TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
LOCAL 562
[Federal Register: August 6, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 151)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41087-41124]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au01-31]
[[Page 41087]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 91 et al.
Final Rule With Request for Comments and Direct Final Rule With Request
for Comments; Final Rule
[[Page 41088]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 135, and 145
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5836; Amendment Nos. 91-269, 121-286, 135-82,
145-27, and SFAR 36-7]
RIN 2120-AC38
Repair Stations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule with request for comments and direct final rule with
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule updates and revises the regulations for repair
stations. This action is necessary because many of the current repair
station regulations do not reflect changes in repair station business
practices and aircraft maintenance practices. The rule reorganizes the
requirements applicable to repair stations to reduce duplication of
regulatory language and eliminate obsolete information. In addition,
the rule establishes new definitions applicable to repair stations and
updates requirements relating to repair station certification; housing,
facilities, equipment, materials, and data; personnel; and operations.
The rule also eliminates, where practicable, distinctions between
repair stations based on geographical location. This final rule does
not adopt the proposed revised repair station ratings and quality
assurance system; these proposals will be addressed in a subsequent
rulemaking action. Finally this direct final rule removes the appendix
to the repair station regulations that sets forth the job functions and
equipment requirements for repair stations.
DATES: This rule is effective April 6, 2003, with the following
exceptions: Sec. 145.163 which is effective April 6, 2005, and the
removal of Appendix A to part 145 which is effective April 6, 2003,
unless adverse comments are received by October 5, 2001. Comments on
the information collection requirements must be submitted on or before
October 5, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
1999-5836 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the
FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://
dms.dot.gov . You may review the public docket containing comments to
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana L. Frohn, Aircraft Maintenance
Division, Air Carrier Maintenance Branch, AFS-330, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 493-4941; facsimile (202) 267-5115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direct Final Rule Procedure
The FAA anticipates that the removal of appendix A to part 145 will
not result in adverse or negative comments; therefore the FAA is
removing appendix A as a direct final rule. Comments received in
response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 99-09 generally opposed
appendix A. Many commenters noted that the appendix is outdated.
Commenters questioned the FAA's ability to keep any such listing
current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received
within the comment period, the removal of appendix A will become
effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment
period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register
indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and
confirming the date on which the direct final rule will become
effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an
adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such
a comment, a document withdrawing the removal of appendix A will be
published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking
may be published with a new comment period.
Comments Invited
An opportunity for comment on the information collection
requirements of this rule was not provided during the notice of
proposed rulemaking stage. Therefore, a 60-day comment period is
attached to this final rule.
Also, we have removed appendix A from part 145. Because we did not
propose to remove appendix A, we seek comments on its removal.
Generally, the final rule accomplishes the purpose of appendix A
without restricting a repair station's ability to adapt future
technologies. The reasons for removing appendix A are explained in
greater detail in the section-by-section discussion of requirements
withdrawn from the proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or
arguments regarding the information collection requirements and the
removal of appendix A as they may desire. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory
docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the FAA before the effective date of the direct final
rule. Comments filed late will be considered as far as possible without
incurring expense or delay.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this document must include a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-1999-5836.'' The postcard will be
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/
search).
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this document. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the
Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/
aces140.html.
[[Page 41089]]
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find
out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/
arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at 9-AWA-
SBREFA@faa.gov.
Background
Very few substantive changes have been made to the regulations
applicable to repair stations since they were recodified in Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) (27 FR 6662, July 13, 1962).
Portions of 14 CFR part 145 are no longer appropriate or have become
increasingly difficult to administer. Other portions of the rule no
longer make a significant contribution to aviation safety or do not
warrant the associated administrative costs. In addition, the FAA has
granted exemptions and created other special administrative procedures
to handle situations not provided for adequately in the regulations. To
ensure the regulations are appropriate for today's repair station
industry, the FAA determined that part 145 should be revised.
In 1975, the FAA and industry participants in the FAA's First
Biennial Operations Review recommended that specific and substantial
requirements of part 145 be revised. Although minor amendments to part
145 were subsequently adopted, no major revision was made. However, a
significant amendment to part 145 was adopted on November 22, 1988
(Amendment No. 145-21, 53 FR 47362), that expanded the scope of work
foreign repair stations (that is, those U.S.-certificated repair
stations located outside the United States) are authorized to perform.
The amendment also permitted certain repair stations to contract
maintenance functions to noncertificated organizations/facilities under
specific conditions.
As part of a regulatory review of 14 CFR part 43; 14 CFR part 65,
subpart E; and part 145, the FAA held four public meetings in 1989 (54
FR 30866; July 24, 1989). The meetings were held in Washington, D.C.;
Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Dallas, Texas; and San Francisco, California.
These meetings provided a forum for the public to offer comments
concerning the possible revision of the rules governing repair
stations. More than 500 representatives of repair stations, airlines,
unions, manufacturers, foreign governments, and industry organizations,
and individuals attended the meetings. The goal of the meetings was to
gather enough factual information from the public to determine whether
the repair station regulations should be revised and, if so, to
determine what revisions should be made.
During the review of the repair station rules, the FAA examined
various documents and related rulemaking actions. These documents
included FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook;
advisory circulars (ACs) that relate to repair stations, such as AC No.
145-3, Guide for Developing and Evaluating Repair Station Inspection
Procedures Manuals, and AC No. 145-5, Repair Station Internal
Evaluation Programs; and previous petitions for exemption from part
145. The FAA also reviewed Joint Aviation Requirement (JAR) 145:
Approved Maintenance Organizations, established by the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA), an organization of European civil aviation
authorities. As a result of the above action, the FAA published Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking No. 99-09, ``Part 145 Review: Repair Stations''
(64 FR 33142, June 21, 1999).
The FAA extended the close of the comment period on Notice No. 99-
09 from October 19, 1999, to December 3, 1999, in response to
commenters' requests. The FAA received approximately 530 comments in
response to Notice No. 99-09. Associations representing repair stations
and other aviation-related entities, unions, aviation authorities, air
carriers, manufacturers, members of Congress, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and individual repair stations
provided comments on the proposal.
The Final Rule
The FAA appreciates the comments received in response to its
proposal. Many revisions to the proposal are based in part on language
provided by commenters. The revisions clarify the intent of the rule,
provide more regulatory flexibility in carrying out the requirements,
and in some cases lessen regulatory burdens without compromising
safety.
This final rule reorganizes and clarifies certain subparts and
sections of part 145. We have arranged the subparts by subject rather
than geographic location of the repair station. We also have eliminated
limited ratings for manufacturer's maintenance facilities and removed
the corresponding subpart.
In addition, we have revised the housing and equipment
requirements. Part 145 no longer requires a repair station with an
airframe rating to provide permanent housing that encloses at least one
of the heaviest aircraft within the weight class for which it is rated.
Instead, a repair station is only required to provide permanent housing
that encloses the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its
operations specifications. The final rule also includes provisions for
exchanging equipment among satellite repair stations and for leasing
equipment.
The final rule requires repair stations to develop a repair station
manual that prescribes its operational procedures. The rule also
requires repair stations to develop a quality control manual that is
similar to the currently required inspection procedures manual.
Although we proposed a new rating and class system, we have
retained the current rating and class system in the final rule. Also,
the final rule does not include a quality assurance program. We intend
to seek advice and recommendations from the affected aviation community
before promulgating rulemaking on these issues.
Finally, the final rule provides for satellite repair stations,
expands the scope of contract maintenance, and requires repair stations
to develop a training program.
Because the Administrator of the FAA has delegated various
responsibilities to offices within the Agency, we have determined it is
appropriate to replace references to the ``Administrator'' with the
``FAA.'' Further, in an effort to recognize the use of electronic means
to store and send information we have removed references to paper
copies.
This final rule will become effective 20 months after it is
published in the Federal Register. This time period is needed to
develop ACs and internal FAA guidance, and to train FAA personnel.
Additionally, repair stations will need adequate time to comply with
the new requirements. The training
[[Page 41090]]
requirements (Sec. 145.163), become effective 24 months after the
effective date of the final rule. Certificated repair stations will
need this additional time to develop and submit a training program to
the FAA for approval. Specific details regarding the deadlines for
submitting a training program for FAA approval are discussed later.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Requirements Withdrawn From the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Based on comments received, we are withdrawing some of the sections
proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, we are withdrawing advertising
(proposed Sec. 145.9), deviation authority (proposed Sec. 145.11),
ratings and classes (proposed Sec. 145.59), transition to new system of
ratings (proposed Sec. 145.61), quality assurance (proposed
Sec. 145.201(a)(1)), and job functions (proposed appendix A to part
145). Below is a section by section discussion of these withdrawn
requirements.
Proposed Sec. 145.9 Advertising
Proposed paragraph (a) would have prohibited a repair station from
advertising as a certificated repair station until the issuance of a
certificate. Proposed paragraph (b) would have prohibited a repair
station from making any statement about itself, either orally or in
writing, that was false or designed to mislead any person. Finally,
proposed paragraph (c) would have required any advertisement to include
the repair station's certificate number.
One association requested that the FAA discuss what constitutes
advertising for purposes of the proposal. Several commenters
recommended deleting proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) because Federal
and State laws adequately protect the public from false and misleading
advertising. The commenters generally recommended revising proposed
paragraph (b) because any statement by any individual could be
misinterpreted and construed to be a violation under the proposed
language. One commenter suggested revising proposed paragraph (b) to
prohibit a repair station from misleading individuals with respect to
ratings, limitations, privileges, and other matters regulated by part
145. Several commenters, including one association, supported requiring
a repair station to include its certificate number in advertisements.
Another commenter stated that including a certificate number in
advertisements does not increase safety. That commenter noted that
other certificate holders, such as air carriers and pilot training
schools, are not required to include certificate numbers in
advertisements.
In light of the comments regarding Federal and State laws on false
and misleading advertising, the FAA has withdrawn proposed
Sec. 145.9(a) and (b). In addition, the FAA finds that requiring a
repair station to include its certificate number in any advertising is
unnecessary and involves a repair station's business decisions in an
area not related to ensuring safety or the airworthiness of articles.
The FAA notes that the public has access to a repair station's
certificate number under Sec. 145.5(b), which requires the certificate
and operations specifications to be available on the repair station's
premises for inspection by the public. Therefore, the FAA has not
included proposed Sec. 145.9 in the final rule.
Proposed Sec. 145.11 Deviation Authority
The proposal would have established procedures for repair stations
to apply for deviation authority from the regulations similar to the
procedures used by manufacturers and operators.
Many commenters supported deviation authority for repair stations
as a means of providing regulatory flexibility. However, several
commenters recommended adding provisions to make the application
procedure for deviation authority public. In addition, commenters
indicated that the deviation authority should be processed at the local
level rather than at FAA Headquarters. Other commenters expressed
concern over the discretion given to FAA inspectors to terminate or
amend a letter of deviation authority, which the commenters contended
could disrupt business. Some of the commenters who opposed the addition
of deviation authority stated that it would replace the public process
with a hidden process, benefit large certificated repair stations, and
provide little or no benefit to small general aviation repair stations.
When proposed, the FAA envisioned that deviation would be sought
from only a few sections, in particular the proposed quality assurance
system and training program requirements. However, as previously noted,
the FAA intends to propose requirements for quality assurance in a
subsequent rulemaking action. In addition, the FAA will be issuing
guidance on the training program requirements and will approve these
programs on a case-by-case basis. In light of the commenters' concerns
about granting deviation authority, relief from part 145 regulations
will continue to be addressed through the 14 CFR part 11 exemption
process. Exemptions are public actions processed at FAA Headquarters.
Proposed Sec. 145.59 Ratings and Classes
This proposed section would have significantly revised the current
system of ratings and classes. The FAA specifically requested comments
on the proposed regulations and asked whether the proposed system of
ratings and classes should be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
Comments on the proposal were mixed. Some commenters found the new
system confusing and complicated, and others stated that the proposal
is more restrictive than the current system of ratings and classes. One
association stated that the proposal merely adds to an outmoded class
system and offered in its place an alternative ratings system. Other
commenters criticized specific parts of the proposal, using as an
example, the weights used to distinguish between aircraft class
ratings. Some commenters believe that the number of powerplant class
ratings would be confusing, and recommended instead associating
powerplant and airframe class ratings.
Although many commenters believe a separate rulemaking action to
revise the system of ratings is not necessary, the FAA finds that the
comments and alternatives received have merit and should be considered
further before a new system of rating and classes is adopted.
Therefore, this final rule retains the current rating and class system.
The comments will be considered during development of the subsequent
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Proposed Sec. 145.61 Transition to New System of Ratings
This section proposed procedures for transitioning to the proposed
system of ratings and has not been included in this final rule.
Proposed Sec. 145.201 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Systems
Proposed Sec. 145.201(a)(1) would have required a repair station to
establish a quality assurance system.
Commenters generally opposed the proposed quality assurance system
requirements. One association stated that although its members support
the concept of quality assurance, the FAA has not justified the burden
of the requirement in terms of safety. Some commenters opposed the
proposal because the FAA has not adequately described the specific
requirements. Some of those commenters requested that advisory material
be issued along with the proposal to allow the public
[[Page 41091]]
adequate opportunity to comment. Four unions expressed support for
requiring repair stations to have a quality assurance system. Some
commenters asserted that implementation of a quality assurance system
would require them to incur significant costs.
The FAA agrees that the quality assurance program must have
adequately defined requirements and that guidance material is necessary
for implementation of an effective system. We also recognizes that
establishment of a quality assurance system may be particularly
burdensome for small repair stations. The FAA will review the comments
submitted on this issue and develop specific requirements for a quality
assurance program in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking.
Proposed Appendix A to Part 145 Job Functions
Proposed appendix A set forth job functions and equipment
requirements for repair stations.
Commenters are generally opposed to appendix A as proposed. Many
commenters noted that the proposed appendix is already outdated. Still,
others questioned the FAA's ability to keep any such listing current
while other commenters offered specific revisions to the equipment
requirements.
The FAA agrees with commenters who expressed concern about the
difficulties in keeping appendix A current; therefore, the agency has
decided to withdraw appendix A. For the same reason, the FAA has not
included current appendix A in the final rule. Because the FAA did not
propose to eliminate appendix A in Notice No 99-09, we seek comments on
its removal. The final rule will accomplish the purpose of appendix A
without restricting a repair station's ability to adapt future
technologies.
The final rule revises the equipment requirements and the
contracting out provisions to provide more flexibility for repair
stations to accomplish maintenance, preventative maintenance, or
alterations on articles for which they are rated. Revisions to the
equipment section of the final rule will permit certificated repair
stations to enter into contracts or other leasing agreements to obtain
equipment needed in the maintenance of articles for which it is rated.
Repair stations will no longer have to maintain a seldom used,
expensive piece of equipment just to retain their current ratings.
Repair stations and their contract maintenance providers will still be
required to have the equipment when performing a maintenance function.
Likewise, the contracting out provisions have been revised to better
reflect current industry practices in specialized areas. The
combination of these actions effectively incorporates appendix A in its
entirety.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule
Below is a section-by-section discussion of the final rule. We have
provided a brief description of the proposed rule, a summary of the
comments received, and the FAA's disposition.
Part 145--Repair Stations
Subpart A--General
Section 145.1 Applicability
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA proposed to revise current
Sec. 145.1 with respect to obtaining repair station certificates and
the general rules under which certificated repair stations must
operate. The FAA proposed to add the term ``preventive maintenance''
and proposed to replace the current reference to ``airframes,
powerplants, propellers, and appliances'' with ``any aircraft,
airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part
thereof.'' The FAA proposed deleting paragraph (b), which delineated
the term ``domestic'' and ``foreign'' in describing the location of a
repair station.. As discussed in Notice No.
99-09, the FAA removed, where appropriate, the distinctions between
repair stations located inside the United States and those located
outside the United States. In addition, the FAA proposed eliminating
paragraph (c), which addressed the limited rating for manufacturers.
Comments: Most commenters supported the FAA's proposed revisions to
Sec. 145.1. However, several commenters recommended eliminating the
phrase ``component part thereof'' because of the burden it would place
on the applicant for a repair station certificate. One commenter
recommended including the term ``rebuilt'' whenever the term
``maintenance'' is used.
With regard to the proposed elimination of the limited rating for
manufacturers, three unions supported the proposal. Manufacturers
opposed the elimination of the rating and questioned why a production
approval holder may perform major repairs and major alterations, but
under the proposal a separate rating would be required to perform basic
maintenance. One manufacturer stated that the proposal fails to
recognize the unique relationship a manufacturer has to its products.
FAA Response: The FAA made editorial changes to this section in the
final rule. The FAA revised this section to state that part 145
contains the rules a certificated repair station must follow with
respect to the performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations of an aircraft, airframe, aircraft, engine, propeller,
appliance, and component part to which part 43 applies. The FAA notes
that the revised language includes ``component part'' rather than
``component part thereof;'' the use of ``component part'' is consistent
with the terminology used in part 43. In addition, the FAA finds that
the term ``maintenance,'' rather than the term ``rebuilt,'' more
accurately describes the work performed under this part and is
consistent with industry use.
As proposed in Notice No. 99-09, the FAA is eliminating the limited
rating for manufacturers. Because maintenance practices and aircraft
technologies have evolved since the establishment of limited ratings
for manufacturers, the FAA has determined that all repair facilities'
systems for inspection, recordkeeping, and quality control should be
consistent.
In response to comments from manufacturers, the FAA finds that
there is not a significant difference between warranty work (repairs
made by the manufacturer) and maintenance. The FAA also disagrees with
the manufacturers assertion that warranty work is an extension of the
manufacturing process. Once an article completes the manufacturing
process and receives its type certificate, any repair including
warranty work must be accomplished per an approved maintenance program.
The difference between the manufacturer's process and a repair station
program is the requirement that the article is approved for return to
service upon completion of maintenance.
Manufacturers use numerous methods, such a maintenance/material
review boards (MRB) under 14 CFR part 21, to correct manufacturing
defects while articles are still in the manufacturing process. Repairs
made to articles returned to the manufacturer for warranty work could
constitute a change to the article's type design. Although these
procedures are acceptable for manufacturers, they do not provide a
means to return the item to service, for airworthiness release or to
approve the alteration of a type design. A repair of this type may
render the item unairworthy since the definition of ``airworthy'' is
that it meets its type design and is safe for flight.
[[Page 41092]]
As noted in Notice No. 99-09, the FAA will give full consideration
to the quality control system established by the manufacturer to comply
with part 21. However, the manufacturer's repair station will have to
operate in compliance with parts 43 and 145.
Section 145.3 Definition of Terms
Summary of Proposal/Issue: For purposes of part 145, the FAA
proposed to define accountable manager, actual work documents, approve
for return to service, approved data, article, certificate holding
district office, certificated, composite, computer system, consortium,
directly in charge, facility, housing, maintenance release, overhauled,
and signature.
Comments: The commenters generally asserted that only terms
exclusive to part 145 should be defined in part 145. Some of those
commenters stated that those terms should also be added to 14 CFR part
1 to ensure they are used consistently throughout the regulations.
Other commenters stated that any term not exclusive to part 145 should
be defined only in part 1. However, some commenters asserted that all
terms should be defined only in part 1. In addition, several commenters
suggested adding definitions for the following terms: acceptable to the
Administrator, airworthy, approved by the Administrator, authorized
inspector, avionics, current as applied to technical information,
inspection personnel, job functions, line maintenance, maintenance
functions, product, quality assurance system, quality control system,
satellite repair station, self evaluation, and supervisory personnel.
With regard to the definition of ``accountable manager,'' the
commenters generally are concerned that the accountable manager will be
held personally liable for business decisions and stated that the
definition conflicts with provisions in parts 121 and 135 that indicate
the air carrier or commercial operator has the responsibility for the
work performed for them by a repair station. The commenters recommended
clarifying the definition to limit the personal liability of the
accountable manager. Some commenters suggested the person in this
position should be the point of contact with the FAA. Other commenters
recommended changing ``accountable manager'' to ``repair station
manager.''
Many commenters expressed concern with the definition of ``actual
work documents'' and indicated it is easily confused with other terms
and should be clarified. Some commenters asked whether the word
``actual'' refers to the original work documents. Several commenters
noted the word ``detailed'' is ambiguous and allows for individual
interpretation, and indicated the word ``signed'' should be changed to
permit other methods to be used, such as stamps, initials, and
electronic signatures. Several commenters indicated the definition of
``actual work documents'' is a significant departure from current
practices and could cause documentation to become extremely burdensome.
Many commenters opposed the definition of ``approve for return to
service'' in Sec. 145.3(c). Some of these commenters indicated that the
definition is unnecessary and repeats or is inconsistent with existing
regulatory requirements, particularly with regard to parts 43 and 65.
The commenters proposed revisions to the definition and suggested
moving it to part 43.
One manufacturer supported the proposed definition of ``approved
data'' and six commenters recommended clarifications to that proposed
definition. Two associations opposed the definition of ``approved
data'' because it is not consistent with part 1 or SFAR 36.
Many commenters opposed the definition of ``article'' in
Sec. 145.3(e). Several commenters stated the definition conflicts with
the use of ``article'' in SFAR 36 and as it relates to technical
standard orders.
Commenters who opposed the definition of ``certificate holding
district office'' (CHDO) stated the definition is subject to change
whenever the FAA reorganizes and changes the names of its divisions and
offices, and expressed concern over its application when multiple
repair facilities are involved. Several commenters stated that the
definition should state that the CHDO has responsibility for
administering the certificate of the repair station.
Many commenters supported the definition of ``certificated;''
however, one commenter suggested clarifications. One association
opposed the definition and indicated it is redundant and would be more
appropriately included in part 1.
Commenters who opposed the definitions of ``composite'' and
``computer system'' suggested that neither definition is adequate and
both should be revised and clarified. The commenters provided suggested
revisions for each definition.
Most repair stations, manufacturers, and associations who commented
on the definition of ``consortium'' opposed it. Several commenters
expressed concern about the economic impact this could have on
independent repair stations and noted that it appears the FAA is
providing an economic advantage to type certificate holders. The
commenters also noted that it appears the FAA is creating a two-tiered
system of repair stations.
The commenters generally opposed the definition of ``directly in
charge'' and offered revisions for clarification. Several other
commenters noted that Sec. 145.3(k) paraphrases language from part 121,
and one association stated that if the term is adopted in part 145, it
should use the same language as that found in part 121. Other
commenters noted there is confusion as to whether the term applies to
the oversight of external contractors or only internal operations.
An association stated the definition of ``facility'' is confusing
and contradictory, and should be excluded; however, the association
provided an alternate definition if the Administrator can justify its
inclusion in the rule. Some commenters recommended revising the
reference to ``land'' to include public ramp space.
Commenters generally supported the definition of ``housing'' in
proposed Sec. 145.3(m)(1) but recommended revisions to the language in
proposed Sec. 145.3(m)(2). The commenters recommended revising the term
``structures'' to ``method'' and indicated the term ``segregation'' is
subjective. Another commenter strongly opposed inclusion of the
definition of housing in part 145, because it mixes the concepts of
housing, equipment, and facility.
Commenters generally did not support the proposed definition of
``maintenance release.'' Some commenters recommended replacing the term
``repair station document'' with ``statement'' to clarify that a
maintenance release is not always a separate document and to ensure the
requirements are consistent with part 43. One commenter noted that the
proposed definition is contrary to parts 43, 121, and 135. Another
commenter indicated that the maintenance release should apply to all
persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration under 14 CFR and that the release provided in part 43 would
be acceptable.
The commenters generally indicated that ``overhauled'' is already
defined in part 43, and the definition should be moved to part 1.
Commenters supported the inclusion of a definition for
``signature'' but generally indicated it should be in part 1. One
commenter commended the FAA for defining the term ``signature'' but
stated that because the term has caused serious consternation in the
industry,
[[Page 41093]]
the FAA should publish advisory material governing acceptable means of
compliance.
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has not
included in the final rule definitions of the following: actual work
documents, approve for return to service, approved data, certificate
holding district office, certificated, composite, computer system,
consortium, facility, housing, maintenance release, overhauled, and
signature. However, the FAA has retained definitions for accountable
manager, article, directly in charge, and line maintenance.
The FAA generally agrees that terms not unique to part 145, such as
``approve for return to service,'' ``approved data,'' ``certificated,''
``maintenance release,'' and ``overhauled,'' should not be defined in
part 145. In addition, the term ``computer system'' is related to the
proposed rating and class system, and no longer needs to be defined for
the purposes of part 145. The term ``composite'' is not unique to part
145, and its common definition is adequate for the purposes of part
145. The concept of a consortium and references to actual work
documents are not included in the final rule and therefore no longer
require definition. Other terms, such as ``facility'' and ``housing,''
are adequately described in the particular sections in part 145 that
address those subjects and do not require further definition. Finally,
the FAA has removed the definition of ``signature'' from the final
rule. The FAA notes that it recently has adopted policies and
procedures to implement the requirements of the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, 44 U.S.C. 3504, which defines ``electronic signature''
and requires Federal agencies to provide for the option of using
electronic signatures when practicable.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who suggest that the term
``accountable manager'' should be removed from part 145. The FAA has
determined that it is necessary for a repair station to have one
individual who is responsible for ensuring repair station operations
are conducted in accordance with part 145. However, the FAA has revised
the definition of ``accountable manager'' to clarify that the person in
this position is responsible for and has authority over only repair
station operations conducted under part 145. It was not the FAA's
intent to dictate who is responsible for repair station operations that
are unrelated to part 145, such as accounting. It also was not the
intent of the FAA to impose personal liability for repair station
operations on the accountable manager. The FAA notes that the term
``accountable manager'' is consistent with JAR terminology, and its use
is consistent with the FAA's harmonization efforts. Finally, the FAA
notes that the definition in this final rule states that the
accountable manager will serve as the primary contact with the FAA as
suggested by many commenters.
Although the term ``article'' is used throughout 14 CFR, the FAA
has determined that it is important to define the term for the purposes
of part 145 because it encompasses the items on which a repair station
may perform maintenance. However, the FAA revised the definition so
that the items listed are consistent with items on which maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed under part 43.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who assert that the definition of
``directly in charge'' should not be placed in part 145 because it is
used in part 121 and that inconsistencies could arise between the
definitions. For the convenience of the user and because the definition
specifically addresses the responsibilities under part 145, the FAA
decided that the definition should be included in part 145. The FAA
notes that the definition is consistent with the definition found in
Sec. 121.378. However, in response to concerns raised by the
commenters, the FAA revised the definition of ``directly in charge.''
The revised definition clarifies that the person is responsible for the
work of a repair station that performs maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations, or other functions affecting aircraft
airworthiness. With regard to the comment regarding work that is
contracted to an outside source, the FAA notes that Sec. 145.217(b)(2)
specifically requires that a repair station remain directly in charge
of the work performed by a noncertificated person.
In response to commenter requests, the FAA has added the definition
of ``line maintenance'' to mean any unscheduled maintenance resulting
from (1) scheduled checks that contain servicing and/or inspections
that do not require specialized training, equipment, or facilities, or
(2) unforeseen events. The definition is necessary to clarify the work
that may be performed under Sec. 145.205(d). The performance of line
maintenance is further discussed in the analysis of Sec. 145.205(d).
Section 145.5 Certificate and Operations Specifications Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Proposed Sec. 145.5(a) would have
prohibited any person from operating as a certificated repair station
without a repair station certificate or operations specifications.
Proposed paragraph (b) stated that a repair station could perform work
only on articles for which it is rated and within the limitations of
its operations specifications. In paragraph (c), the FAA proposed to
revise the current requirement in Sec. 145.19 that a repair station
display its repair station certificate at a place normally accessible
to the public. The FAA proposed that the certificate be available for
inspection by the public and the Administrator. Proposed paragraph (d)
would have specified the contents of a repair station's operations
specifications.
Comments: Commenters generally opposed the language in proposed
paragraph (b) because they felt it might restrict a repair station from
performing work not directly related to aviation maintenance. In
addition, an association stated that the proposed paragraph repeats the
requirements in proposed Sec. 145.215, now Sec. 145.201. With regard to
proposed paragraph (c), commenters generally supported not requiring
display of a repair station certificate. However, some commenters
suggested modifying the proposal by permitting only ``parties of
interest'' or persons having a ``business need'' and the Administrator
to inspect the certificate, rather than the ``public.'' One commenter
who opposed the proposal asked why a certificate is issued if a repair
station is not required to display it. That commenter also stated it
would be more appropriate to require display of the operations
specifications.
FAA Response: This final rule contains paragraph (a) as proposed
with a revision stating that a repair station also cannot operate
without, or in violation of, its ratings. This revision is for clarity
and does not place any additional burden on a repair station, because
ratings are an integral part of a repair station's certificate. The FAA
agrees that proposed paragraph (b) is similar to proposed
Sec. 145.215(a)(1), now Sec. 145.201(a)(1) and, therefore, has not
included proposed paragraph (b) in Sec. 145.5. However, the FAA notes
that proposed Sec. 145.215(a)(1), now Sec. 145.201(a)(1), did not
contain ``and within the limitations placed in its operations
specifications,'' which was included in proposed Sec. 145.5(b).
Therefore, that phrase has been added to Sec. 145.201(a)(1). With
regard to proposed paragraph (c), the FAA disagrees that only ``parties
of interest'' or persons with a ``business need'' should be allowed to
inspect the certificate. The FAA finds that it is unlikely that a
member of the general public will ask to inspect a repair station
certificate unless
[[Page 41094]]
the person has, at least potentially, business with the repair station.
In addition, determining who is a party of interest or whether a
particular person has a business need would be subjective and difficult
to enforce. Further, the FAA notes that the proposal relaxed the
current requirement to always display the repair station certificate.
Therefore, the FAA has adopted the proposal with the clarification that
the certificate be available for inspection by the ``FAA,'' not the
``Administrator,'' and that the repair station operations
specifications also be made available. The FAA notes that operations
specifications are an integral part of the repair station certificate.
Finally, the FAA has deleted proposed paragraph (d), which would have
set forth the contents of the operations specifications. The proposed
paragraph was not regulatory in nature and only identified what the FAA
may include in repair station operations specifications.
Subpart B--Certification
Section 145.51 Application for Certificate
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA based this proposed section on
current Secs. 145.11, 145.13, and 145.71. The proposal would have
revised the list of items an applicant is required to submit to the FAA
with the application. In paragraph (a), the FAA proposed that an
applicant submit (1) a copy of the repair station manual to the
Administrator for approval; (2) a list by type, make, or model, as
appropriate, of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller,
appliance, component, or part thereof, for which an application is
made; (3) a statement signed by the accountable manager that the
procedures described in the repair station manual are in place and meet
the requirements of the applicable regulations; (4) an organizational
chart with names and titles of management and supervisory personnel;
(5) a description of the applicant's facilities, including the physical
address; and (6) a list of maintenance functions to be contracted out.
Proposed paragraph (b) would have required that the equipment,
personnel, technical data, and housing and facilities required for the
certificate and rating be in place at the time of certification by the
Administrator.
In proposed Sec. 145.51(c), the FAA expanded the scope of current
Sec. 145.71 by permitting an applicant located outside the United
States to obtain a repair station certificate if it maintains foreign-
registered aircraft operated under the provisions of part 121 or part
135, or aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, components, or parts
thereof for use on such aircraft. In addition, the proposal (1)
required the applicant to demonstrate that required fees have been paid
and (2) codified the FAA's existing practice of requiring that a repair
station located outside the United States complete in English an
application for a repair station certificate.
Proposed Sec. 145.51(d) would have permitted all consortiums that
function as a single entity with regard to quality control and quality
assurance functions, that hold an approved type certificate, and that
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of that
type-certificated product and components thereof to apply for a repair
station certificate under this section.
In proposed paragraph (e), the FAA addressed applications for
additional ratings or renewal of repair station certificates.
Comments: Many commenters questioned the reference in proposed
paragraph (a)(1) to an approved rather than accepted repair station
manual. Some of these commenters stated that use of the word
``approved'' applies a more stringent standard to repair stations than
to other certificate holders. With regard to proposed paragraph (a)(2),
some commenters suggested requiring a listing by model series. Some
commenters stated that a listing by parts is burdensome and would
generate excessive paperwork and costs. One commenter recommended
revising ``part'' to read ``part family.''
Commenters generally opposed requiring the accountable manager to
sign a statement that procedures are in place that meet the
requirements of part 145. One commenter noted that the application
process and subsequent FAA surveillance will ensure compliance with
part 145.
Commenters stated that the organizational chart should contain
functional titles only. Those commenters opposed including names in the
chart; some commenters stated that if names are included, the FAA must
understand that those names would be current only at the time of
application submission. Some commenters noted that current personnel
assignments will be included in the required repair station roster.
Another commenter recommended deleting this requirement because the
information will be included in the repair station manual. One
association stated that FAA approval of a repair station's
organizational chart and personnel assignment is inappropriate.
Some commenters suggested requiring only a general description of
the applicant's housing and facilities under proposed paragraph (a)(5).
An association contended that the proposed paragraph repeated the
requirements in proposed Sec. 145.207(c), now Sec. 145.209(c). That
association also opposed requiring an applicant's physical address in
the application.
With regard to proposed paragraph (a)(6), commenters stated that
``maintenance functions'' is not adequately described; some commenters
suggested using ``job function'' as set forth in appendix A. A few
commenters indicated that only maintenance functions to be contracted
to noncertificated persons should be listed in the application. Some
commenters appear to have believed that the proposal would require FAA
approval of vendors. One association stated that the required
information will be provided on FAA Form 8130-3 and under
Sec. 145.207(h), now Sec. 145.217(a), and, therefore, should be
eliminated from the application.
Commenters opposed the requirement in proposed paragraph (b) that
equipment be in place at the time of certification and stated that is
would be unnecessarily burdensome. Commenters suggested requiring only
that the equipment be ``available.'' Commenters noted that some repair
stations may lease equipment. Other commenters noted that it is only
important that the equipment be in place when needed to perform the
work.
Commenters stated that proposed paragraph (c) should not be
included in the final rule because the FAA has stated an intention to
eliminate all distinctions between repair stations located inside the
United States and those located outside the United States. Unions noted
that the proposal does not require repair stations located outside the
United States to comply with drug and alcohol testing programs
applicable to repair stations located in the United States. Some unions
and members of the U.S. Congress also urged reinstating the need-based
requirement for repair stations located outside the United States. Some
manufacturing associations opposed a need-based requirement and stated
that market forces will determine if a repair station is ``necessary.''
Commenters generally opposed proposed paragraph (d), which
recognized consortiums that operate as a single organization. Some
commenters felt that the proposal would provide an economic advantage
to European repair stations. One association stated that the
establishment of requirements for
[[Page 41095]]
satellite repair stations make this provision unnecessary.
Comments varied with regard to proposed paragraph (e). Some
commenters recommended alternative language, for example, referring to
changes to ratings instead of additional ratings. Another commenter
recommended deleting the paragraph and adding the requirements to
proposed Sec. 145.57(b).
FAA Response: In this final rule, paragraph (a)(1) references a
repair station manual ``acceptable to the FAA.'' The FAA has not
included the requirement for approval of the repair station manual in
Sec. 145.207 of this final rule. In addition, the FAA has added a
requirement in paragraph (a)(2) for submission of the applicant's
quality control manual as required by Sec. 145.211(c). The requirement
for a quality control manual is explained in the preamble discussion of
Sec. 145.211. The FAA has revised paragraph (a)(3) (proposed paragraph
(a)(2)) by using the term ``article'' rather than ``aircraft, airframe,
aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component or part thereof.''
Commenters interpreted proposed paragraph (a)(2) to require a listing
by type, make, model, or ``part'' of the article for which the
application is made. The final rule requires, as did the proposal,
listing only the type, make, or model of the article for which
application is made. The FAA notes that some repair stations work only
on parts and therefore the type, make, or model for that part would be
required.
Based on commenter opposition, the FAA has eliminated the proposed
requirement for the accountable manager to sign a statement that
procedures are in place that meet the requirements of part 145.
Paragraph (a)(4) is adopted as proposed. The FAA disagrees with
commenters who suggest that only functional titles should be included
on the organizational chart. The FAA finds that it is important to the
certification process that a repair station demonstrate that qualified
personnel are assigned to management and supervisory positions. The FAA
notes that although personnel assignments may change after
certification, current management and supervisory assignments must be
maintained in the roster required by Sec. 145.161. In response to one
commenter, the FAA notes that the organizational chart in the repair
station manual does not require individual names.
The FAA has adopted paragraph (a)(5) as proposed with minor
editorial changes. Requiring only a general description of facilities
would lead to subjective determinations of what kind of description is
adequate. In addition, the FAA finds it is necessary to have a complete
description, including the physical address of the repair station, for
the certification process. The FAA recognizes that this information
also will be included in the repair station manual. However, the FAA
notes that the information in the manual must be kept current after the
certification process; therefore, it performs an additional function.
The FAA has adopted paragraph (a)(6) as proposed with minor
editorial changes. The FAA notes that the application must include only
the list of maintenance functions to be contracted out, not a list of
vendors for approval. The FAA does not agree that this requirement
should be restricted to maintenance functions contracted to
noncertificated persons. The FAA finds that although this information
must be made available to the FAA under Sec. 145.217(a), the
information is important to the certification process and must be
included in the application. The final rule explicitly provides that
the list of maintenance functions to be contracted out is subject to
the FAA's approval. The FAA notes that under the proposal, this
information also was subject to FAA approval because it was included in
the proposed repair station manual, which was an approved manual. In
response to the comments regarding the meaning of ``maintenance
functions,'' the FAA notes that maintenance functions include those
individual tasks that comprise the maintenance, preventive maintenance,
and alterations required to return an article to service.
This final rule also includes paragraph (a)(7), which requires that
an applicant for a repair station certificate submit a training program
for approval in accordance with Sec. 145.163. Under the proposal, the
training program would have been submitted as part of the repair
station manual, which, as previously noted, was proposed to be an
approved manual. The FAA notes that Sec. 145.163(a) contains a delayed
compliance date; therefore, an applicant for a repair station
certificate would not be required to submit a training program with its
application until the date specified in Sec. 145.163(a).
The FAA has revised paragraph (b) to permit a repair station to
meet the equipment requirement by having a contract acceptable to the
FAA that ensures the equipment will be available when the relevant work
is performed. Such arrangements may include lease agreements and rental
agreements. This will accommodate those repair stations that do not
plan to purchase expensive equipment that may not be used regularly.
The FAA will review the contract during the certification process,
particularly with respect to the applicant's ability to obtain the
equipment when the relevant work is performed. However, this provision
does not relieve the applicant from having the equipment in place and
available for inspection at the time of certification. The applicant
need not physically retain the equipment after certification, but the
FAA has determined that it is necessary that the applicant have the
equipment in place during the certification process. The FAA will
observe the placement of the equipment, whether the equipment works,
and whether the applicant can use the equipment properly. The FAA notes
that the repair station must have procedures in place for ensuring the
equipment is calibrated properly, if applicable, at the time of use.
With regard to proposed paragraph (c), the FAA has eliminated as
many of the distinctions as possible between repair stations located
inside the United States and those located outside the United States.
However, the FAA has determined that the proposed application process
distinctions are necessary. In response to commenters' concerns, the
FAA notes that the proposed rule would require, exactly as does the
current Sec. 145.71, that the certificate/rating applied for be
necessary for maintaining or altering U.S.-registered aircraft and
their parts, or foreign aircraft/parts operated under part 121 or part
135.
With regard to requiring personnel of repair stations located
outside the United States to comply with U.S. drug and alcohol testing
requirements, the FAA previously has found that there are significant
practical and legal concerns precluding implementation of the anti-drug
rule outside the United States. In adopting proposed paragraph (c), the
FAA has used the word ``articles'' where appropriate. The FAA notes
that proposed paragraph (c)(3), which explicitly provided that all
documentation from a repair station located outside the United States
had to be submitted in English, has not been included in this final
rule. This paragraph was not necessary because paragraph (a) requires
that all applications be in a format acceptable to the FAA, and the FAA
has determined that only applications in English will be acceptable.
Based on comments opposing the concept of consortiums, the FAA has
removed from this final rule any provisions for consortiums. The FAA
[[Page 41096]]
notes that a rule for consortiums is unnecessary because only a limited
number of exemptions have been issued to address this situation. The
FAA finds that these limited requests would be better handled on a
case-by-case basis under the part 11 exemption process.
The FAA has adopted paragraph (e) as proposed with minor editorial
changes. In addition, the paragraph also applies to applications for
amended certificates. The FAA notes that this paragraph appears as
paragraph (d) in this final rule.
Section 145.53 Issue of Certificate
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA based proposed Sec. 145.53 on
current Secs. 145.11(b) and 145.71, which address the issuance of a
repair station certificate. The FAA notes that in this final rule,
Sec. 145.53 includes the requirements in proposed Sec. 145.2, which
addressed repairs station certificates issued to persons located
outside the United States, including persons in countries with which
the United States has a bilateral aviation safety agreement (BASA).
Comments on proposed Sec. 145.2 will be addressed below.
Comments: Some commenters stated that the proposed language
regarding issuance of certificates is ambiguous and unclear. One
commenter recommended returning to the language in current
Sec. 145.11(b). Commenters also recommended changing ``organization''
to ``person.''
Commenters generally supported the language of proposed
Sec. 145.2(a). However, one commenter noted that paragraph (a) does not
include the limitations of proposed Sec. 145.53 and recommended adding
the requirement to demonstrate that a repair station certificate is
necessary in the interest of safety.
Some commenters supported the language of proposed Sec. 145.2(b),
now Sec. 145.53(b). However, a few commenters indicated that the
language is redundant and unnecessary because the Administrator already
is given this authority by law. One commenter agreed that the
requirements for safe maintenance should not depend on the location of
the repair station but is concerned that proposed Sec. 145.2(b) does
not address repair stations located in countries for which BASAs with
the United States do not exist.
Many commenters are concerned with the FAA giving its oversight
responsibility to foreign governments. In addition, some members of the
U.S. Congress noted that it appears repair stations located outside the
United States will be regulated less stringently than facilities based
in the United States. They assert that the safety requirements imposed
on repair stations located in the United States should be imposed on
repair stations located outside the United States. The commenters added
that the FAA has not made a case for allowing repair stations located
outside the United States to obtain FAA approval for the sole purpose
of siphoning business from domestic facilities.
One foreign airline opposed proposed Sec. 145.2(b) because
requiring repair stations located outside the United States to comply
with all of part 145 is inconsistent with established BASAs.
FAA Response: As previously noted, the FAA has moved the provisions
in proposed Sec. 145.2 to Sec. 145.53 in this final rule because both
sections deal with the issuance of repair station certificates. In
addition, the word ``organization'' has been changed to ``person'' for
consistency throughout the rule. The FAA notes that ``person'' is
defined in part 1.
In response to commenters' concerns about ambiguity in proposed
Sec. 145.53(a), the FAA has reinstated the language found in current
Sec. 145.11(b), with minor editorial changes. In this final rule,
Sec. 145.53(a) applies to all repair stations, except those repair
stations located in a country with which the United States has a BASA.
Paragraph (a) provides that a person who meets the requirements of part
145 is entitled to a repair station certificate and ratings,
prescribing operations specifications and limitations necessary in the
interest of safety.
The FAA has included the text of proposed Sec. 145.2(b), which
applies to repair stations located outside the United States in
countries with which the United States has a BASA. In response to
commenters' concerns regarding surveillance of these repair stations,
the FAA notes that the local civil aviation authorities will handle
certification tasks for those countries with which the United States
has a signed BASA and associated maintenance implementation procedures
(MIPs). Repair stations in these countries often must comply with
additional requirements if those requirements are stated in the BASA
and MIP. The FAA finds that where BASAs exist, repair stations undergo
an equivalent level of oversight and inspection when compared to repair
stations located in the United States. Not only does the FAA perform
routine and, when necessary, extra surveillance when safety may be
compromised, other JAA-member countries or national (civil) aviation
authorities (NAAs) perform additional surveillance of these repair
stations. Finally, the FAA notes that paragraph (b) is informational
and clarifies how the BASA/MIP process works in relationship to the
part 145 certification process. The provisions in proposed
Sec. 145.2(b) are adopted as Sec. 145.53(b) with minor editorial
changes.
Section 145.55 Duration and Renewal of Certificate
Summary of Proposal/Issue: This proposed section was similar to
current Secs. 145.15 and 145.17 but would have revised the current
provision in Sec. 145.17(b) that a certificate or rating for a repair
station located outside of the United States expires at the end of 12
months after the date on which it was issued. Instead, the proposal
provided that the certificate or rating would expire after 24 months.
Proposed paragraph (d) would have modified the current requirement
for certificate renewal by specifying that a repair station located
outside the United States must submit its request for renewal no later
than 90 days before its current certificate expires.
Comments: Many commenters stated that proposed Sec. 145.55
contradicts the FAA's intention of removing the regulatory distinctions
between repair stations located inside the United States and those
located outside the United States. One association stated that the FAA
failed to present any justification for requiring repair stations
located outside the United States to renew their certificates. That
association believes that the burden of initial certification and
continuous surveillance will be dictated under the BASAs and associated
MIPs. Another commenter stated that requiring a repair station located
outside the United States to renew its certificate every 24 months is
incompatible with JAR 145. Some commenters stated that the proposal
affects JAA-certificated repair stations located in the United States
because there are no reciprocal terms for renewal and reevaluation. Two
unions opposed expanding the certificate duration from 12 months to 24
months, citing safety concerns and the quality of operations at repair
stations located outside the United States.
With regard to proposed paragraph (d)(1), a commenter noted that
the requirement to apply for a renewal of a certificate 90 days before
its expiration would be impractical if the 12-month certificate
duration is retained in the final rule.
FAA Response: Where appropriate, the FAA has eliminated the
regulatory distinctions between repair stations
[[Page 41097]]
located inside the United States and those located outside the United
States. However, to ensure an appropriate level of oversight, the FAA
has determined that it is necessary to retain the expiration and
renewal requirements for repair stations located outside the United
States. Despite attempts to harmonize with JAA requirements, the FAA
notes that the FAA never considered that certificate duration would be
identical for repair stations located inside the United States and
outside the United States.
The FAA has retained in this final rule the 12-month certificate
duration period found in current Sec. 145.17(b). However, this final
rule also allows the FAA to renew the certificate for 24 months as
currently permitted. The 12-month certificate duration period provides
the FAA more oversight opportunity, especially when reviewing a renewal
request for a newly certificated repair station located outside the
United States. In light of the return to the 12-month certificate
duration, the FAA has retained the current provision requiring repair
stations to apply for renewal within 30 days of certificate expiration
rather than the 90 days proposed. However, the FAA notes that if the
repair station does not apply before that 30-day period, it must follow
the application procedures in Sec. 145.51.
The proposal is adopted with the changes discussed above and some
minor editorial changes, including reordering of the paragraphs.
Section 145.57 Amendment to or Transfer of Certificate
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposal was based on current
Sec. 145.15 and delineated the circumstances under which a repair
station had to apply for a change to its certificate. Proposed
Sec. 145.57(b) stated that the privileges of the certificate could not
be transferred if the repair station is sold, leased, or otherwise
conveyed. Accordingly, to obtain a repair station certificate, a new
owner or transferee of repair station assets would have had to apply
for a new certificate under the provision of proposed Sec. 145.51.
Comments: With regard to paragraph (a), some commenters recommended
eliminating the requirement that the application be on a ``form.''
Commenters generally felt that the prohibition against transfer of
repair station certificate privileges in proposed paragraph (b) was
overly broad. Commenters noted the changes in the aviation maintenance
industry, specifically the increasing number of repair stations owned
by publicly held corporations. Commenters stated that the proposal
would decrease the value of the repair station certificate and that
there are no similar requirements for air carriers. Commenters stated
that a change in ownership does not necessarily result in a material
change in the operations of the repair station. Commenters complained
about the recertification costs if the proposal is adopted.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised paragraph (a) to clarify that a
change to a certificate is necessary only if the certificate holder
changes its location or requests to add or amend a rating. Therefore,
changes to housing and facilities will not require a change to the
repair station certificate. However, the FAA notes that Sec. 145.105
provides that a repair station may not make any changes to its housing
or facilities that could have a significant effect on its ability to
perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations under
its certificate and operations specifications without written approval
from the FAA. Paragraph (a) also has been revised to permit
applications for changes in a format acceptable to the FAA rather than
on a form as specified in the proposal.
In response to commenters' concerns regarding the transfer of
certificates, the FAA has retained the language in current
Sec. 145.15(b) with minor editorial changes.
Section 145.59 Ratings
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposed section would have
completely revised the current system of ratings and classes specified
in current Secs. 145.31 and 145.33.
Comments: The comments to the proposal were previously addressed.
FAA Response: As previously noted, the proposed rating system has
been withdrawn and will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. The
final rule retains the rating system found in current Sec. 145.31.
Section 145.61 Limited Ratings
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Proposed Sec. 145.61 contained the
transition period for the new ratings system.
Comments: The comments on the transition period are not longer
relevant to this rulemaking but will be considered in the subsequent
rulemaking.
FAA Response: In this final rule, Sec. 145.61 retains the
provisions for limited ratings found in current Sec. 145.33 with minor
editorial changes. The FAA notes that current Sec. 145.33(b)(13) is not
included in this final rule. That paragraph provided for the issuance
of a limited rating for any other purpose determined by the
Administrator. The FAA does not issue any ``other'' limited ratings,
except as specifically delineated in Sec. 145.33(b)(1) through (b)(12),
and the provision in paragraph (b)(13) led repair stations to apply for
``other'' limited ratings. Not including it in this final rule will
eliminate any confusion caused by the provision.
Subpart C--Housing, Facilities, Equipment, Materials, and Data
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposed title for subpart C was
``Facilities, Equipment, Materials, and Housing.''
Comments: One association suggested revising the title of the
subpart to more closely parallel the order of subjects in the subpart.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees and the title of subpart C is revised
to read ``Housing, Facilities, Equipment, Materials, and Data.''
Section 145.101 General
Summary of Proposal/Issue: This section is based on current
Sec. 145.55 with no substantive changes.
Comments: Two associations questioned the use of the words
``quantity'' and ``quality'' because the words are too subjective.
Commenters also opposed the use of the word ``standard'' because it is
ambiguous and because subpart C does not contain measurable standards
for repair station certification; several of these commenters suggested
replacing the word ``standards'' with ``applicable requirements.''
Another association commented that the proposed section does not refer
to ``housing'' and requested that the section be revised to include all
items necessary for a repair station to be in compliance with the
regulations.
FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA has not included the
words ``quantity'' and ``quality'' and has replaced the word
``standards'' in the proposal with ``applicable regulations.'' The FAA
agrees that the words ``quantity'' and ``quality'' do not provide
objective regulatory criteria. In this final rule, a certificated
repair station will have to meet the applicable requirements for
issuance of the certificate and ratings it holds. This section also has
been revised to reference housing and data requirements because both
subjects are addressed in this subpart. The reference to personnel
requirements has been removed from this section because personnel are
addressed under subpart D.
[[Page 41098]]
Section 145.103 Housing and Facilities Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA based proposed Sec. 145.103(a)
on current Sec. 145.35.
Proposed Sec. 145.103(b) described the facility and housing
requirements currently found in Sec. 145.37. Specifically, proposed
Sec. 145.103(b)(1) would have required suitable permanent housing for
the largest type and model of aircraft on which a repair station
performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration. Proposed
paragraph (b)(2) would have provided for the use of permanent work
docks and the performance of work outside, where permitted by climatic
conditions. Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would have established new
provisions to require a repair station that performs maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations on any article of composite
construction to meet acceptable process requirements.
Proposed Sec. 145.103(b)(4) through (b)(7) would have revised
current requirements to apply to the proposed system of ratings.
Proposed Sec. 145.103(b)(8) would have specifically established a
requirement for a repair station to meet any special facilities
requirements determined by the manufacturer and approved by the
Administrator for an article or system on which maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or an alteration is performed.
In Sec. 145.103(c), the FAA proposed to permit a repair station to
perform certain job functions on an aircraft at a place other than its
fixed location because of a special circumstance as determined by the
Administrator.
Comments: With regard to proposed Sec. 145.103(a), commenters
expressed concern about the subjective nature of the word ``suitable''
as used to describe required housing and facilities. Commenters also
opposed proposed paragraph (a)(5)(v), which would have permitted the
Administrator to determine additional circumstances under which
machines and equipment should be segregated. These commenters stated
that the proposal would allow for subjective opinions from individual
inspectors. Some commenters asserted that if proposed paragraph
(a)(5)(v) is adopted, the FAA should establish a mediation process or
objective criteria on which inspectors could base their decisions.
Various commenters objected to proposed paragraph (a)(6), which
would have required a repair station to have assembly space in an
enclosed structure where the largest amount of assembly work is done,
on the grounds that repair stations may need to perform work outside.
One commenter stated that instead of eliminating work outdoors, the FAA
should require adequate protection from the environment. However, one
union supported the elimination of outdoor work. The union asserted
that environmental factors can have an adverse effect on working
conditions. Opposition also was expressed to the requirement in
proposed paragraph (a)(7) for a repair station to have storage
facilities used exclusively to store and protect parts. Commenters
argued that the provision would require repair stations to build
additional facilities and that exclusive use of a storage facility is
not necessary to ensure an article is airworthy.
Some commenters opposed proposed paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(10)
because the requirements relate to environmental codes, and FAA
inspectors are not trained to conduct Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) audits. In addition, some commenters complained
that those paragraphs lack objective standards and, therefore, would be
subject to the interpretation of individual FAA inspectors.
Some commenters opposed the use of the word ``suitable'' in
proposed paragraph (b)(1) on the basis that it could lead to subjective
interpretations. Some commenters suggested that the requirement for
enclosed permanent housing be based on the capability list rather than
the repair station rating. Other commenters cited the expense
associated with requiring such housing.
One commenter stated that the use of permanent work docks in
proposed paragraph (b)(2) should not be based on climatic conditions.
Another commenter stated that the proposal implies that permanent work
docks are required to work outside. That commenter contended that work
docks are not always necessary. One commenter interpreted the proposal
as prohibiting work docks as allowed under the current rules. Another
commenter opposed requiring FAA acceptance of the work docks on the
basis that FAA inspectors are not able to determine which work docks
are acceptable.
Commenters who opposed proposed paragraph (b)(3) stated that all
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations require meeting
acceptable process requirements, not just work performed on composites.
Other commenters recommended deleting this provision because it does
not relate to housing and facilities requirements.
One association stated that proposed paragraphs (b)(4) through
(b)(7) are redundant to the requirements of proposed paragraph (a),
which permits the Administrator to base the housing and facilities
requirements on the rating held and the work to be performed.
Commenters suggested possible alternative language for proposed
paragraph (b)(8) to permit facilities equivalent to those recommended
by the manufacturer.
Comments on proposed paragraph (c) will be addressed in the
discussion of Sec. 145.203, which includes the proposed requirements in
this final rule.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised Sec. 145.103 in response to
issues raised by the commenters. The FAA agrees that the housing and
facilities requirements should be based on a repair station's ratings
and the work performed. This final rule does not contain many of the
specific requirements opposed by the commenters. This final rule
provides regulatory flexibility and accommodates changing technologies
while helping to ensure only airworthy articles are returned to
service.
For example, this rule requires that a repair station have
facilities that provide for the proper segregation and protection of
articles, and segregated work areas enabling environmentally hazardous
or sensitive operations to be performed without affecting other work.
The FAA notes that commenters who contend that the FAA should not
issue regulations that address ventilation, lighting, and control of
temperature and humidity appear to believe that this area should be
regulated only by OSHA. The FAA notes that the regulations addressing
these issues are intended to ensure the quality of maintenance
performed. If articles and workers performing maintenance functions on
these articles are not protected from these elements, the work may not
be performed properly. Therefore, the issue is one of the quality of
the work performed, which is clearly within the scope of the FAA's
authority.
This final rule includes a requirement that a repair station with
an airframe rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose
the largest type and model aircraft listed on its operations
specifications. Unlike the current requirement, this final rule does
not require a repair station to provide housing for at least one of the
heaviest aircraft within the weight class of the rating it seeks. In
response to comments opposing the use of the word ``suitable,'' the FAA
finds that because the operations conducted by repair stations vary,
the agency cannot dictate one type of permanent housing suitable for
each repair station. Therefore, the word ``suitable'' is retained in
this final rule.
[[Page 41099]]
This final rule also provides that a repair station may perform
maintenance functions outside of its housing if the repair station
provides facilities that are acceptable to the FAA and meet the
requirements of Sec. 145.103(a) to ensure the work can be performed in
accordance with the requirements of this part and part 43.
The FAA notes that proposed paragraph (c), which is included in
Sec. 145.203 of this final rule, will be discussed later.
Section 145.105 Change of Location, Housing, or Facilities
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposal specified the types of
changes that would require the Administrator's approval. The proposal
would have required that any change to the location or facilities of a
repair station, including substantial rearrangement of space within its
present location, be approved in advance. The proposal also stated that
a repair station may not operate at a new location until approved by
the Administrator.
Comments: Commenters generally opposed the proposal. They stated
that the proposal would lead to subjective and inconsistent
interpretations by inspectors. Commenters stated that the rule should
not address ``any'' change, and only changes that adversely affect the
airworthiness of articles should require FAA approval. Some commenters
asserted that only reductions in space should require approval. Other
commenters opposed any regulation of changes to housing and facilities.
One association opposed the proposal because there is no safety
justification for requiring approval to rearrange equipment.
FAA Response: In response to commenters' concerns, the FAA has
retained the requirements in current Sec. 145.21 with some changes.
Specifically, in this final rule, Sec. 145.105(a) requires approval
only of changes to the location of the repair station's housing.
Paragraph (b) requires FAA approval of changes to housing or facilities
required by Sec. 145.103 only if the change would have a significant
effect on the repair station's ability to perform maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations under its certificate and
operations specifications. Therefore, not all changes to housing or
facilities will require approval. The FAA notes that the rule does not
require FAA approval for equipment changes under this section.
Paragraph (c) retains with minor editorial changes the provision that
the FAA may prescribe conditions and limitations under which the repair
station must operate during a change to its location, housing, or
facilities.
Section 145.107 Satellite Repair Stations (Proposed Secs. 145.107 and
145.109)
Summary of Proposal/Issue: In these sections, the FAA proposed to
permit a repair station to establish a satellite repair station to
perform work at a place other than the repair station's primary
facility. Proposed Sec. 145.107(a) described a satellite repair station
and specified the requirements for the certification of these
facilities. In paragraph (b), the FAA proposed to permit the parent and
satellite repair station to use each other's personnel and equipment.
Additionally, in paragraphs (c) and (d) the FAA proposed to codify
the current practice that a repair station located within the United
States would not be permitted to have a satellite repair station
located outside the United States. Likewise, a repair station located
outside the United States would not be permitted to have a satellite
repair station located within the United States.
Because proposed Sec. 145.109 addressed satellite repair station
operations, it has been combined with Sec. 145.107 in this final rule.
Proposed Sec. 145.109 required that a chief inspector or an assistant
chief inspector be designated for a satellite repair station. The
proposal also required that the inspector be available at the satellite
repair station or, if away from the premises, by telephone, radio, or
other electronic means.
Comments: Commenters generally supported the concept of satellite
repair stations. However, the majority of commenters requested that the
CHDO for the repair station with managerial control also have
responsibility for the satellite repair station. Commenters also
indicated that a single point of contact with the FAA is important.
With regard to satellite repair station manuals, commenters
requested that a satellite repair station be able to combine its manual
with the manual of the managing repair station. Some commenters
suggested that the satellite repair station's procedures could be in an
appendix to the managing repair station's manual. A few commenters
stated that one manual would permit one quality control system for the
managing and satellite repair stations, which would promote safety.
Commenters also stated that the manual should be accepted rather than
approved as provided for in the proposal.
Commenters stated that the word ``independent'' should be removed
from proposed paragraph (b) because it has not been defined and appears
to create another category of satellite repair stations.
Commenters generally opposed proposed paragraphs (c) and (d)
because the restrictions from having satellite repair stations in
countries other than the country of the managing repair station hinder
the expansion of the aviation industry across international borders.
Commenters stated that a single quality control system offers the
potential for a satellite repair station to be located ``globally.''
Commenters asked whether a repair station located outside the United
States may have a satellite repair station located outside the United
States and, if so, whether the satellite repair station must be in the
same country as the managing repair station.
With regard to proposed Sec. 145.109, commenters opposed the use of
the terms ``chief'' inspector and ``assistant chief'' inspector. Some
commenters stated that part 145 does not require those specific
positions. The JAA recommended amending the proposal to require that
the inspector be present when there is a need to inspect or return to
service an article. The JAA noted that it is important to prevent
telephone-based judgments made on the basis of another person's
observations when an aircraft has been involved in an incident.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised this section in the final rule to
clarify the requirements for satellite repair stations. In addition,
the final rule does not use the term ``parent'' to describe the
managing repair station but rather refers to it as the ``repair station
with managerial control'' over the satellite repair station.
The FAA intends that the CHDO for the repair station with
managerial control also hold the satellite's repair station
certificate. Surveillance will be conducted by the geographic flight
standards district office (FSDO) at the request of the CHDO. Although a
satellite repair station will have its own certificate, it may not hold
a rating not held by the repair station with managerial control. The
satellite need not hold all the ratings held by the managing repair
station. This requirement is in paragraph (a)(1).
With regard to the satellite's repair station manual, the satellite
may use the managing repair station's manual if it is applicable to the
satellite's operations. The two manuals may not be identical because
the operations of the managing and satellite repair stations may not be
identical. It is likely that the satellite repair station will use
portions of the managing repair station's manual. The
[[Page 41100]]
FAA notes that the manuals could be combined with specific procedures
set apart for the satellite repair station. When applying for its
certificate, the satellite repair station must submit whatever manual
it will use. The FAA notes that the manual must be acceptable to the
FAA rather than approved by the Administrator, as proposed.
This final rule also requires that the applicant for a satellite
repair station certificate submit a quality control manual acceptable
to the FAA. Like the repair station manual, the quality control manual
may be identical to the managing repair station's quality control
manual, if appropriate. The requirement for a quality control manual
will be discussed in the analysis of Sec. 145.211.
Paragraph (b) of this final rule contains the requirements of
proposed paragraph (b) and proposed Sec. 145.109. References to
``chief'' inspector and ``assistant chief'' inspector have been
deleted. The FAA also included language to clarify that inspection
personnel designated for a satellite repair station must be available
at the satellite repair station any time a determination of
airworthiness or return to service is made. In other circumstances,
inspection personnel may be away from the premises but must be
available by telephone, radio, or other electronic means.
This final rule combines proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) and
provides that a satellite repair station may not be located in a
country other than the domicile country of the certificated repair
station with managerial control. This prohibition is necessary because
of certification and surveillance issues. For example, if the repair
station with managerial control is located in a country with whom the
United States has a BASA and MIP, certification is accomplished under
the BASA and MIP and surveillance is performed by the CAA of the
foreign country. If the satellite repair station is located in another
country with whom the United States does not have a BASA and MIP,
certification of the satellite repair station could not be accomplished
in a manner consistent with that of the repair station with managerial
control. In addition, the entity providing surveillance of the repair
station with managerial control would not provide surveillance of the
satellite repair station.
Section 145.109 (Proposed Sec. 145.111) Equipment, Materials, and Data
Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposed requirements were based on
current Secs. 145.47 and 145.49. The proposal would have retained the
requirements similar to those of current Secs. 145.47(a) and (b), and
145.49(a); however, the proposal would have required that tools used to
accomplish work must be those recommended by the manufacturer or
equivalent to the manufacturer's recommendation, and acceptable to the
Administrator. The proposal also would have required that tools used
for product acceptance and/or for making a finding of airworthiness be
tested at regular intervals to ensure correct calibration to a standard
acceptable to the Administrator.
Comments: Commenters opposed proposed paragraph (a) on the basis
that it precludes repair stations from renting or leasing equipment.
The commenters stated that this option is particularly important for
expensive, rarely used tools.
Commenters stated that proposed paragraph (b) is vague. Some
commenters requested that the FAA define a ``standard acceptable to the
Administrator.'' Other commenters stated that the regulation should
state that the standards be derived from National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) standards or ``accepted or approved by
a national government standards agency.''
Commenters who opposed proposed paragraph (c) stated that the tools
and equipment should be required to be in place only when the work is
being performed. In addition, some commenters stated that the proposal
limits the repair station's ability to develop alternative tooling that
performs the intended function and would be acceptable to the
Administrator. A few commenters recommended eliminating this paragraph
because equipment and tooling already are addressed in Sec. 43.13(a).
Because the FAA has moved the requirements for a repair station to
keep current certain documents from proposed Sec. 145.201(b) and (c) to
Sec. 145.109 in this final rule, comments on maintaining current
documents and possessing manufacturers' maintenance manual requirements
in proposed Sec. 145.201(b) and (c) will be discussed here. Commenters
encouraged the FAA to revise the rule to permit the use of electronic
databases. Some commenters stated that the rule language should
reference part 43. Commenters also opposed the requirement to always
have all the documents and data listed in this section. They contended
that the information is necessary only when the work is being
performed. Specifically, commenters stated that there is no need for a
repair station to have all service bulletins applicable to a part
unless work required by the particular service bulletin is being
performed. Other commenters complained that to require a repair station
to maintain all current manufacturers' maintenance manuals relating to
an article when maintenance is performed is unnecessarily costly. Some
commenters requested that ``approved technical data'' be added to the
list of required data.
FAA Response: The FAA has substantially revised the proposed
requirements based on the comments. The language adopted in this final
rule is based in part on language provided by commenters.
In this final rule, paragraph (a) requires a repair station to have
the equipment, materials, and tools necessary to perform the work under
its repair station certificate and operations specifications in
accordance with part 43. Although proposed paragraph (a) did not
preclude repair stations from renting or leasing equipment, the FAA has
revised that paragraph to clarify that the equipment must be located on
the repair station's premises and under its control when the work is
being done.
The FAA has revised paragraph (b) as proposed to require that a
repair station ensure that all test and inspection equipment and tools
used to make airworthiness determinations are calibrated to a standard
acceptable to the FAA. The FAA will issue guidance regarding what
standards will be acceptable to the FAA. The FAA has issued numerous
exemptions from the current requirement that calibration be to a
standard derived from the NIST when the alternative standard has been
accepted by the NIST as adequate. The intent of this provision is to
provide more regulatory flexibility. The FAA notes that this paragraph
no longer requires that the equipment be calibrated at ``regular''
intervals. The interval at which measuring and test equipment is
calibrated depends on the type and use of the equipment; therefore, the
word ``regular'' does not adequately describe when the equipment should
be calibrated. The FAA notes that Sec. 145.211(c)(1)(viii) requires
that a repair station's quality control manual contain a description of
the systems and procedures for calibrating measuring and test equipment
used in maintaining articles, including the intervals at which the
equipment will be calibrated.
Paragraph (c) has been simplified and the references to appendix A
to part 145 have been eliminated. This final rule provides that
equipment, materials, and tools must be those recommended by
[[Page 41101]]
the manufacturer of the article, or at least an equivalent, and
acceptable to the FAA. In response to the comment, the FAA notes that
the rule permits a repair station to develop its own tooling provided
it is at least equivalent to that recommended by the manufacturer and
acceptable to the FAA.
The FAA has replaced proposed paragraph (d) with requirements
similar to those in proposed Sec. 145.201(b) and (c). The FAA has
determined that requirements for maintaining documents and data are
more appropriately located in Sec. 145.109. This final rule requires
each repair station to maintain, in a format acceptable to the FAA, the
documents and data necessary to perform work under its repair station
certificate and operations specifications in accordance with part 43.
The documents and data must be current and accessible when the relevant
work is being done. As suggested by one commenter, the FAA has added a
reference to other applicable data acceptable to or approved by the
FAA.
In addition, the final rule permits the required documents and data
to be maintained in a format acceptable to the FAA. As previously
noted, this language will permit the information to be stored
electronically and give the FAA the discretion to permit the storage of
information through other media, if appropriate.
Regarding the document and data requirements, the FAA notes that
Sec. 43.13 already requires that work be performed in accordance with
the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to
the Administrator.
Subpart D--Personnel
Section 145.151 Personnel Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: In Sec. 145.151 the FAA proposed to
establish the same general personnel requirements for repair stations
located inside the United States as those located outside the United
States. The FAA also proposed to require each certificated repair
station to designate an individual as the accountable manager.
Comments: For reasons previously discussed, commenters opposed
requiring a repair station to designate an accountable manager as
proposed in paragraph (a)(1). Commenters opposed the requirement in
proposed paragraph (a)(2) for a ``sufficient'' number of personnel on
the basis that it is vague. Some commenters stated that the level of
staffing is a business decision. An association stated that this
language may prohibit smaller facilities from meeting the requirements
of the paragraph because the workload of a small repair station can
fluctuate dramatically during a given time period.
One commenter asked whether ``maintenance operations'' as used in
proposed paragraph (a)(3) include alterations. A few commenters
recommended removing the word ``noncertificated'' from that paragraph.
Other commenters stated the proposal could require all noncertificated
employees, such as building maintenance personnel, to be tested. Some
commenters stated that requiring practical tests of noncertificated
employees would be impractical because the repair station would have to
develop and administer tests for every conceivable job function.
With regard to proposed paragraph (c), commenters again criticized
the use of the word ``sufficient.'' Commenters also criticized the use
of the word ``technique'' because it is unrelated to a standard.
FAA Response: The FAA has made editorial changes, removed redundant
requirements, and reorganized this section for clarity. The language
adopted in the final rule is based, in part, on language proposed by
commenters.
As discussed in the analysis of Sec. 145.3, the FAA has retained
the position of accountable manager. The FAA notes that a repair
station is not required to hire an individual to fill this position but
may designate a current employee as the accountable manager. In
addition, a satellite repair station need not designate an accountable
manager; the accountable manager for the repair station with managerial
control over the satellite repair station may serve in this position.
The FAA has retained the requirement for a ``sufficient'' number of
employees in paragraph (c). Because repair stations vary in size, the
FAA cannot require a specific number of employees, and the language
accommodates this situation. The FAA notes that the rule does not
require a repair station to always maintain a certain staffing level
but rather requires it have a sufficient number of employees for the
work being performed.
In response to one commenter's concern, paragraph (d) in the final
rule applies only to employees who perform maintenance functions under
part 145. The FAA disagrees with the commenters who suggested removing
the word ``noncertificated.'' The final rule requirement that a repair
station determine the abilities of its employees based on training,
knowledge, experience, or practical tests applies only to
noncertificated employees who perform maintenance functions. The FAA
notes that a determination based on these criteria is not required for
part 65 certificated employees.
In response to the commenter who asked whether maintenance
operations include alterations, the FAA previously noted that
maintenance functions (proposed as maintenance operations) include all
the tasks required to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations.
Section 145.153 Supervisory Personnel Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: In this section, the FAA proposed
minimum practical experience and training requirements for supervisory
personnel. The proposal also would have expanded the Administrator's
ability to determine the competence of all supervisory personnel. In
addition, this proposed section would have required minimum experience
and training requirements for inspection personnel employed at repair
stations.
Comments: Commenters generally opposed this proposed section.
Commenters questioned why the proposal requires part 65 certification
of supervisors. Some of these commenters questioned why a certificated
supervisor also must have 18 months of experience. One association
asked what constitutes 18 months of experience: for example, performing
the maintenance function once a month or once in 18 months. Commenters
opposed the proposed requirement for a ``sufficient'' number of trained
personnel to supervise the maintenance performed and suggested
replacing the term ``trained personnel'' with ``qualified personnel.''
Commenters asked for clarification of the difference between a
``supervisor'' and a ``person directly in charge.'' In addition,
commenters opposed the FAA determining the appropriate ratio between
supervisors and apprentices or students. Commenters also opposed the
proposal to permit the FAA to evaluate supervisory personnel,
particularly based on testing. Commenters felt this provision is
overreaching and may allow abuse and personal bias.
Commenters stated the proposal does not eliminate the distinctions
between repair stations located inside the United States and those
located outside the United States. Unions opposed exempting foreign
repair station personnel from part 65 certification requirements.
[[Page 41102]]
FAA Response: The FAA has revised this section to clarify its
requirements and remove redundant provisions. In addition, this section
no longer addresses inspection personnel requirements. For clarity, the
FAA determined that it would be better to address inspection personnel
requirements in a separate section.
The final rule retains the requirement for a ``sufficient'' number
of personnel to perform supervisory duties. As previously noted,
because repair stations vary in size, the FAA cannot require a specific
number of supervisors. The final rule also requires that supervisors
hold part 65 certification if employed by a repair station located
inside the United States. However, the rule does not require
supervisors employed by a repair station located inside the United
States to have either 18 months of experience or be trained or
thoroughly familiar with the means used to accomplish the maintenance
work being supervised, as proposed. The FAA notes it is not necessary
to set forth such experience requirements in this rule because the
proposed experience requirements are similar to the 18-month practical
experience requirement in Sec. 65.77 for mechanics and Sec. 65.101 for
repairmen. However, supervisors at repair stations located outside the
United States are required under the final rule to meet the proposed
experience requirements because they are not required to have part 65
certification. During the certification process of a repair station
that is located outside of the United States, the FAA assesses the
foreign country's licensing procedures to determine if they meet
minimum safety standards that are acceptable to the FAA. Also, under
BASAs with other countries, the FAA can assesses the adequacy of
licensing procedures either separately or as one of the elements of the
MIP.
If the FAA determines that a country's licensing procedures are not
acceptable, the FAA has the discretion to require that the personnel
performing covered maintenance functions in those repair stations be
certificated under part 65 before the station will be issued a part 145
certificate. In the case of a BASA where the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) does meet all of the FAA licensing standards, the Administrator
would require the CAA to add additional requirements. In addition, part
145 sets forth minimum experience and knowledge requirements for
foreign maintenance personnel. Adequate controls are in place that
allow the Administrator to exercise discretion in the interest of
safety and to ensure that only qualified maintenance personnel perform
work in repair stations located outside the United States. The FAA
finds that requiring all foreign maintenance personnel to meet the part
65 certification requirements would not serve any safety purpose, and
it would place an unnecessary burden on both the FAA and the foreign
maintenance personnel. Imposing such requirements would impair the
exercise of discretion, and thus not be appropriate.
Finally, this final rule includes the requirement that supervisors
understand, read, and write English. The FAA notes that the proposal
contained such a requirement for supervisors at repair stations located
outside the United States. Supervisors at repair stations located
inside the United States are required to be certificated under part 65;
that part requires those individuals to read, write, speak, and
understand English.
The final rule does not dictate the ratio of supervisors to
individuals being supervised but leaves this decision to the repair
station. With regard to the difference between a ``supervisor'' and a
``person directly in charge,'' the definition of ``directly in charge''
provides that the person need not physically observe and direct each
worker constantly but must be available for consultation on matters
requiring instruction or decision from higher authority. A supervisor
would physically observe and direct a worker when needed.
The FAA has not included proposed paragraph (g) in the final rule.
This paragraph provided for FAA evaluation of supervisory personnel
based on employment records, tests, or any other methods. The FAA has
determined that such a provision is not necessary because this section
already requires supervisory personnel to meet certain qualifications.
Section 145.155 (Proposed Sec. 145.153) Inspection Personnel
Requirements
Summary of proposal/issue: Proposed Sec. 145.153 would have
addressed inspection personnel requirements.
Comments: Commenters opposed the proposal to permit the FAA to
evaluate inspection personnel, particularly based on testing.
Commenters felt this provision is overreaching and may allow abuse and
personal bias.
FAA Response: For clarity, the FAA has addressed inspection
personnel requirements in this separate section. The FAA notes that
minimum qualification requirements, currently found in Sec. 145.45,
were inadvertently omitted from the proposal. The final rule contains
qualification requirements similar to those found in the current rule.
The final rule does not require that inspection personnel hold part 65
certification. However, the inspectors must be thoroughly familiar with
applicable regulations and inspection methods, techniques, practices,
aids, equipment, and tools used to determine the airworthiness of an
article. In addition, they must be proficient in using various types of
inspection equipment and visual inspection aides appropriate for the
article being inspected. Finally, the final rule includes the
requirement that inspectors understand, read, and write English.
The FAA notes that this section does not include the proposed
provision that would permit the FAA to evaluate inspection personnel
based on employment records, tests, or any other methods. As noted in
the discussion of Sec. 145.153, inspection personnel are already
required to meet certain qualifications.
Section 145.157 (Proposed Sec. 145.211(c)) Personnel Authorized To
Approve an Article for Return to Service
Summary of Proposal/Issue: Proposed Sec. 145.211(c) would have set
forth the qualifications for inspectors authorized to perform
inspections under that section.
Comments: No comments were received on this proposal.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the requirements for
personnel authorized to return an article to service are more
appropriately included in subpart D, which contains all other personnel
requirements, rather than subpart E, which addresses operating rules.
The final rule requires that personnel authorized to return an article
to service be part 65 certificated unless employed by a repair station
located outside the United States. The final rule requires personnel
employed by a repair station outside the United States to have 18
months of practical experience and be thoroughly familiar with the
applicable regulations and proficient in the use of the various
inspection methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools
appropriate for the work performed and approved for return to service.
Such experience requirements are not necessary for personnel authorized
to approve an article for return to service who are employed by a
repair station located in the United States, because those personnel
hold part 65 certification. Finally, the final rule also includes the
requirement that personnel authorized to approve an article for return
to service must understand, read, and write English.
[[Page 41103]]
Section 145.159 (Proposed Sec. 145.155) Recommendation of a Person for
Certification as a Repairman
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The proposal would have required a
repair station to recommend a sufficient number of repairmen to meet
all applicable requirements of this part if the repair station chooses
to use repairmen to satisfy these requirements. The FAA also proposed
to delete provisions of current Sec. 145.41(b), which required that
each person recommended must be at or above the level of shop foreman
or department head or be responsible for supervising the work performed
by the repair station. Section 145.41(b) also permitted a repair
station to recommend any employee who meets the requirements of current
Sec. 65.101 for certification as a repairman.
Consistent with proposed Sec. 145.153(g), proposed Sec. 145.155(b)
also would have permitted the Administrator to evaluate any repairman's
ability by inspecting employment and experience records and/or by
administering an oral or practical test.
Comments: Comments on the proposed language varied. One association
contended that the requirements under Sec. 65.101 are explicit enough
that proposed Sec. 145.155(a)(3) and (b)(1) through (b)(3) is not
necessary. That association stated that the proposed language is
confusing because it could be interpreted as imposing requirements in
addition to those found in Sec. 65.101. Commenters recommended
eliminating proposed paragraph (b), which permitted subsequent FAA
evaluation of a repairman based on employment, tests, or any other
methods.
FAA Response: The FAA has substantially revised the proposal to
address commenters' concerns. This final rule simply requires a repair
station who chooses to use repairmen to meet the applicable personnel
requirements of this part to certify that each person recommended is
employed by the repair station and meets the eligibility requirements
of Sec. 65.101. The rule no longer requires a repair station to certify
that the person has the necessary training and practical experience to
perform the work functions for which certification is required. It was
not the FAA's intent to impose training or experience requirements
beyond those imposed in Sec. 65.101.
Current Sec. 145.41 requires that a certificated repair station
recommend at least one person for certification as a repairman. Under
this final rule, a repair station is not required to recommend any
specific number of repairmen. However, the FAA notes that a repair
station must have an appropriate number of repairmen for the work to be
performed under its certificate and ratings. In addition, this final
rule does not contain the proposal regarding subsequent evaluation of a
repairman.
Section 145.161 (Proposed Sec. 145.157) Records of Management,
Supervisory, and Inspection Personnel
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA based this proposed section on
current Sec. 145.43. The FAA proposal continued to require a repair
station to retain a roster of supervisory (including management)
personnel and inspection personnel. In paragraph (a)(3) the FAA
proposed to establish a new requirement for a repair station to retain
a roster of those certificated personnel authorized to sign a
maintenance release for approval for return to service of an altered or
repaired article.
The proposal included current requirements relating to the
retention of information indicating compliance with experience
requirements. The FAA proposed to modify the current rule by requiring
that these rosters be kept current.
Comments: Commenters suggested revisions to the proposed language,
including elimination of the term ``chief inspector.'' A few commenters
requested that the FAA define the term ``technical supervisors'' as
used in paragraph (a)(1). Some commenters opposed the requirement that
repair stations must prepare a summary of past employment history and
total years of experience for individuals listed on the rosters.
Commenters stated that the only appropriate information to include in
the summary is the individual's title, scope of present assignment, and
FAA certificate number. Commenters also stated that the rule should
accommodate temporary assignments without requiring updated rosters.
FAA Response: In response to a request to define ``technical
supervisors'' as used in proposed paragraph (a)(1), the FAA has revised
that paragraph to state ``supervisors who oversee maintenance
functions.'' In addition, the FAA has deleted the term ``chief
inspector'' from paragraph (a)(2). The FAA has determined that the
summary required in paragraph (a)(4) is necessary to assist the agency
in determining that an individual is qualified for the position held at
the repair station. In addition, the FAA notes that the summary is a
current requirement under Sec. 145.43. The FAA has revised proposed
paragraph (a)(4)(iii), which would have required that the summary
include all past employment records with the names of employers and
periods of employment by month and year. The final rule requires only
past relevant employment with the names of employers and period of
employment.
The FAA has added language in paragraph (b) to provide repair
stations with 5 business days for updating rosters. This revision
should preclude the necessity for daily revisions of rosters.
Section 145.163 (Proposed Sec. 145.159) Training Requirements
Summary of Proposal/Issue: The FAA proposed to require each
certificated repair station to establish a training program approved by
the Administrator that consists of initial and recurrent training for
employees assigned to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration functions. The FAA proposed to require that records of
accomplished training be documented by the repair station in a form
acceptable to the Administrator and that these records be retained for
the duration of each individual's employment.
Comments: Commenters voiced various criticisms about the proposed
training requirements. Many commenters complained that the proposal
does not contain specific requirements and stated that the FAA should
issue advisory material for comment before publication of the final
rule. Commenters wanted to know the type of training required, the
frequency of training, and what is required to quantify and qualify on-
the-job training. Some commenters stated that a ``one size fits all''
rule will not work for small repair stations. One association stated
that the hiring practices of small repair stations or the performance
of limited and specifically defined, repetitive work does not require
continuous training and retraining. Many commenters stated that the
training program should be acceptable to the Administrator rather than
approved by the Administrator. The NTSB noted that the minimum
standards for the recurrent training of pilots, flight attendants, and
ground personnel involved in deicing and currency of job-specific
skills is no less important for mechanics. The NTSB stated that the
final rule should specify a reasonable quantity of recurrent training.
An association representing European air carriers stated that the FAA
should not require training programs for foreign repair stations that
are significantly different than those used by the JAA. Unions and an
[[Page 41104]]
association expressed support for a training requirement for repair
stations.
With regard to the recordkeeping requirement, commenters stated
that the FAA should specify which items to include in the records
rather than state that the records should be in a format acceptable to
the Administrator. Commenters also recommended that training records be
maintained for 2 years only.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that adoption of a training
program for repair station employees who perform maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations would enhance aviation safety by
helping to ensure that those employees are fully capable of performing
the work. It also would promote a level of safety equivalent to that of
maintenance performed under parts 121 or part 135.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who contend that training
programs should be accepted rather than approved. To ensure that the
right type of program and amount of training is tailored to each
individual repair station, the FAA has elected to approve training
programs rather than accept them. The FAA recognizes that the training
programs may vary depending on the size of the repair station and the
nature of the work performed. Therefore, the FAA is not prescribing
specific training requirements but will approve individual training
programs submitted by repair stations. Before the effective date of the
final rule, the FAA will issue advisory material regarding the required
training program. The FAA does not anticipate