reciprocating engines with less than 400 horsepower that manufacturers
used to power general aviation aircraft. Distinguishing powerplant
classes by horsepower was helpful considering the engines in use at
that time. Today, however, it is possible for small horizontally
opposed reciprocating engines to produce more than 400 horsepower.
Further, most modern transport category aircraft have turbine engines,
and manufacturers no longer produce high horsepower radial engines.
ARAC determined, therefore, that separate classes for reciprocating
engines are no longer useful.
When the FAA established the current Powerplant rating,
manufacturers were just beginning to use turbine engines on civil
aircraft. Therefore, the FAA found it appropriate to establish a class
for turbine engines.
Unlike the other ratings, the FAA would retain classes for the
Powerplant rating. The Powerplant rating still has natural and
permanent divisions between reciprocating, turbine, and APU engines.
Engines do not cross the boundaries between these classes. This would
not be true for the other ratings, especially the Aircraft rating.
Under the proposed rating system, a repair station holding a new
Powerplant rating may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations of the powerplant and all components necessary for the
powerplant to work properly. The proposed Powerplant rating includes
aircraft engines, as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, and auxiliary power units.
An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) refers to any gas turbine-powered
unit delivering rotating shaft power or compressed air, or both, that
is not intended for the propelling of an aircraft. APUs often drive
aircraft generators and air-conditioning packs. In some cases APUs also
can be used as an additional source of energy to start the primary
aircraft engines. The design configurations of some aircraft rely on an
APU for provisional back-up electrical power in flight in the event of
a failure of the primary power sources. The APU has been included in
the Powerplant rating due to its similarity to an aircraft turbine
engine.
The proposed rating, therefore, would still have 3 classes.
However, the classes would be organized as follows:
Class 1: Reciprocating engines, combining current Classes 1 and 2;
Class 2: Turbine engines, encompassing current Class 3; and
Class 3: Auxiliary power units (APU).
This rating, like the Aircraft rating, would allow repair stations
to remove and replace propellers and powerplant components, as needed,
and to perform powerplant maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations. Powerplant-rated repair stations also could remove and
replace nacelles and fairings because most engine work cannot be
performed unless the repair station removes these items. However, this
rating would not allow the repair station to remove or replace engines.
To perform this function, the repair station would, at a minimum, have
to hold an Aircraft rating with a limitation to remove and replace
engines. Also, this rating would not allow a repair station to perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on the aircraft or
propeller.
An application for the Powerplant rating must include a list of the
make, model, or series of all powerplant articles that the repair
station intends to maintain. The repair station must list these
articles on its capability list. The repair station may add different
makes and models of engines within its class rating to its capability
list by following the self-evaluation procedures of the repair
station's quality system. The FAA does not intend that a repair station
alter its rating by adding powerplants outside the scope of the
powerplant class the repair station is rated to maintain. This means a
Class 1-rated repair station cannot add a Class 2 powerplant simply by
performing a self-evaluation. This would be considered a change of
rating, and must be handled through the certification process.
Propeller Rating
Under the current regulations, a repair station holding a Class 1
Propeller rating may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations on all fixed-pitch and ground-adjustable propellers of
wood, metal, or composite construction. A repair station holding a
Class 2 Propeller rating may perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations on all other propellers by make.
In its report, ARAC noted that this distinction is based on the
different levels of complexity between a propeller with no moving parts
and a propeller with a mechanical system that controls the pitch of the
propeller while operating. ARAC also noted that aircraft with small
reciprocating engines generally have fixed pitch propellers, while
aircraft with high horsepower engines have variable pitch propellers.
ARAC found that, although varying levels of complexity exist for
propellers, most repair stations performing maintenance on propellers
hold both class ratings. Therefore, ARAC recommended that the FAA
eliminate class ratings that distinguish the types of propellers.
The proposed Propeller rating would allow a repair station to
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on
propellers. This rating does not include the main and auxiliary rotors
(airframe articles) or rotating airfoils of aircraft engines
(powerplant articles). This rating would allow a repair station to
remove and replace control components attached to the propeller. Also,
the rating would allow a repair station to remove, replace, install,
and test the propeller. However, it would not allow a repair station to
perform installations that would constitute a major alteration to an
aircraft or aircraft engine.
An applicant for a Propeller rating must list the make, model, or
series of propellers to be included on its capability list. The repair
station could add makes or models of propellers to its capability list
by following the self-evaluation procedures of the repair station's
quality system. Although a repair station holding a Propeller rating
could remove and install the propeller on an aircraft engine, it could
not perform any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on
the aircraft, aircraft engine, or airframe. For example, a repair
station that intends to install propellers of a different make and
model using a supplemental type certificate (STC) would be required to
hold a Propeller rating and would need an Aircraft rating, with the
necessary limitation.
Avionics and Component Ratings
The proposed Avionics and Component ratings present different
challenges to the rating system because of the sheer volume of articles
that can be addressed by the ratings, the variety of these articles,
and the number of
[[Page 70261]]
manufacturers of similar articles. Providing only the make, model, or
series of these articles may not provide the necessary information to
determine what requirements the repair station must meet in order to be
eligible for a rating. As a result, the FAA must include a requirement
for the name of the manufacturer of the articles to be included in the
capability list. Also, the FAA proposes a requirement that the
capability list for a repair station certificated to maintain avionics
or component articles be separated by categories to make it easier for
both the repair station's customers and the FAA to ascertain the
capabilities of the repair station.
The inclusion of the manufacturer on the capability list is
necessary because, unlike the aircraft or powerplant manufacturers,
there are several manufacturers who produce similar articles, such as
radios, integrated electronic units, pumps, and actuators. Because the
rule requires repair stations to use the data, tools, and equipment
recommended by the manufacturer, these items will differ between
manufacturers even though the articles may be similar in design. Also,
since repair stations will be performing self-evaluations to add items
to their capability lists, not identifying the different items required
for articles produced by different manufacturers could make it
difficult for a repair station to determine if it has the capability to
maintain articles from various manufacturers.
Identifying the manufacturer would assist the FAA in separating the
capability list into categories. The category headings can be broad to
encompass several similar articles, but should be detailed enough so
that a cursory review can determine the types of articles maintained by
the repair station. Examples of categories may include: radios,
instruments, integrated modules, hydraulic pumps, fuel pumps, hydraulic
actuators, brakes, integrated entertainment systems, cargo loading
units/pallets, or cargo floor tracks and locks. Under these categories,
the repair station would list each article by manufacturer, make,
model, or series.
Avionics Rating
The Avionics rating would combine the current Radio, Instrument,
and parts of the Accessory ratings into a single rating. This rating
would include all articles used for aircraft communication, navigation,
and operation that operate electrically or electronically.
The proposed Avionics rating groups together items that operate
electrically or electronically and that require a unique set of skills
not associated with other ratings. In addition, this rating would allow
repair stations to perform work on in-flight entertainment units or
other electronic units. The current rating and classification system
does not have a rating or class that clearly includes in-flight
entertainment electronics. In its report, ARAC stated that although the
aviation industry typically does not consider these devices as avionics
equipment, the FAA should include them with other electronic devices
that require similar skills to maintain.
The current Radio rating consists of three classes: Class 1:
Communication equipment, Class 2: Navigation equipment, and Class 3:
Radar equipment. In its report, ARAC indicated that technological
advances in avionics have led to much controversy over this
categorization of equipment. ARAC noted that modern avionics equipment
typically integrates communication and navigation functions into a
single avionics appliance. Radar and radio equipment that operate using
pulse technology also serve communication and navigation functions.
Therefore, repair stations performing work on avionics equipment often
hold a Radio rating with all three of the classes.
The current Instrument rating consists of four classes: Class 1:
Mechanical, Class 2: Electrical, Class 3: Gyroscopic, and Class 4:
Electronic. The FAA established these classes based on the technology
available at the time. However, ARAC notes that today, most instruments
operate using a combination of these principles. Therefore, class
distinctions are no longer appropriate.
The current Accessory rating has three classes. Class 1: Mechanical
includes accessories that depend on friction, hydraulics, mechanical
linkage, or pneumatic pressure for operation. Class 2: Electrical
includes accessories that depend on electrical energy for their
operation and generators. Class 3: Electronic includes accessories that
depend on the use of an electron tube, transistor, or similar devices.
Similar to the Instrument rating, the classes for the Accessory rating
identify the article's principle of operation. Many articles maintained
under this rating use a combination of principles, thus requiring
repair stations to hold all the class ratings for an Accessory rating.
The proposed Avionics rating would allow a repair station with the
required capabilities to remove and reinstall access panels, brackets,
or clamps in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions on
aircraft, powerplants, or propellers, as needed, to gain access to
avionics equipment or instruments. The repair station also could
remove, replace, install, and test the avionics equipment on an
aircraft, provided the repair station does not alter the aircraft. An
Avionics-rated repair station would not be authorized to remove
articles that it was not rated to reinstall. To perform a major or
minor alteration to an aircraft, powerplant, or propeller, a repair
station would be required to hold the appropriate additional ratings.
As with the Aircraft, Powerplant, and Propeller ratings, a repair
station with an Avionics rating would have to identify on its
capability list the articles that it intends to maintain. Unlike the
other ratings, in addition to identifying the article by make or model
and series, the Avionics-rated repair station must also include the
manufacturer and the category of the article, such as communication,
navigation, pulsed (radar), mechanical, electric, gyroscopic, or
electronic.
Component Rating
The Component rating would allow a repair station to perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on individual
uninstalled component parts that are included on or in aircraft,
powerplant, propeller, or avionics equipment. The Component rating
would include any item that is not a complete aircraft, powerplant,
propeller, or avionics article. However, a Component-rated repair
station must have a limitation to an Aircraft, Powerplant, or Propeller
rating to remove and install articles. A repair station with an
Aircraft, Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating would not need a
Component rating to work on items associated with its respective rating
and capabilities. For example, an Aircraft or Powerplant-rated repair
station would not need a Component rating to perform work on an airfoil
surface, engine case, or other parts of the aircraft or powerplant, as
applicable.
The capability list for this rating must provide enough detail to
ensure that a repair station has the appropriate housing, facilities,
equipment, tools, test apparatus, training, personnel, and data at
certification and when the work is being performed. The FAA agrees with
ARAC's recommendation that a repair station list the general part
nomenclature of an item, and that it is unnecessary to list articles by
part number. The capability list would have to identify each component
by manufacturer, make, model, or other nomenclature as designated by
the manufacturer.
[[Page 70262]]
Section 145.61 Limitations to Ratings
In response to industry and ARAC recommendations, the FAA would no
longer issue limited ratings. Instead, the FAA would issue limitations
to the rating of a certificated repair station governing maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations on a particular type of
aircraft, powerplant, propeller, avionics unit, or component part
thereof. Currently, the rule allows for limited ratings based on the
repair station performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations on particular makes or models of aircraft, powerplants, or
propellers. However, as the repair industry has become more
specialized, the concept of limited ratings had to be stretched to
apply to repair stations performing only certain maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alteration functions on one or several
makes/models of articles. Eliminating limited ratings would allow more
flexibility in determining what rating an applicant or a repair station
should obtain. For example, if a repair station intends to perform only
a specific maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration function,
such as interior configuration work or aircraft painting, the FAA would
issue the repair station an Aircraft rating and list that function as a
limitation on the repair station's operations specifications. The
repair station's operations specifications would specify the rating to
which the limitation applies and the limitation to that rating in
sufficient detail to describe the maintenance capabilities of the
repair station.
Section 145.63 Specialized Service Rating
Currently, the FAA issues limited ratings to repair stations to
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations to
airframes, engines, propellers, instruments, radio equipment,
accessories, landing gear components, emergency equipment, rotor
blades, and floats, and to perform specialized services.
The proposed Specialized Service rating is substantially the same
as the existing Limited Specialized Service rating. The Specialized
Service rating would allow a repair station to perform a specific
process associated with the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration of an article; this work might not constitute a complete
repair sufficient to approve an article for return to service. The
repair station's operations specifications would contain the
specification used in performing that specialized service. The
specification could be a military-, industry-, or applicant-developed
specification that was approved by the FAA. Examples of specialized
services would include, but not be limited to, non-destructive testing
or inspection, welding, heat treating, plating, and plasma spraying.
There are three situations in which the FAA would issue a
Specialized Service rating. The FAA would issue this rating to a repair
station that:
Performs only a specific process;
Has in-house capabilities to perform the specific process
but the work being requested is not within the scope of its rating; or
Performs a function not found in the manufacturer's data.
If specialized service tasks are contained within a repair
station's data for existing ratings, the repair station would not
require an additional rating to perform that service. For example, if
an Aircraft-rated repair station wants to perform plating on a
propeller part, it would need a Specialized Service rating to perform
the operation on the propeller part. If, however, a Powerplant-rated
repair station has the in-house capability to perform x-ray
inspections, it would not need to have a Specialized Service rating to
perform that same maintenance for another repair station on powerplant
articles for which it is already rated.
The Specialized Service rating would require the repair station to
have the housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test apparatus, trained
personnel, and data to perform the process on an aviation article. The
process specification on the operations specifications would set forth
the minimum standards for performing the generic process (specialized
service). For example, the process specification would include an
explanation of the housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test
apparatus, trained personnel, and data necessary to perform the overall
process. The applicable manufacturer's maintenance manual, air carrier
manual, or other data acceptable to or approved by the FAA would define
the specific parameters associated with performing the process on the
particular aviation article.
Section 145.101 General
The current section states that a certificated repair station must
provide housing, facilities, equipment, materials, and data that meets
the applicable requirements for the issuance of the certificate and
rating the repair station holds. The FAA proposes to revise this
section specifically to require repair stations to provide tools and
test apparatus as already required in Sec. 145.109 of this part.
Section 145.103 Housing and Facilities
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section requires each certificated repair
station to provide housing for the facilities, equipment, materials,
and personnel consistent with its ratings. The FAA proposes to revise
this section to require ``permanent'' housing. It has long been FAA
policy that repair stations, unlike other certificate holders, have a
permanent fixed location from which to operate. The proposed rule would
not prohibit these certificate holders from having mobile capabilities.
It would, however, reinforce the need for repair stations to provide
adequate assurance that work is performed in the best of environments
and to the best of standards. This means protection of workers from
unfavorable weather conditions so that their performance and the
airworthiness of the articles they are maintaining is not adversely
affected by those weather conditions. Repair stations would be required
to provide suitable housing to protect the articles being maintained
from contamination, foreign object debris, or conditions that may
promote corrosion or other deteriorating conditions.
Further, the FAA is proposing to add new paragraph (d) to allow a
repair station to use multiple fixed locations in performing
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations under its repair
station certificate if the locations are within close proximity to the
principal base of operations. These locations should be able to be
reached in a reasonable amount of travel time so that FAA inspectors
could provide the same level of surveillance at each fixed location.
Such fixed locations should be located within the same geographic
boundary of the FAA office with oversight responsibility for the repair
station. Any fixed location outside of the geographic boundary of the
FAA office with oversight responsibilities must either be certificated
as a satellite repair station and meet the requirements of Sec.
145.107, or it must obtain its own repair station certificate under the
provisions of Sec. 145.51 and Sec. 145.53. Repair stations would be
required to obtain a certificate for each fixed location outside of
such boundaries as a satellite or stand-alone repair station.
Section 145.107 Satellite Repair Stations
The FAA proposes to change paragraph (a) of this section to clarify
the requirements for a satellite repair station. The FAA also proposes
to remove the restriction that a satellite
[[Page 70263]]
repair station may not hold a rating not held by the certificated
repair station with managerial control. The FAA would not impose
additional restrictions on satellite repair stations that do not apply
to other repair stations.
Additionally, the FAA proposes to add a new paragraph stating that
a satellite repair station may use the same repair station and quality
system manuals as the repair station with managerial control. If a
satellite repair station intends to use these manuals, it would have to
identify any specific processes or procedures unique to the satellite
repair station in appendices or sections of the manuals.
Finally, the FAA proposes to change paragraph (b) to state that
inspection personnel may be away from the premises, but must be readily
available. This language eliminates the need to specify that personnel
be available by telephone, radio, or other electronic means. They would
have to be readily available regardless of the means of communication.
Section 145.109 Equipment, Tools, Test Apparatus, Materials, and Data
Requirements
The FAA proposes to amend this section to add the word ``tools'' to
the heading to make it consistent with the requirement currently in the
text of the section and to meet the agency's intent. The text of
existing Sec. 145.109(a) requires that each repair station have on the
premises and under its control the equipment, tools, and materials
necessary to perform the requisite work when it is being performed. The
requirement in this section to have on site the equipment and tools
``necessary to perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations * * *'' may in some instances be more comprehensive than
the requirement in Sec. 145.51(b) for those items at the time of
initial certification or rating approval. As explained previously in
this preamble, an applicant for a repair station certificate does not
have to have on site or under contract at the time of initial
certification or rating approval all of the individual hand tools that
its employees may possess and need when they are performing the work of
the repair station.
We propose to add test apparatus to the list of items that a repair
station must have on the premises and under its control when it is
performing work for the reasons previously stated in the Sec.
145.51(b) discussion. This would remove potential uncertainty
surrounding whether a necessary piece of test apparatus was considered
to be ``equipment'' or ``tools'' or neither. In addition, including
test apparatus would be consistent with the requirements in 14 CFR
Sec. 43.13(a). Accordingly, we are revising the section heading to
include test apparatus.
Finally, we also propose to amend the text of Sec. 145.109(a) for
clarification and ease of understanding.
Section 145.151 Personnel Requirements
The FAA proposes to add the requirement that repair stations
designate a chief inspector. Although this position was not previously
required, prior to the 2001 amendments, former Sec. 145.43 required
each repair station to have and maintain a roster listing, among other
personnel, its ``inspection personnel, including the names of the chief
inspector.'' Many repair stations already have or have previously had a
chief inspector as part of their staff. The FAA has received numerous
requests to add the chief inspector requirement to this rule. This
position is considered a critical function and is necessary to ensure
the airworthiness of the articles a repair station maintains. There
needs to be a technical person with the responsibility for regulatory
compliance as well as the quality control duties. This person may be
required to make critical decisions or countermand an errant finding
from a quality control inspector. The quality of a product is directly
related to the safety of the product. Part 121 of 14 CFR requires air
carriers to have a chief inspector. This rulemaking will help to
harmonize parts 121 and 145.
Section 145.155 Inspection Personnel Requirements
The FAA proposes to amend this section to set forth the experience
requirements for the chief inspector position. Specifically, the FAA
proposes to require the chief inspector of a repair station located
within the United States be certificated under part 65. The FAA also
proposes to add experience requirements for the chief inspector. Any
person designated as a chief inspector for a repair station located
either within or outside the United States must have at least 3 years
of experience using the various types of inspection equipment and
techniques appropriate for any article to be inspected. This includes
the procedures, practices, inspection methods, materials tools, machine
tools, and equipment generally used in the maintenance and alteration
of articles for which the repair station is rated.
Currently, before mechanics can obtain an inspection authorization,
they must exercise the privileges of their certificate for a minimum of
3 years to demonstrate the competency needed to make judgment calls
necessary to sign off on certain aircraft inspections. The FAA believes
a chief inspector should meet similar criteria since the types of
decisions that a mechanic with an inspection authorization and a chief
inspector make are frequently similar and often just as critical.
The FAA proposes changes to Sec. 145.155(a)(2) to ensure
consistency with proposed Sec. 145.155(d) by specifying that an
inspector must be proficient in the use of ``inspection equipment and
techniques'' rather than the more restrictive ``inspection equipment
and visual inspection aids.''
Section 145.161 Records of Management, Supervisory, and Inspection
Personnel
The FAA proposes to amend this section to reflect proposed changes
to Sec. 145.151 that require repair stations to designate a chief
inspector. The proposed amendment would require that repair stations
include the name of the chief inspector in the roster of inspection
personnel required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
In addition, the FAA proposes to remove the requirement to include
the total years of experience in the summaries of employment required
in current paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. Current paragraphs
(a)(4)(iii) and (iv) already require past relevant employment
experience as well as the scope of present employment. The current
separate requirement to maintain a record of total years of experience
of an individual is therefore redundant. Additionally, proposed
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) includes a requirement to list past relevant
employment with ``position, and type of maintenance performed.'' It was
necessary to include the word ``position'' since some management
personnel may not have performed maintenance.
Section 145.203 Work Performed at Another Location
After redesignating the introductory text of the section, the FAA
proposes adding a new paragraph that would require a repair station to
obtain approval in writing prior to conducting any maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and alterations outside of its domicile
country. The current rule authorizing work to be performed at another
location does not include specific provisions for a repair station to
perform work under its certificate at a location outside the geographic
borders
[[Page 70264]]
of the country where the repair station is located or domiciled. The
proposal would require the repair station to obtain authorization to
perform the work from the country in which the work is to be performed.
It would also require the repair station to submit evidence of that
authorization and a description of the procedures to be used to the
FAA.
FAA policy currently allows an Aircraft-rated repair station
located outside the United States that is also an operator holding an
FAA Letter of Authorization per 14 CFR Sec. 129.14, to qualify for
geographic authorization under its Aircraft rating. This authorization
ensures that U.S.-registered aircraft are maintained in accordance with
a program approved by the FAA. The proposal would standardize the
practice used to permit repair stations to perform work outside the
country in which they are domiciled.
Section 145.205 Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
Performed for Certificate Holders Operating Under Parts 121, 125, or
135, or for Foreign Air Carriers or Foreign Persons Operating U.S.-
Registered Aircraft in Common Carriage Under Part 129
The FAA proposes to clarify the requirements of the current
section. Specifically, the FAA would add a requirement clarifying that
certificated repair stations performing maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations for an air carrier or commercial operator
conducting operations under parts 121 or 135, a certificate holder
conducting operations under part 125, or a foreign air carrier or
foreign person operating U.S.-registered aircraft under part 129 must
comply with the applicable parts of this chapter. The FAA would also
add the wording, ``appropriately rated,'' to Sec. 145.205(d) to ensure
that a repair station would not perform line maintenance on articles
that are outside the scope of its repair station certificate and
ratings.
Section 145.211 Quality System
The FAA proposes to expand the quality control system requirements
in existing Sec. 145.211 to include elements of a more complete
quality system for repair stations. While the FAA would keep the
existing quality control elements, this proposal would add requirements
for additional management oversight and follow-up. The FAA would also
add a requirement for a repair station to establish an internal
evaluation program. The FAA believes that if repair stations conduct
periodic internal evaluations of their processes and procedures, they
could discover problem areas and take corrective actions before
improper maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are
performed. Aviation safety would be enhanced accordingly.
Existing Sec. 145.211 requires a final inspection of maintained
articles. However, if the underlying benchmark processes or procedures
against which the articles are being evaluated are flawed, defective
articles can be and sometimes are approved for return to service. Such
defective articles installed on aircraft have resulted in accidents
involving damage to or loss of aircraft, and personal injuries and loss
of life. At a minimum, these errors are costly and require the parts to
be reworked or scrapped.
Under the proposed quality system requirements, a repair station
would conduct internal evaluations of its operations and establish a
management review and follow-up system. These two elements represent a
significant part of the expansion the FAA would require of the existing
quality control system.
The addition of an internal evaluation requirement would help
ensure that repair stations' manuals comply with FAA regulations and
that their operations conform to their manuals. In addition, a
meaningful internal evaluation should identify deficiencies and
generate an action plan to correct the deficiencies. Internal
evaluations would also provide the information required by management
to answer the following questions:
Are our ongoing evaluations identifying and eliminating
problems?
Are our processes effective?
Management review and follow-up evaluations would determine the
effectiveness of the internal evaluations. Management review and
follow-up enhance the internal evaluation by--
Analyzing the action plans to ensure compliance with
regulations and good repair station practices;
Conducting reviews to determine the extent to which the
action plans are correcting problems identified by on-going internal
evaluations;
Reviewing the over-all results of the internal evaluations
to see if the on-going evaluations are identifying and correcting
deficiencies before the deficiencies result in product returns.
Below are two examples of FAA programs and procedures designed to
identify and address problems that can occur. The illustrations are
intended to show how a quality system with active management oversight
and follow-up could prevent or limit the severity of these problems
brought about in maintenance systems.
The FAA's system of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) is the source of
examples of defects that could lead to unsafe conditions. An AD is
issued for a particular product when the FAA finds that an unsafe
condition exists in that product and that the same unsafe condition is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Most ADs are issued to correct a design or a maintenance/inspection
program deficiency. Sometimes, however, they are issued to correct an
improper repair of a product if the improper repair was performed, or
was likely to have been performed, on multiple units of the same
product. An AD describes the unsafe condition and prescribes the
actions required to correct it. Each AD specifies the models of the
affected product to which it applies. ADs are legally enforceable
rules. As such they are published in the Federal Register as amendments
to 14 CFR 39.13. Below is an example of a corrective action taken
through the FAA's AD program.
In 1998, the FAA issued an AD directed at specific reciprocating
engines with crankshafts that had been repaired by a particular repair
station. The FAA's data indicated that deficient process controls
existed at the repair station during a particular time period causing
the improper repairs. The improper repairs resulted in heat check
cracking of the nitrided bearing surfaces that led to crankshaft
failure due to cracking. The AD required inspections for potentially
affected engines to determine applicability, an additional inspection
and dimensional check of the crankshaft journals of the affected
engines, and, if necessary, rework or removal from service of the
affected crankshafts and replacement with serviceable parts. These
actions were necessary to prevent crankshaft failure due to cracking
that, in turn, could lead to inflight engine failure and a possible
forced landing.
The FAA estimated the total cost of complying with the AD to be
over $3 million. The FAA estimated that 10,000 engines would require at
least the removal of the spinner, at a total cost of $600,000, to
determine whether an unsafe condition existed. The remainder of the
cost was for the necessary rework on the estimated 291 engines that had
been returned to service with defective crankshafts repaired by the
repair station.
The FAA found that deficient process controls existed at the repair
station. If a quality system had been in place, the internal evaluation
could have revealed the deficient process controls. The
[[Page 70265]]
improper repair process could have been corrected immediately. The cost
savings to U.S. operators would have been significant, and the FAA also
could have avoided the costs associated with processing the AD.
Sometimes, as in the examples above, parts maintained by a repair
station are approved for return to service after passing a final
inspection even though they are not airworthy. This could be due either
to a hidden defect or to a faulty inspection procedure. It is important
to prevent these types of situations from developing. Early detection
and prevention can be accomplished with a quality system in place at
each repair station. Important additions to the quality system, as
proposed in this notice, would include requirements that a repair
station conduct periodic internal evaluations of its operations. This
internal evaluation would ensure that the repair station's manuals and
procedures comply with applicable regulatory requirements. It would
also ensure that procedures are in place for conducting follow-up
evaluations to ensure that corrective actions bring any deficiencies
into compliance. The quality system requirement would include:
A reporting system to record and maintain completed
evaluations and corrective and preventive action plans,
A schedule for conducting annual quality system
evaluations,
Corrective action procedures to ensure any deficiencies
are corrected,
Procedures for conducting follow-up evaluations to ensure
corrective action(s) bring any deficiencies into compliance,
Procedures for qualifying, training, and authorizing
persons to perform internal evaluations, and
Procedures for revising the internal evaluation system as
necessary.
The internal evaluation would identify where additional quality
standards are needed and validate the adequacy of existing standards
and procedures. It also would help ensure that the procedures are being
followed and achieve the desired results. Management review and follow-
up would help ensure that all findings and discrepancies found during
the internal evaluations are corrected in a timely manner and that they
are effectively prevented from recurring. With the proposed
comprehensive quality system, a repair station could demonstrate that
it is achieving quality performance that means fewer errors, fewer
delays, and improved productivity.
The FAA notes that a repair station could divide the internal
evaluation into sections, provided the entire repair station operation
is evaluated within the applicable interval. For example, if a repair
station's quality system requires an internal evaluation of its
operations once every year, the repair station could evaluate different
divisions of its operations separately, provided it evaluates its
entire operation within the 1-year timeframe.
Quality systems with internal evaluations and management follow-up,
such as the FAA is proposing here, have benefited manufacturers and
service organizations that have adopted them. While initial costs are
associated with adopting a quality system, organizations have realized
long-term benefits. Such benefits have been in the form of reduced
errors and delays that resulted in increased productivity. Requiring
repair stations to adopt the additional quality system elements would
increase their productivity, reduce errors and delays, and ultimately
reduce the number of aircraft accidents and incidents.
As with other regulatory requirements in this part, the expanded
quality system could be tailored to meet the needs of individual repair
stations. If a large complex repair station requires a comprehensive
quality system including full-time auditors and an auditing schedule,
the proposed requirements provide the flexibility for such
individually-developed systems. If, however, a small repair station
with few ratings or limited capabilities requires only internal
management review of its procedures to verify compliance with the
regulations, it will have the flexibility to do so. Whether an internal
evaluation is done by a professional team or by a repair station
manager, the goals are the same: to--
Ensure the repair station's procedures and data comply
with applicable regulatory requirements,
Ensure the procedures are still effective and appropriate
for the work performed,
Ensure the procedures are being followed, and
Verify that the desired level of quality is achieved.
The FAA would further complement the proposed quality system by
including a requirement that all repair stations maintain a suspected
unapproved parts (SUP) program acceptable to the FAA. The FAA has a
program to track SUP. Within the SUP program's parts reporting
database, the FAA tracks parts that have been approved for return to
service but that were subsequently found not to have been maintained in
accordance with the current manufacturer's instructions or other data
approved by the FAA. In a search of the SUP program database, the FAA
found that from October 1998 to May 2004, there were 238 cases
involving repair stations and suspect parts. Of those cases, 219
involved parts that had not been maintained in accordance with the
current manufacturer's instructions or other data approved by the FAA.
Had these parts not been found and replaced by correctly maintained
parts, those 219 cases of unapproved parts potentially could have
resulted in accidents or incidents. It is likely that the more
comprehensive quality system proposed here could have resulted in
finding and correcting the underlying deficiencies before the parts
were approved for return to service. Currently there is no rule
requiring repair stations to participate in FAA's SUP program.
The FAA's existing SUP program was established in 1993 to
coordinate the agency's efforts to minimize safety risks posed by the
entry of ``unapproved'' aircraft parts into the U.S. aviation inventory
and their installation on aircraft. The program, established by FAA
Order 8120.10: (Suspected Unapproved Part Program, September 23, 1993),
provides for the reporting and investigating of suspected unapproved
parts. The SUP office was created in 1995. FAA published guidance for
this program in AC 21-29, Detecting and Reporting Suspected Unapproved
Parts. As a result, most repair stations already maintain a SUP
program. FAA proposes to formalize this current practice by
incorporating it into the rule.
As a matter of practice, the proposed additional quality elements
are already being done by some repair stations. Most repair stations
have incorporated a SUP program in accordance with current guidance for
part 145 repair stations. Repair stations already implementing these
features would incur no new costs. The FAA proposes to formalize a
number of existing practices by making them part of the rule.
Section 145.215 Capability List
Under the current rule, a certificated repair station with a
Limited rating may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations on an article if the article is listed on its current
capability list acceptable to the FAA or on the repair station's
operations specifications. Under the provisions of the current rule,
use of a capability list is optional since repair stations can also
maintain their capabilities on their operations specifications.
However, the FAA finds that a mandatory capability list is
[[Page 70266]]
necessary to maintain safety under the system of ratings proposed in
this notice. The capability list would now be referenced on the
operations specifications under the applicable rating.
The proposed rating system would not provide a separation between
articles, such as large vs. small aircraft, or communication vs.
navigation equipment. In addition, the proposed rating system would be
more general, and new technologies could be encompassed under the
rating system without requiring an amendment to the rule. It is
imperative to maintain a document that identifies the actual
capabilities of a repair station. To accomplish this, all FAA-
certificated repair stations would be required to maintain a capability
list. The FAA further proposes that capability list revisions be
available to the FAA within 30 business days of the revision.
Further, FAA proposes to redesignate paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d)
and (e) respectively and insert a new paragraph (c) to require the
capability list for Avionics- and Component-rated repair stations be
organized by category of article and identify the manufacturer. The
inclusion of the manufacturer on these capability lists is necessary
because, unlike the aircraft or powerplant manufacturers, there are
several manufacturers who produce similar articles, such as radios,
integrated electronic units, pumps, and actuators. Because the rule
requires repair stations to use the data, tools, test apparatus, and
equipment recommended by the manufacturer, it is easy for these items
to differ among manufacturers even though the articles may be similar
in design. Also, since repair stations will be performing self-
evaluations to add items to their capability lists, not identifying the
different data, tools, test apparatus, and equipment among
manufacturers could make it difficult for a repair station to determine
if it indeed has the capability to maintain articles from various
manufacturers.
The FAA would also amend current requirements for a repair station
to perform a self-evaluation by prohibiting a repair station with an
Aircraft or Powerplant rating from performing a self evaluation to add
a different type of aircraft or powerplant to their ratings,
respectively. The FAA did not intend for a repair station to make such
a change to its ratings through the self evaluation process.
Section 145.217 Contract Maintenance
The FAA proposes revisions to this section to provide clarification
of contract maintenance. The proposal would revise the current rule by
removing the requirement in current paragraph (a)(1) that maintenance
functions contracted to all outside sources be approved by the FAA.
Only a maintenance function contracted to an outside source not
certificated under part 145 would have to be approved. A repair station
contracting a maintenance function to a repair station certificated
under part 145 would not have to comply with the proposed requirements
of paragraph (b).
Section 145.223 FAA Inspections
Section 145.223 would be revised to prohibit a repair station from
contracting for the performance of a maintenance function on an article
with a non-FAA-certificated maintenance provider under the terms of an
aviation safety agreement unless the contract specified that the FAA
has the right to inspect and observe the performance of work. If the
article is subject to the airworthiness regulations of another civil
aviation authority the contract must specify that the FAA may inspect
and observe the work on behalf of that civil aviation authority. A
repair station would be prohibited from approving the article for
return to service after the performance of the work unless these
provisions were met.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule contains a
``collection of information'' as that term is defined by OMB at 5 CFR
part 1320. As a result, the FAA proposes to review the currently
approved collection of information (OMB Control Number: 2120-0682).
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Title: Part 145--Repair Stations.
Type of Request: Revision of Currently Approved Collection of
Information.
OMB Control Number: 2120-0682.
Form Number: This collection of information will not use any
standard forms.
Requested Expiration Date of Clearance: At present Control Number
2120-0682 is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2009. The FAA does not
anticipate asking for an extension of this collection.
Summary of the Collection Information
In the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' section of the August 6, 2001
Repair Station Final Rule (66 FR 41112), the FAA discussed the
consequences of its proposed collection of information. Comments were
invited on this proposal. As a result of this proposed rule, the FAA
would amend its description of information in the 2001 final rule as
follows. The final rule estimated the burden hours for a repair
station's quality control manual and capability list requirements. The
paperwork burden in the proposed rule was anticipated in the hours
estimated in the 2001 final rule. This proposed rule would require
repair stations to develop an internal evaluation program and a
reporting system to record and maintain completed evaluations and
corrective action plans. The FAA estimates that a small repair station
would require 300 man-hours initially to establish a quality system. A
large repair station would require 3 man-years initially. We estimate
that the burden for developing the quality evaluation and reporting
program would be less than that required to develop the entire quality
system. Most of the paperwork involved is already part of the overall
quality system. Furthermore, there is not requirement that any of the
quality system reports be submitted to the FAA. The reporting and
retention of evaluation and corrective action plans may be recorded and
maintained electronically or in a format chosen by the individual
repair station.
The FAA estimates that the administrative burden to repair stations
to prepare a capability list would require 4 hours of maintenance
management time plus 4 hours of administrative support personnel time
for small repair stations and corresponding times of 8 hours for large
repair stations.
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 regulations.
Economic Assessment
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal
agency
[[Page 70267]]
to 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. Sec. Sec. 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 also requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4) 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 annually (adjusted for inflation.)
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this rule (1)
would create a safer flying environment and is a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order
12866 and is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures; (2) will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities; (3) will not affect international
trade; and (4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector. These analyses, available
in the docket, are summarized below.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking
The estimated quantifiable net cost of this proposed rule for the
period 2004-2013 is $144.8 million ($108.8 million, discounted) over 10
years. The cost to a small repair station that currently does not have
a quality system is estimated at $34,500 ($25,600 discounted) over 10
years. The cost to the approximately half of the small repair stations
that already have quality systems would be minimal.
This proposal would require repair stations to conduct periodic
internal evaluations that could discover problem areas and to take
corrective actions before improper maintenance, preventive maintenance,
or alterations are done. Such actions would result in both quantifiable
and non-quantifiable benefits. If the rule prevents all the accidents
or incidents that may be associated with repair station failure to take
corrective actions, the potential benefits of the rule (based on the
related accident or incident history) could be as much as $164.7
million ($119.3 million, discounted) over 10 years. However, the FAA
does not claim adoption of the proposed rule would result in the
elimination of all repair station related accidents or incidents.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking
All certificated repair stations would have to develop and follow a
quality system and capability list. The FAA would issue new
certificates to all repair stations to implement the proposed new
rating system.
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of Information
Discount rate--7%
Period of analysis--2004-2013
Monetary values expressed in 2003 dollars
Value of:
fatality avoided--$3 million
serious injury avoided--$580,700
minor injury avoided--$42,900
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Management
Analysis Bulletin dated February 2002 (APO-02-1)
Labor rates:
Table 1.--Personnel Cost Estimates
[2003 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small repair Large repair
Item station Average station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of 1 hour of FAA administrative support personnel time (GS- .............. $19.01 ..............
5, Step 5).\1\.................................................
Value of 1 hour of FAA administrative support personnel time (GS- .............. 23.55 ..............
7, Step 5)\1\..................................................
Value of 1 hour of FAA inspector personnel time (GS-13, Step .............. 49.67 ..............
5)\1\..........................................................
Value of 1 hour of FAA inspector personnel time (GS-14, Step .............. 58.69 ..............
5)\1\..........................................................
Value of 1 hour of Repair Station General Manager time \2\...... $38.96 58.50 90.27
Value of 1 hour of Repair Station 1st Line Supervisor time \2\.. 25.56 33.25 42.22
Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Mechanic and Service 20.25 24.95 30.59
Technicians time \2\...........................................
Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Office Manager time \2\....... 16.20 21.07 27.50
Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Accounting Clerk time \2\..... 15.12 18.93 23.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2003 General Schedule Locality Rates of Pay for Washington-Baltimore
hourly rate multiplied by 1.3245 for benefits. Benefit value from Table 4-5 U.S. DOT, FAA Office of Policy and
Plans, Economic Analysis of Investment and Regulatory Decision--A Guide (FAA-APO-98-4: January 1996).
\2\ U.S. Dept. of Labor 2001 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates--SIC 372--
Aircraft and Parts median hourly rate multiplied by 1.2345 for benefits and by 1.0239 for inflation. ``Small''
and ``Large'' calculated by multiplying the 25th and 75th percentiles for total occupational title to average
SIC 372 salary for that occupation. Benefit value from Table 4-5 FAA-APO-98-4.
Aircraft Values:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft type Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population weighted replacement cost for Part 91, 133, $582,030
and 137 aircraft.......................................
Population weighted restoration cost for Part 91, 133, 148,295
and 137 aircraft.......................................
Population weighted replacement cost for Part 135 741,475
aircraft...............................................
Population weighted restoration cost for Part 135 159,445
aircraft...............................................
Population weighted restoration cost for Scheduled Part 2,453,000
121 aircraft...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost is based on FAA, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans,
Economic Values for Evaluation of FAA Investment and Regulatory
Programs (FAA-APO-98-8: June 1998) pages E-4, E-5 adjusted to 2003
cost using the PPI change of 11.5%.
Other References:
[[Page 70268]]
ARAC for Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance: ``A Report on
requiring a Quality Assurance System in Part 145 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations'' May 2002
ARAC for Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance: A Report on
proposed rule changes to Sections 145.31 and 145.33 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations'' May 2002
Alternatives We Considered
New rating systems and a quality assurance program had been
proposed in NPRM No. 99-09. The 2001 Final Rule did not include either
proposal since the FAA received a significant number of comments
opposing the proposals. FAA tasked ARAC to address these two issues.
ARAC, after reviewing various alternatives, sent its technical reports
and recommendations to FAA. The FAA is making this proposal based on
recommendations from ARAC, and comments received from the public.
Benefits of This Rulemaking
The additional management oversight and follow-up required by this
proposed rule has potential benefits. These potential benefits include
fostering an operating environment of constant awareness of potential
sources of failure in repair processes and correction of deficient
process controls. This awareness and corrective action could preclude
in-flight failures and the possibility of accidents.
An analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data
from July 1997 through June 2003 indicated there were 1,762 accidents
coded by the NTSB in the ``narrative'' or ``probable cause'' sections
containing the word ``maintenance.'' The FAA determined that of these
1,762 accidents, there were 58 over the six-year period that can be
interpreted to mean a repair station accomplished the maintenance that
may have caused or contributed to the accident. These 58 accidents
resulted in a total of 19 fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and 27 minor
injuries. 43 aircraft sustained substantial damage and 15 aircraft were
destroyed. The average was used to estimate the potential values. In
total, the FAA calculates the potential value of preventing all
accidents that can be interpreted to mean a repair station accomplished
the maintenance could be as high as $146.3 million, or $102.8 million
discounted, over 10 years.
Preventing Airworthiness Directives (ADs) that are issued to
correct improper maintenance done on aircraft parts is another area
where a quality system would be of benefit. Some ADs are issued to
correct an improper repair of a product if the improper repair was
performed, or was likely to have been performed, on multiple units of
the same product. The FAA reviewed four AD cases attributable to repair
station related quality problems that may have been prevented by a
quality system. The total estimated cost to U.S. operators of these ADs
is $18.4 million or $16.5 million, discounted. More importantly, if a
quality system had been in place, internal evaluations could have
revealed the deficient process controls. The improper repair process
could have been corrected immediately and prevented possible in-flight
mechanical failures and the resulting consequences.
The potential discounted quantitative benefits of the rule could be
as high as $119.3 million, if the rule were 100 percent effective in
eliminating accidents that can be interpreted to mean a repair station
accomplished the maintenance (at $102.8 million) and preventing AD
cases attributable to repair station related quality problems
(estimated to cost U.S. operators $16.5 million). However, it is
unreasonable to assume the rule would eliminate all accidents or
incidents that may be associated with repair station activity. Also,
the FAA cannot determine at this time what portion of those accidents
or incidents would be eliminated as a result of this rulemaking.
Therefore, the FAA cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking.
There would also be unquantified benefits. The proposed rating
system and capability list would allow repair stations to incorporate
future technological advancements in the aviation industry on its
capability list as provided by Sec. 145.215. Additionally, it would
provide the FAA with the tools necessary for uniform interpretation and
enforcement of the requirements. Experience in other industries has
shown that the establishment of a quality system could lead to cost
savings and reductions in errors and customer complaints.
Costs of This Rulemaking
From 2004 to 2013, the total cost of the proposed rule would be
approximately $145.0 million before cost-savings of $0.2 million giving
a net cost of $144.8 million ($108.8 million, discounted). The repair
station industry would incur net costs of $136.6 million ($101.2
million, discounted) and the FAA would incur costs of $8.2 million
($7.6 million, discounted). The costs associated with the quality
assurance program account for over 90 percent of the total costs of the
proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
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 agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In many cases, the Small Business Administration suggests that
``small'' represents the impacted entities based on annual revenue. For
this proposed rule, a small entity is defined as ``Other Support
Activities for Air Transportation'' (North American Industrial
Classification System 488190) with revenues of $6 million or less.
Revenue data compiled by Dun and Bradstreet indicates that some 2,354-
repair stations have revenues of $6 million or less and that the
average revenue per small entity is $1,272,500. The initial cost per
small repair station to implement the quality system is estimated at
$8,700 and this cost would not be incurred by approximately half of the
small repair stations that already have voluntarily implemented quality
systems. However, these repair stations would incur some additional
minimal costs to comply with the proposed requirement. In addition, a
small repair station would incur administrative costs of $490 to comply
with the rating system and the capability list requirements. The $490
consists of $325 for rating system costs, and $165 to prepare a
capability list. The total initial cost for a small repair station
without a quality system is $9,200 ($8,700 + $490) or approximately
seven-tenths of one percent of the average small repair station's
annual revenue. The annual cost for a small repair station to maintain
the quality system is estimated at $2,900. The FAA does not find the
costs associated with this proposal to be a significant burden.
The FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA seeks public comments regarding this finding and requests that
all comments be accompanied with detailed supporting data.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements 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
[[Page 70269]]
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
The proposed rule is not expected to affect trade opportunities for
U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business
in the United States. Furthermore, the proposed rule is consistent with
the terms of several trade agreements to which the United States is a
signatory, such as the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et
seq.), incorporating the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (31
U.S.T. 619) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
(Standards) (19 U.S.C. 2531), as well as the General Agreement on Trade
in Services (19 U.S.C. 3511). The proposed revision to part 145 is also
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 40415, formerly 1102(a) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, which requires the FAA to exercise
and perform its powers and duties consistently with any obligation
assumed by the United States in any agreement that may be in force
between the United States and any foreign country or countries.
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.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted valued of $120.7 million in lieu of $100
million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
Executive Order 3132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed 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.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312(d) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the notice has been assessed 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
that the proposed rule is not a major regulatory action under the
provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 145
Air carriers, Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Recordkeeping and reporting, Safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Part 145 of Chapter I of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 145--REPAIR STATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 145 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709,
44717.
2. Revise Sec. 145.51(a) and (b) and add new paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 145.51 Application for certificate.
(a) An application for a repair station certificate and rating must
be made in a format acceptable to the FAA and include the following:
(1) A Letter of Compliance detailing how the applicant will comply
with this chapter;
(2) A repair station manual acceptable to the FAA as required by
Sec. 145.207;
(3) A quality system manual acceptable to the FAA as required by
Sec. 145.211(d);
(4) A list by manufacturer, type, make, model, or category, as
appropriate, of each article for which the application is made;
(5) An organizational chart of the repair station and the names and
titles of managing and supervisory personnel;
(6) A description of the housing and facilities, including the
physical address, in accordance with Sec. 145.103;
(7) A list of the maintenance functions, for approval by the FAA,
to be performed for the repair station under contract by another person
in accordance with Sec. 145.217; and
(8) A training program for approval by the FAA in accordance with
Sec. 145.163.
(b) The equipment, tools, test apparatus, personnel, data, housing,
and facilities required for the certificate and rating, or for an
additional rating, must be in place for inspection at the time of
certification or rating approval by the FAA. However, the requirement
to have the equipment, tools, and test apparatus in place at the time
of initial certification or rating approval may be met if the applicant
has a contract acceptable to the FAA with another person to make the
equipment, tools, and test apparatus available to the repair station at
any time it is necessary when the relevant work is being performed. * *
* * *
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, neither the holder of a
repair station certificate that has been revoked, nor any person who
had a substantial ownership interest or substantial control over the
operations of a repair station that has had its certificate revoked and
who materially contributed to the circumstances causing the revocation,
may apply for a repair station certificate until one year after the
date the certificate is surrendered to the FAA pursuant to the order of
revocation.
3. Revise Sec. 145.53 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.53 Issuance of certificate.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a person
who meets the requirements of this part is entitled to a repair station
certificate with appropriate ratings prescribing such operations
specifications and limitations as are necessary in the interest of
safety.
(b) If the person is located in a country with which the United
States has a bilateral aviation safety agreement, the FAA may find that
the person meets the requirements of this part based on a certification
from the civil aviation authority of that country or an authority
acceptable to the FAA. This certification must be made in accordance
with implementation procedures signed by the Administrator or the
Administrator's designee.
(c) An application for a repair station certificate may be denied
if the FAA finds that:
(1) The applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements for
the certificate sought, or does not complete the certification process;
[[Page 70270]]
(2) The applicant previously held a repair station certificate that
was revoked;
(3) The applicant intends to fill or fills a key management
position, including the position of accountable manager or chief
inspector, with an individual who exercised control over or who held
the same or a similar position with a repair station whose certificate
was revoked, or was in the process of being revoked, and that
individual materially contributed to the circumstances causing the
revocation or causing the revocation process;
(4) The applicant held a key management position, including the
position of accountable manager or chief inspector, with a repair
station whose certificate was revoked, or was in the process of being
revoked, and the applicant materially contributed to the circumstances
causing the revocation or causing the revocation process; or
(5) An individual who will have control over or substantial
ownership interest in the applicant had the same or similar control or
interest in a repair station whose certificate was revoked, or was in
the process of being revoked, and that individual materially
contributed to the circumstances causing revocation or causing the
revocation process.
4. Revise Sec. 145.59 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.59 Ratings.
The following ratings are issued under this subpart:
(a) Aircraft rating. (1) A certificated repair station with an
Aircraft rating listed on its operations specifications may perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on complete
aircraft that are listed on the repair station's capability list
required by Sec. 145.215.
(2) A certificated repair station with an Aircraft rating may not
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on those
articles for which a Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating is
required, unless the repair station possesses the appropriate rating.
(3) A certificated repair station with an Aircraft rating is not
required to obtain a separate Component rating to maintain articles
associated with its rating and capabilities.
(b) Powerplant rating. (1) A certificated repair station with a
Powerplant rating listed on its operations specifications may perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on a powerplant
listed on the repair station's capability list required by Sec.
145.215 under the following class ratings:
(i) Class 1: Reciprocating engines.
(ii) Class 2: Turbine engines.
(iii) Class 3: Auxiliary Power Units (APU).
(2) A certificated repair station with a Powerplant rating may not
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on those
articles associated with another rating, unless the repair station
possesses the appropriate rating.
(3) A certificated repair station with a Powerplant rating is not
required to obtain a separate Component rating to maintain articles
associated with its rating and capabilities.
(c) Propeller rating. (1) A certificated repair station with a
Propeller rating listed on its operations specifications may perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on propellers that
are listed on the repair station's capability list required by Sec.
145.215, including individual component parts that are installed on or
in those propellers.
(2) A certificated repair station with a Propeller rating may not
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on those
articles associated with another rating, unless the repair station
possesses the appropriate rating.
(3) A certificated repair station with a Propeller rating is not
required to obtain a separate Component rating to maintain articles
associated with its rating and capabilities.
(d) Avionics rating. (1) A certificated repair station with an
Avionics rating listed on its operations specifications may perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on aircraft
electrical and electronic systems and components, instruments, radios,
integrated modular systems, in-flight entertainment units, or other
electrical and electronic articles that are listed on the repair
station's capability list required by Sec. 145.215.
(2) A certificated repair station with an Avionics rating may
remove and reinstall access panels, brackets, or clamps in accordance
with the applicable maintenance instructions on aircraft, powerplants,
or propellers, as needed, to gain access to those articles authorized
in Sec. 145.59 (d)(1).
(3) A certificated repair station with an Avionics rating may
remove, replace, install, and test the avionics equipment on an
aircraft.
(4) A certificated repair station with an Avionics rating must have
a limitation in accordance with Sec. 145.61 to an Aircraft,
Powerplant, or Propeller rating to perform a major or minor alteration.
(e) Component rating. (1) A certificated repair station with a
Component rating listed on its operations specifications may perform
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on articles listed
on the repair station's capability list required by Sec. 145.215 that
are not installed on an aircraft, powerplant, propeller, or avionics
article.
(2) A certificated repair station with a Component rating must have
a limitation in accordance with Sec. 145.61 to an Aircraft,
Powerplant, or Propeller rating to remove or install articles on those
products.
5. Revise Sec. 145.61 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.61 Limitations to ratings.
(a) The FAA may issue limitations to the ratings of a certificated
repair station that maintains or alters only a particular type of
aircraft, powerplant, propeller, avionics, component, or part thereof,
that is listed on the repair station's capability list required by
Sec. 145.215. A limitation to a rating may be issued for a:
(1) Specific make and model aircraft, powerplant, or propeller.
(2) Constituent part of any part.
(3) Specific maintenance function or process.
(b) The repair station's operations specifications must identify
the rating in Sec. 145.59 to which the limitation applies and the
limitation to that rating must describe the maintenance capabilities of
the repair station in sufficient detail.
6. Add Sec. 145.63 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.63 Specialized Service ratings.
(a) The FAA