[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 87 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21287-21290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10638]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 145

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26408]
RIN 2120-AI53


Repair Stations; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a previously published NPRM that 
proposed to revise the system of ratings and require repair stations to 
establish a quality program. The NPRM also proposed to require each 
repair station to maintain a capability list, designate a chief 
inspector, and have permanent housing for facilities, equipment, 
materials, and personnel. The proposal would have specified additional 
instances where the FAA may deny a repair station certificate, and 
clarified some existing repair station regulations.

[[Page 21288]]

We are withdrawing the NPRM because we have determined that it does not 
adequately address the current repair station environment, and because 
of the significant issues commenters raised.

DATES: The proposed rule published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 70254), 
is withdrawn as of May 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George W. Bean, Repair Station Branch, 
AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 955 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 
Washington, DC 20024; telephone 202-385-6405; facsimile (202) 385-6474, 
e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In 1989, the FAA held four public meetings to provide a forum for 
the public to comment on possible revisions to the rules governing 
repair stations.
    After considering the comments and data collected from these 
meetings, the FAA published the Repair Stations notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in June 1999.\1\ Subsequently, in August 2001, the 
FAA published the Repair Stations; final rule with request for comments 
and direct final rule with request for comments; final rule.\2\ The FAA 
requested comments on the paperwork burden and on removing appendix A 
\3\ from part 145, which the FAA had not originally proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 64 FR 33142; June 21, 1999.
    \2\ 66 FR 41088; August 6, 2001.
    \3\ This Appendix set forth job functions and equipment 
requirements for repair stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 19, 2001, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC) to address ratings and quality assurance for 
repair stations.\4\ ARAC provided its recommendations in May 2002.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 66 FR 53281; October 19, 2001.
    \5\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/arac/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2006, the FAA published the NPRM entitled Repair 
Stations \6\ that considered ARAC's recommendations. The comment period 
closed on March 1, 2007. However, the FAA received a request from the 
Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) to extend the comment 
period. In a notice published in the Federal Register on February 27, 
2007, the FAA granted a 45-day comment period extension to April 16, 
2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 71 FR 70254; December 1, 2006.
    \7\ 72 FR 8641; February 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 1, 2006 NPRM, applicable to repair station operators 
and applicants, proposed the following changes to part 145:
     Repair stations would establish and maintain a capability 
list of all articles for which they are rated. The list would identify 
each article by manufacturer and the type, make, model, category or 
other nomenclature designated by the article's manufacturer. Repair 
stations with an Avionics or a Component rating would be required to 
organize their lists by category of the article.
     The FAA would revise the ratings and classes that may be 
issued to a certificated repair station. The proposed amendments 
included ones that would discontinue the issuance of limited ratings, 
and instead allow issuance of limitations to the rating the 
certificated repair station holds.
     The FAA would require repair stations to establish a 
quality system that includes an internal evaluation system that reviews 
the complete repair station once a year.
     Applicants for a repair station certificate would include 
a letter of compliance as part of their application.
     A certificate holder would be required to provide 
permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and 
personnel.
     Certificate holders would be required to designate a chief 
inspector.
     The FAA would use certification from an authority 
``acceptable to the FAA'' as a basis for issuing a certificate to a 
person located outside the United States.
     The FAA would identify reasons it could use to deny the 
issuance of a repair station certificate.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received more than 500 comments to the NPRM. While there 
was general support for the need to revise the repair station rules, 
several commenters asked us to withdraw the rule. Many other commenters 
expressed concerns related to ratings (particularly avionics rating), 
capability list, quality system, letter of compliance, chief inspector, 
housing and facilities, the FAA's denial of a repair station 
certificate, and some were out of scope.

Requests To Withdraw the NPRM

    The ARSA, Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), AGC Incorporated, 
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Temple Electronics Company, and Lynden Air Cargo 
recommended withdrawal of the rule. While ARSA commended the FAA for 
attempting to clarify and simplify the rating system, it suggested the 
FAA issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that considers 
the comments to the NPRM. The other commenters recommended withdrawal 
because there has been too much regulation of repair stations within 
the past few years.

Oversight and Inconsistent Application

    Comments received from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, and Transportation Trades 
Department generally support the proposal. The unions did argue, 
however, that the agency did not go far enough in certain areas 
involving oversight and surveillance. While the issues they raised were 
outside the scope of the proposal, various legislative proposals under 
consideration by the Congress may address these issues in the future.

Ratings

    Several commenters, including Southern Avionics & Communications, 
Executive AutoPilots, Inc., Genesis Aviation, Aircom Avionics, American 
Airlines, Turbine Weld, Inc., and others, expressed general disapproval 
of the proposed rating system.
    Spirit Avionics, Ltd., believes to combine the proposed new 
avionics rating with current market forces will negatively affect the 
ability of avionics-only repair stations to remain viable. The 
commenter said the NPRM does not recognize that avionics service 
facilities are transitioning to flight line repairs and avionics 
upgrades as main sources of revenue. The commenter also said the NPRM 
does not recognize that avionics repair stations' ability to perform 
such services are based primarily on the avionics equipment onboard the 
aircraft rather than on the type, make, or model of the aircraft.
    Midcoast Aviation said while it believes including electrical 
equipment as part of an avionics rating to be appropriate, it does not 
see legitimacy in removing those [electrical] systems/components from 
the aircraft or powerplant rating.
    Goodrich Aviation Technical Services said the proposed rule does 
not adequately define the type of work required for the avionics 
rating. It said a repair station with an aircraft, powerplant, or 
propeller rating should not be required to obtain a separate avionics 
rating to maintain articles associated with its ratings and 
capabilities. Midcoast Aviation commented similarly.
    Spirit Avionics, Ltd., and Griffin Avionics, Inc., commented the 
change from an airframe to an aircraft rating is ambiguous and 
completely unnecessary. These commenters argued that this change is 
unwarranted and would result in dramatic increases in administrative 
costs, without improving aircraft maintenance safety or capability.
    ARSA said since all ratings would require a capabilities list under 
the

[[Page 21289]]

proposal, there does not appear to be a need for class ratings. It also 
said it does not agree with the limitations of some of the ratings or 
the proposed requirement for capabilities listing. Other commenters 
expressed a similar disagreement with the limitations and privileges of 
some ratings, stating the limitations do not appear consistent.

Capability List

    Eighteen commenters, including Chromalloy Connecticut, Southern 
Avionics and Communication, Avionics Shop, Inc., Turbine Weld, Inc., 
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, National Air Transportation 
Association (NATA), and others, stated strong opposition to the 
proposed capability list requirement. These commenters expressed 
concern that the proposed requirement would cause chaos and bankruptcy. 
They said such requirements are not justified, are unnecessary, are 
irrelevant, and are economically punitive, without offering further 
safety benefits.
    Boeing believes the capability list would require a significant 
amount of administrative resources to be kept current and would require 
excessive amounts of information to be documented and tracked, 
particularly for larger repair stations. Boeing sees minimal to no 
safety benefits from these proposed requirements.
    Airbus believes the requirement for a capability list is implicitly 
included in Sec.  145.211. While it fully understands the need for a 
standardized format for such a list, the details as proposed in Sec.  
145.215 seem to go beyond a practical documentation under an approved 
system.
    A number of commenters, including United Airlines, Turbine Weld, 
Inc., Griffin Avionics, Inc., AEA, and Temple Electronics Company 
object to the proposed capability list because it could require having 
several hundred types of ratings attached to a single repair station 
aircraft rating.

Quality System

    ARSA commented that the majority of repair stations have not 
instituted quality assurance systems and most do not use computers. 
Therefore, reviewing, changing, and maintaining the proposed quality 
system would be expensive. Also, ARSA said repair stations cannot be 
held responsible for compliance with all part 145 regulations. But, can 
be held accountable only for ensuring compliance with those 
requirements under their specific responsibility and control.
    AEA and Temple Electronics Company believe the stated benefit of 
the quality system requirements is based on ``false premises'' because 
the FAA cited different cost-benefit estimates in prior repair station 
rules. They commented that the FAA removed the quality assurance 
requirements proposed in the 1999 NPRM from the subsequent 2001 final 
rule because the requirements were overly burdensome and not cost 
effective. The commenters further said that, despite removal of these 
requirements from the 2001 final rule, the FAA introduced similar 
requirements in the 2006 NPRM, without taking time to assess whether 
the prior rule had proven successful.
    Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Weld Avionics, Inc., Southern Avionics & 
Communications, Executive AutoPilots, Inc., Vero Beach Avionics, Inc., 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and two individual commenters 
said if a repair station properly performs maintenance according to 
FAA-approved processes, maintaining a Quality Assurance System would be 
extremely burdensome and would have little merit.

Letter of Compliance

    ARSA, AEA, Temple Electronics Company, and Aeropro, Inc., said a 
mandatory Letter of Compliance would be burdensome, unnecessary, and 
redundant. AEA said the letter is a carryover from the period when the 
repair station manual was simply a statement of commitment to comply 
with the regulations. Aeropro, Inc., commented that because something 
has been a long standing practice is not sufficient reason to include 
it as a mandatory provision in the rule. It said including language 
similar to that in Sec.  119.35, for certificate applications, would be 
more appropriate.

Chief Inspector

    ARSA asked the FAA to withdraw the proposed requirement for a chief 
inspector, unless the agency can provide a specific definition of the 
position and justify the position's expenses against an increase in 
safety. Similarly, Aerospace Industries Association of America 
commented that its member companies cannot support the proposed 
requirement to create a chief inspector post in every repair station. 
The NPRM does not clearly define the functional responsibilities, 
accountability, and authority of the position, nor are the benefits of 
having such a position clearly defined.
    Several other commenters, including Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 
Boeing, TCI Inc., Aeropro, Inc., British Airways, Vero Beach Avionics, 
Inc., Marshall Aerospace, and several individual commenters expressed 
support for the above sentiments.

Housing and Facilities

    The NATA, Midcoast Aviation, and Spirit Avionics, Ltd., said if the 
aircraft and personnel are protected during the repair or maintenance 
process, there is no need to build or lease an expensive hangar, which 
may prove to be financially unsound.
    United Airlines and Islip Avionics, Inc., disagreed with the 
proposed permanent housing provision. They said they disagreed because 
not all repair or maintenance work requires a fully enclosed facility 
as some operations can be performed at the maintenance terminal, 
instead of at the hangar. Also, they said that some repair stations are 
located at airports that are publicly owned.
    General Electric Company, Aviation Services, Boeing, and Aerospace 
Industries commented that repair stations holding aircraft ratings with 
limitations must not be subject to the undue burden of obtaining 
permanent housing. These commenters said the housing requirements 
should be in line with the appropriate ratings limitations.

Denial of a Repair Station Certificate

    Aviation Services, Inc., (ASI) does not agree that a person who has 
had a repair station certificate revoked and met the other applicable 
conditions should be permanently ineligible for issuance of a repair 
station certificate, as proposed in Sec.  145.53. ASI expressed concern 
that the primary basis for the FAA's proposed permanent revocation is 
based on one incident that ASI believes is not representative. It said 
if a permanent revocation is appropriate, it should apply only to 
repair stations that perform work for persons who operate under parts 
121 and 135.
    Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), AEA, Temple Electronics 
Company, and Aeropro, Inc., believe proposed Sec.  145.53(c) would 
apply overly severe punishment. AEA and Temple Electronics Company 
suggested that any revocation should be bound by some time frame and 
should be included as part of the enforcement action that revoked the 
certificate.
    An individual commenter said, while the rule punishes inappropriate 
behavior, it does little to positively reinforce the safety culture 
created and sustained by top management.

Reason for Withdrawal

    We are withdrawing the December 2006 Repair Station NPRM because it 
does not adequately address the current

[[Page 21290]]

repair station operating environment. Also, we are withdrawing it 
because of the many significant issues commenters to the NPRM raised, 
which the FAA needs to consider in developing a better proposal.
    The current NPRM is based on recommendations developed in 2001 by 
ARAC. At that time, air carriers performed the majority of their 
maintenance work in-house. Since then, air carriers have increasingly 
contracted their maintenance. According to an analysis by the Office of 
Inspector General in 2003, the nine major air carriers were contracting 
34 percent of their heavy airframe maintenance checks to repair 
stations. By 2007, this figure had increased to 71 percent.\8\ The NPRM 
as written does not address this changing operational dynamic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Air Carriers' Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, OIG 
Report Number: AV-2008-090, September 30, 2008--http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments to the NPRM, many small repair station operators 
said the proposal takes a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. This 
approach, they argue, does not adequately address the operational 
differences between large and small repair stations. As a result, the 
commenters said, the NPRM would place a substantial economic and 
administrative burden on their operations.
    Many commenters, as noted in the Discussion of Comments section of 
this document, argued against adopting key portions of the NPRM for a 
variety of reasons. Several commenters asked us to withdraw the NPRM in 
its entirety. For the reasons we have discussed, we believe the best 
course of action is to withdraw the NPRM. Withdrawal will give us time 
to thoroughly review and properly address the substantial changes in 
the repair station operating environment and the many issues raised by 
commenters.

Conclusion

    Withdrawal of the December 1, 2006, Repair Stations; Proposed Rule 
does not preclude the FAA from issuing another proposal on the subject. 
In fact, we have initiated rulemaking to update and revise the 
regulations for repair stations to more fully address the significant 
changes in the repair station business model. The new proposed rule 
will address concerns from the 2006 NPRM, as well as other issues 
related to bringing the repair station regulations up-to-date with 
industry practice. The public will be provided the opportunity for 
public comment on this rulemaking through the NPRM process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2009.
Chester D. Dalbey,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-10638 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P