FAA proposes rewrite of repair station rulebook

This summer, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise 14 CFR Part 145, the regulation governing aviation repair stations. The rewrite continues the process that began in 2006; after reviewing the comments received to its earlier proposal, the FAA withdrew it in 2009 to better address industry concerns, especially regarding the proposed ratings system and capabilities list.

As an organization devoted solely to serving certificated maintenance facilities, the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) has been analyzing the proposed rule to gauge its potential impact. From the mundane (yet highly annoying) renumbering of the regulation to the substantive new rating system and its provision for establishing capability lists. The suggested rewrite would again change the regulatory environment for repair stations.

The FAA is seeking to clarify the requirement that a repair station perform work in accordance with the air carrier’s maintenance instructions. It would also make other adjustments to personnel, inspection, recordkeeping and housing requirements in an attempt to clarify several instances of confusing language in the current rules.

These proposals take study to understand the pros and cons, as well as any unintended consequences. The new rating system and its measure-establishing capability lists require thorough review to ensure the agency has established an easily understandable method for knowing the type of work performed by each repair station.

Among other things, the NPRM preamble asserts that the proposed rule would —

• Add sections to define operations specifications, provide procedures for initiating changes to operations specifications, and clarify that repair station operations specifications are not part of the repair station certificate
   
• Require that the FAA “accept” a certificate for surrender (otherwise, the certificate would remain effective for administrative and enforcement purposes, even if the certificate holder ceased operations)
   
• Require that applicants have equipment in place and available for inspection during the certification process (currently, the repair station can meet the equipment requirement by having a contract ensuring the equipment is available when the relevant work is performed)
   
• Require both “suitable and permanent” housing and provide an exception to facilitate repair stations with a limitation to perform line maintenance for air carriers
   
• Define capability list requirements, institute new processes for adding articles to the capability list, and require repair stations with a capability list to review it at least every two years
   
• Revise the definition of line maintenance (according to the NPRM’s preamble, the new definition would reinforce that line maintenance is performed for air carriers; is generally performed at the ramp, parking area or gate; and typically does not exceed 24 continuous hours per aircraft)
   
• Add a section prohibiting fraudulent or intentionally false entries in repair station records or the fraudulent reproduction or alteration of records or reports
   
• Allow a repair station to use multiple fixed locations if appropriate criteria are met
   
• Allow a satellite repair station to hold a rating not held by the certificated repair station with managerial control
   
• Require a satellite repair station to submit the same repair station manuals as the repair station with managerial control, and identify any processes or procedures unique to the satellite
   
• Require supervisory personnel, inspection personnel, and personnel authorized to approve an article for return to service to understand, read, write and speak English
   
• Require that the repair station roster include the types of maintenance performed in past positions for each employee listed
   
• Require human factors and Part 145 regulatory training

As is plain from reading this list, the proposed changes will create a new regulatory regime, the consequences of which should raise serious concern in an industry as heavily regulated as aviation.

To help address these concerns and aid the industry’s transition, the FAA proposes retaining the current regulations (with revisions to accommodate the transition) appended with the proposed regulations for 24 months after the effective date. New applicants or those that apply for a certificate change after the effective date must comply with the new rule while repair stations already certificated would have 24 months to show compliance.

ARSA’s initial analysis indicates that the agency is complicating a rule at a time that simplification would enhance the FAA’s compliance and enforcement program. An example is the FAA’s reasoning that since everyone is providing it a “letter of compliance,” it should be part of the regulation. The agency has apparently forgotten that it specifically removed that requirement during the last rulemaking, but failed to remove the “requirement” for the letter from its “guidance” documents. Therefore, inspectors “required” the letter even though the regulation did not; hence, applicants “always” provided the document. ARSA neither appreciates nor accepts hypocritical reasoning; it will again protest the “requirement” for another piece of paper merely because “it has always been done that way.”

Additionally, ARSA proposes removal of operations specifications from the air agency certificate, making them a separate “requirement” because there has been confusion over their use. The confusion arose when the FAA automated the operations specifications for Part 145. The people that created the automated system were only familiar with Part 121 operations specifications that are specifically not part of the airline’s certificate. Adding a burden to small repair stations because the agency misunderstood its own longstanding rule is not a justifiable reason to change the requirement. Ultimately, having the operations specifications separate from the certificate allows regulation by policy, a position in which the air carriers have been for years. ARSA opposes this change strongly.

On the positive side, the proposed rating system has simplified the method for issuing the original rating, but the capability list must be carefully studied to ensure it is flexible without being burdensome to either the agency or the industry.

ARSA methodically reviews proposed regulations to ensure nuances are addressed in its comments. Having completed an initial review of the changes, ARSA is now combing through the proposed rule to ensure its comments recommend a consistent and common-sense approach that would benefit both industry and aviation safety.

After completing this analysis, ARSA will file its comments with the agency. ARSA encourages everyone affected by the new rule to submit their own suggestions. Comments are due Nov. 19, 2012.

To aid in comments, ARSA has posted a side-by-side comparison of the old and new rules at www.arsa.org/files2/ARSA-145NPRMAnalysis-20120607.pdf, as well as a redlined version of the regulatory change at www.arsa.org/files2/ARSA-145NPRMRedline-20120607.pdf.

Sarah MacLeod is ARSA’s executive director and one of its founders. She is a managing member at the law firm of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod and Klein, and is engaged in the legal representation of foreign and domestic air carriers, aircraft maintenance and alteration facilities, distributors, pilots, and other individuals and companies in federal court and before federal administrative bodies. She also serves as assistant chair for Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance of the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, a post she has held since 1996. A globally-recognized expert in aviation regulatory compliance, MacLeod is a sought-after speaker and has appeared a numerous aviation and MRO events. She is admitted to the bar in Virginia.