March 9, 2016 Docket Management Facility U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Nassif Building, Room PL-401 Washington, DC 20590-001 Subject: Aerospace Industries Association Comments to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for 14 CFR Parts 145 Repair Stations; Proposed Rule Reference: Docket No. FAA–2006–26408 The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) represents the nation’s leading manufacturers and suppliers of civil, military, and business aircraft, helicopters, Unmanned Aerial Systems, space systems, aircraft engines, missiles, materiel, and related components, equipment, services, and information technology. Our over 270 member companies, a significant number of which are smaller businesses and suppliers, employ more than 600,000 workers in the U.S. alone. The subject NPRM proposes to amend and/or revise appropriate sections of existing Regulation 14CFR Part 145. The AIA Manufacturing & Maintenance Subcommittee sought and obtained the supporting member companies’ comments in response to the subject Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on December 1st, 2006 as Docket Number FAA–2006–26408. The purpose of this letter is to communicate support for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) effort associated with the subject NPRM, and also to convey general and specific comments which have been coordinated across our constituency and which are focused upon further improving the language, clarity, and scope of the document. Summary Issues of Greatest Concern: Overall, and as explained in more detail below, our review of the NPRM divulges significant concern, in order of significance, with the following topics … Capability List o The list seems to require a significant of information without explicit safety benefits. For larger repair stations and those with complex products, producing and maintaining a non-generic list is an onerous and non-beneficial task. A part number based list is demanding for larger repair stations and those with complex Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org products; and we are cognizant to instances where ASIs/PMIs have requested such a list. Internal systems can be used to document that a repair station has the capability to do the work. Work away from station o Aviation is a global business and our customers, their passengers and their “cargoes” need and expect global responses from their maintenance providers, particularly in emergency situations. The international requirements proposed are not feasible nor are they well defined. They will have a detrimental effect on air commerce and potentially safety. Chief Inspector designation o Particularly for large repair stations and those with complex products, we see no value added by the creation of such a position. In such situations, it would be difficult for the FAA to grant a Repairman certificate based on the usual criteria of being specially qualified with 18 months of experience in all the tasks of such a repair station with multiple specialized processes and configurations. Many repair stations run continuous operations, and coverage by one Chief Inspector is unrealistic. Creation of multiple Chief Inspectors creates a situation where there is practically no one Chief Inspector and is the status quo. If such is position is created, the FAA needs to clarify and define the requirements. Greatest Positive Change: Quality Control System o AIA member companies find the Quality System requirements to be well thought out and in agreement with those of other National Aviation Authorities, as well as those of Industry specifications such as AS/EN/JISQ 9100/9110. Issues Which Need to be Addressed: For existing repair stations in good standing, there must be an acknowledgment and/or recognition (grandfathering) of prior certifications and licenses (honoring existing Operations Specifications and capabilities, including limitations) such that repair stations will not be required to essentially reapply for their ratings. A purely administrative process is needed. It is highly recommended, both for the benefit of the FAA and Industry that there be a phasing in of the new proposed Rules, e.g., Air Agency Certificate issue date issues, etc. Perhaps the methodology used to transition existing repair stations into the training program requirements could be utilized as a model Based on some the requested clarification needed, as explained below, there is a need for good guidance material to be developed. Further, AIA recommends that much of the Preamble material be incorporated into the necessary Advisory Circulars and Orders. In this way, the material remains readily and conveniently available for all. 2 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Specific comments to the NPRM: Comment 1: Section 145.51 Application for Certificate In general, our member companies agree with the proposed changes. However, we offer the following for your consideration: a) We urge the FAA to clarify that existing repair stations applying for these new ratings will not be considered as applying for a new certificate as seems to be implied by §145.57. Otherwise, a grandfather clause is needed such that existing repair stations will not have to prepare Letters of Compliance as apparently all repair stations will have to apply for new ratings. b) The text of §145.51(a)(4) is inconsistent with the text of §145.215(b) as revised. Suggest that §145.51(a)(4) reference a capability list in accordance with §145.215(b). c) Para. (b) 2nd sentence, change “may” to “will”. d) The proposed language in §145.51, (a)(1) should be changed to: “A letter of compliance detailing how the applicant will comply with the requirements of this part.” Rationale: a) A letter of compliance takes substantial effort and should not be required if a repair station is in good standing. This is particularly true for large repair stations with multiple products. b) Consistency across Regulation. c) The use of “may” is non-definitive and open to interpretation. Either it will be acceptable or it will not be acceptable. d) The term “this chapter” is generally understood to mean Chapter 1 of CFR Title 14, which includes parts 1 thru 199. If the FAA intends for this “letter of compliance” to provide details on how an applicant intends to comply with part 145 then the proposed rule language should be amended to reflect this intention. Comment 2: Section 145.53 Issuance of Certificate Request clarification regarding the apparent removal of the HazMat training requirement. Appears to be an oversight due to prior c) and d) being removed. We believe the proposed Section 145.57 should be amended. Rationale: The proposed new §145.53(c) pertains to denial of a certificate. Removal of the Haz-Mat requirement §145.53(c)(d) is not explained and would be in conflict with the intent of §145.57(a) which has not changed (refer to current §145.57(a) below). Current Sec. 145.57 3 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Amendment to or transfer of certificate. (a) The holder of a repair station certificate must apply for a change to its certificate in a format acceptable to the Administrator. A change to the certificate must include certification in compliance with Section 145.53(c) or (d), if not previously submitted. A certificate change is necessary if the certificate holder--. Comment 3: Section 145.59 - Ratings In general, the proposed changes are agreed upon. However, some member companies in the radio, instrument and accessory rating groups have objected to the loss of their Class Rating. Please also refer to our comments to 145.215 (Comment 14). In light of the overall review, we offer the following for your consideration: a) Revise 14 CFR Part 91.411 and 91.413 to reflect appropriate repair station ratings needed to conduct the Altimeter, Transponder tests and inspections. b) Suggest a change to the text of subparagraphs §145.59(a)(3), §145.59(b)(3) and §145.59(c)(3) for clarification, as follows: “A certificated repair station with a ZZZ rating is not required to obtain a separate Component rating to maintain articles associated with its rating and capabilities, including where such articles are received separately and not installed in or on a ZZZ.” c) Suggest that §145.59(d) Avionics Rating is renamed: Electronics. Avionics, Electrical, and d) For Component Ratings noted in §145.59(e), insert “and assemblies” after “individual component parts. Rationale: a) Currently, Radio and Instrument ratings are referenced with §91.411 and §91.413. These ratings would be eliminated in the new rating system. b) & c) are suggested for clarification of the proposed language. d) There is no definition of what a part is and this change will make it clear that “individual component parts” can be assemblies less than the whole component. Comment 4: Section 145.63 Specialized Service Ratings We concur with the proposed language as written. However, we recommend the addition of a new paragraph §145.63(e) as follows: “(e) If specialized service functions are contained within the Repair Station data for existing ratings, the Repair Station would not require an additional rating to perform that service.” 4 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Rationale: Based on past history, many PMI’s have insisted that all specialized services be listed on an operations specification regardless if such a process was in use in the repair stations normal course of business for its “product certifications”. This addition should make it clear that such is not necessary. We encourage the pertinent language of the Preamble be captured in guidance material. Comment 5: Section 145.101 General Request the FAA consider rephrasing §145.101 to read: “A certificated repair station must provide housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test apparatus, materials, and data that meet the applicable requirements for the issuance of the certificate and any rating the repair station holds.” Rationale: The preamble to the NPRM states that the FAA proposes to revise §145.101 specifically to require repair stations to provide tools and test apparatus as already required in §145.109. We support the addition of tools and test apparatus as required items a repair station must have to meet the applicable requirements for the issuance of its certificate and ratings. However, we wish to point out that in the amendment to Part 145 of Chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations on page 70271 of the NPRM, under §145.101 General, there is no mention of test apparatus. Our interpretation of the proposed language is that tools are required, but not necessarily on site (may be contracted). The certificate holder does not have to “own” tools, but must make them available. Comment 6: Section 145.103 Housing and Facilities Requirements In general, the majority agrees with the proposed changes. However, we offer the following for your consideration: a) Strongly suggest that an exception provision be added to §145.103(a)(1). In the powerplant area, there are specialty services such as borescope inspection, and certain NDI operations that are performed at various locations without a need for a repair station to physically exist. b) Request the FAA consider a change to the proposed language of §145.103(b) as follows: “A certificated repair station with an Aircraft rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its capability list. For repair stations with an Aircraft rating issued with limitations as described in § 145.61(2)(3) the required permanent housing shall be limited to housing appropriate to those limitations.” 5 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Rationale: a) There are often needs in the industry for on-site work to be accomplished. Transporting large engines, for example, is expensive and there are risks incurred with potential shipping damage each instance an engine requires shipment. This makes the ability to do work on-site extremely attractive. Such work is carried on at either the flight line or customers facilities, or “in between”. Logistically, this results in a need that can be filled by mobile teams. Repair stations can establish teams to be sent to work “away from station”. A&Ps can be mobile and perform this work on their certificates. b) AIA member companies believe the proposed requirement for permanent housing would place an undue burden on some repair stations holding Aircraft ratings with limitations. Under the proposed §145.61, the FAA may issue an Aircraft rating with limitations for a specific maintenance function or process. In many instances these specific functions or processes are performed on various types of aircraft at remote locations other than the repair station’s principal base of operations. These types of tasks include processes such as inspections of engines on-wing, and other special maintenance procedures. To avoid the undue burden of obtaining permanent housing for repair stations that hold such limitations to an Aircraft rating, we recommend consideration of the revised text noted in Comment 6b above. Comment 7: Section 145.107 Satellite Repair Stations a) We suggest that §145.107(a)(4) be re-worded as follows: “May submit the same repair station and quality system manuals as the repair station that exercises managerial control over the satellite repair station. The manuals must identify any specific processes or procedures either unique to the satellite repair station or only applicable to the repair station with managerial control, in appendices or additional sections.” b) It is suggested that the FAA retain current language of §145.107(b), or define “readily available”. The proposed language precludes having inspection personnel available by some means other than “readily available”. Rationale: a) It is likely that some data in the repair station manual will not apply to the satellite repair station as the satellite repair station may have unique processes. We believe it sensible, and compliant, to have a supplement to your Repair Station Manual. b) The current language is more specific and less open to subjection interpretation. Comment 8: Section 145.109 Equipment, Tools, Test Apparatus, Materials, and Data Requirements 6 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org The majority of the AIA member companies support these additions to the current language contained in §145.109(a). However, we also believe that for purposes of additional clarity and to further achieve consistency in this section, the FAA should include additional language that would slightly change the current (existing) language in §145.109(b) and (c). Our suggestion for §145.109(b): “A certificated repair station must ensure all test apparatus, inspection equipment, and tools used to make airworthiness determinations on articles are calibrated to a standard acceptable to the FAA.” And our suggestion for §145.109(c): “The equipment, tools, test apparatus and material must be those recommended by the manufacturer of the article or must be at least equivalent to those recommended by the manufacturer and acceptable to the FAA.” Rationale: To provide clarity and improve the consistency in the section. Comment 9: Section 145.151 Personnel Requirements The majority of AIA member companies cannot support the §145.151(b) requirements, as written, for the creation of a chief inspector position in every repair station. The functional responsibilities, accountability, and authority of this proposed position are not clear defined and no benefits are stated. Although we do not believe that this position should be a regulatory requirement, if the proposed language is adopted as written, we strongly recommend that the FAA add a definition of "chief inspector" to §145.3, Definition of Terms. The definition should be clear and precise with regard to the duties of a chief inspector and should state that a repair station may have more than one person designated as chief inspector based on the physical size, ratings, capabilities and complexity of its operations. Rationale: In most repair stations, these responsibilities are already designated to the Inspection Supervisor to whom the inspector is assigned. These supervisory personnel are already required to be certificated under part 65 and are authorized to countermand inspection findings, as appropriate. The stated duties for such a position are not sufficiently defined in order to make it a regulatory specific requirement that can be understood by Industry and evaluated consistently by FAA inspectors in the various regions. Many repair stations run continuous operations and coverage by one chief inspector is unrealistic. If such is position is created, the FAA should clarify and define those requirements of a chief inspector. 7 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org A Supervisor is typically assigned for each site/location of a repair station particularly when different functions are performed, for example, remote incident repair, line maintenance, and maintenance on life support equipment, etc. In large repair stations with multiple specialties and products, it is unlikely that one person would have the technical expertise and organizational awareness of all areas within the repair station as implicit in the preamble language. At a minimum, different areas of the repair station would need their own chief inspector with that specialized expertise. Additionally, the proposal does not make allowances for multiple shift operations. Many repair stations, especially large ones or ones with complex products, rely on a combination of disciplines, such as Engineering, Quality, Process Engineering and others specific to the type of repair station. We feel the addition of “chief inspector” would not add any value to the process, and may indeed have a negative affect. The proposed language regarding chief inspector, as drafted, does not outline the safety benefit as well as additional benefits to the public and thus cannot be supported. Furthermore, the current regulations would prevent a repair station from creating such a position, as its repair station manual would define it, if such position was beneficial to its business. Comment 10: Section 145.155 Inspection Personnel Requirements Please refer to our comment to §145.151 (Comment 9). Should the FAA decline to adopt provisions for designation of a chief inspector, the proposed changes to this section are not necessary. If the position of chief inspector is created, additional guidance is necessary and we believe that provisions should be established for utilization of multiple chief inspector positions. With this recommendation in mind, all instances of “chief inspector” should be revised to be “chief inspector(s)”. Rationale: See above rational for Comment 9. Comment 11: Section 145.161 Records of Management, Supervisory, and Inspection Personnel Please refer to our comment to §145.151 (Comment 9). Should the FAA decline to adopt provisions for designation of a chief inspector, the proposed changes to this section are not necessary. If the position of chief inspector is created, guidance is necessary and we believe that paragraph 145.161(a)(2) should be changed to read “chief inspector(s)” for entry into the roster. With this recommendation in mind, all instances of “chief inspector” should be revised to be “chief inspector(s)”. Rationale: See above rational for Comment 9. Comment 12: Section 145.203 Work Performed at another Location 8 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org We urge the FAA to consider retaining the current Regulatory language of §145.203. Our feeling is that the proposed §145.203(b) is unnecessary and the requirements currently in place are sufficient. Further, we believe that the requirements of the current §145.203(b), for “work away from station” procedures to be contained within the Certificate Holders Repair Station Manual, needs to be included in any new regulation. It is also unclear if the apparent deletion of these requirements was intentional or an oversight. Aviation is a global business. The international requirements proposed are not practical nor are they well defined and they will have a detrimental effect on air commerce and potentially safety. Rationale: Non-US operators with non-US registered aircraft in foreign locations do not follow the FAA authority, thus, working on such aircraft is not under the jurisdiction of the FAA. For aircraft, and parts thereof, which are under FAA jurisdiction, the proposed regulation would add unnecessary and undefined requirements to the repair station and the airline. An AOG operation runs on a continuous, daily basis and this would negatively impact response times. The FAA does not have the personnel available to support the “approval requirements”. It is uncertain that adequate processes and procedures are in place at foreign regulatory agencies to address the requirements of this proposal. Nor is it clear that the FAA can levy such requirements on other national authorities. The jurisdictional basis for performing to the proposed regulation is not supported. Most repair stations that perform offsite work already have procedures in their manuals and associated operational specifications approved by the FAA. Response to Preamble rationale: The “work away’ proposal would not standardize the practice used to permit repair stations to perform work outside the country in which they are domiciled because Geographic Authorization only applies to US registered aircraft whereas Repair Stations routinely perform work on non-N-registered aircraft at places away from their fixed location. Associated extract from Preamble: FAA policy currently allows an Aircraft-rated repair station located outside the United States that is also an operator holding an FAA Letter of Authorization per 14 CFR Section 129.14, to qualify for geographic authorization under its Aircraft rating. This authorization ensures that U.S.-registered aircraft are maintained in accordance with a program approved by the FAA. The proposal would standardize the practice used to permit repair stations to perform work outside the country in which they are domiciled. The following is an extract from FAA Order 8300.10, Volume 2, Chapter 163, Page 163-5: 9 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org A. Geographic Authorization. A geographic authorization is an approval provided to an airframe-rated facility to perform maintenance under contract for a U.S. air carrier or for an operator of U.S.-registered aircraft under 14 CFR part 129 at a location other than the facility. The FAA issues a geographic authorization to respond to the maintenance needs of a U.S. air carrier or part 129 operators at a station where the frequency and scope of that maintenance does not warrant permanently staffing and equipping the station for its accomplishment. There is no explanation of why this provision is necessary and why the current regulations that apply to work away from station should not continue to apply. The proposed regulation fails to recognize the practical aspects and current needs of the international aviation industry. Most work away from station is a result of unplanned situations and time is of the essence. Very expensive assets are often out of service, schedules may be interrupted, passengers (many may be US taxpayers) are inconvenienced, and our air carriers will incur additional expenses with more delays. Although we do not agree with the proposed regulation and do not believe that it should be enacted, if this regulation is enacted, Industry requests: It should be made clear that it would be possible to obtain blanket permissions from a country to allow maintenance to be performed rather than require permission. We would also request that the FAA incorporate provisions in all its current and future bilateral that would allow such activities to be automatically acceptable to foreign countries. That changes in workscope determined once on-site would only require notification to the FAA rather than permission. In closing, AIA and its member companies believe that the implementation of these requirements would place an undue administrative burden on the affected repair stations, the FAA, and the countries where work is to be performed. This burden results from the need to prepare, submit, review, approve and file the necessary documentation required to fulfill these proposed requirements. We also believe that implementation of these requirements will place an undue financial burden on aircraft owners/operators due to delays in obtaining timely maintenance services, caused by the proposed requirements to get authorizations, prepare submissions and procedural documentation and obtain written FAA approval. These delays can and are likely to result in a longer than normal loss of use of aircraft or other equipment thereby creating the financial burden for owners/operators. These delays will be increased if owners/operators require services outside of the country of domicile of a repair station after normal business hours, on weekends, during holiday periods or when a repair station’s certificate holding office is located in a different time zone such as is the case with certain International Field offices (IFOs). In the case of these IFOs there may be as much as a fourteen-hour time difference between the IFO and repair stations under their jurisdiction. Comment 13: Section 145.211 Quality System AIA supports this proposed change. We feel strongly that the FAA has taken a noteworthy step toward harmonization with current EASA Rules and industry standards. 10 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Rationale: These Quality System changes bring greater harmonization with the regulatory requirements of other countries and AS9100/AS9110-based quality systems. Many of these requirements have already been incorporated into the procedures of repair stations that hold other international certifications. The use of internal audits and a rigorous root cause and corrective action process will improve quality and may produce additional benefits such as lower cost of poor quality costs within a repair station. Required management review and action further drives quality and airworthiness improvement. We particularly concur with the change to §145.211(a)(1) that makes it clear that the repair station is responsible for “articles that are airworthy with respect to the work performed”. The scope of responsibility has often been an issue to both customers and regulators and a source of contention. Comment 14: Section 145.215 Capability List We strongly object to the proposed changes to require a capability list for “all the articles for which it is rated to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations”. If capability lists must be required, a more general listing of article nomenclature should be adequate (such as “GE CF-6 Engine HPT Blades, PW 4060 HPT Vanes, etc.”). Changes to the general listing will be available for review. Details of articles associated with the general listing should be available for review, evaluation, or audit immediately upon request. If adopted, we believe that the maintenance of a “capabilities list” should be permitted to be done electronically. Additionally, we offer the following for your consideration: a) Revise 145.215(b) to remove manufacturer and category, and add “, or series” after model. Rationale: This suggestion aligns with Preamble explanation under Avionics and Components Ratings (NPRM page 70260) that Avionics and Components ratings present different challenges to the rating system due to the volume of articles addressed by the rating therefore … the name of the manufacturer must be included in the list of articles … separated by category. Additionally, Preamble descriptions for Aircraft, Powerplant, and Propeller capability lists indicate that repair station must “list the type, make, model, or series….” For repair stations with extensive product lines or complex products, a capability list for all articles would provide a heavy burden on both the repair station and the FAA. Arguably, the only way to meet the criterion of “all” is to list by part number. However, for large repair stations with complex products, such as those that would carry Aircraft and Powerplant ratings, the volume of paperwork and expense would be extraordinary. Although in the past the FAA has recognized that listings by part number should not be a requirement, the “all” criterion seems to drive in that direction. 11 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org Consider that a Powerplant repair station may repair individual parts of the Powerplant, if such are sent in for repair. A printed Illustrated Parts Catalog for one transport aircraft sized engine is three to four inches thick. Obviously, multiple engine models are worked on in the repair station, and part numbers change constantly. To prepare and keep such a list up to date will be a serious resource strain on both industry and the FAA. For a major turbine airfoil repair shop, there are hundreds of possible part numbers, frequently changing. In closing, AIA and its member companies generally agree with the requirement for repair stations to prepare descriptive capability lists, however in the proposed language the FAA requires that a repair station list all the articles it may maintain under its rating. To comply with a requirement to list all articles a repair station would need to prepare a list by part number as well as part nomenclature. To prepare a list of all articles by part number would place an undue burden on aircraft, powerplant, and component rated repair stations since such lists would initially contain thousands of entries. Maintaining these lists in a current condition would require daily updating, since manufacturers continually add new parts by part number to their parts catalogs. We trust that adequate information has been included to allow the FAA to make a favorable determination in support of our member company consensus comments and recommendations. Should you require any additional information, however, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely, Ranee Carr Manager, Civil Aviation Programs 12 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org