Repair Stations, 70254-70273 [06-9479]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70254-70273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9479]



[[Page 70253]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 145



Repair Stations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71 , No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 70254]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 145

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


Repair Stations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the regulations for repair stations 
by revising the system of ratings and requiring repair stations to 
establish a quality program. The FAA also proposes additional changes 
critical to maintaining safety. These include requiring a repair 
station to maintain a capability list, designating a chief inspector, 
and having permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, 
and personnel. In addition, this proposal also specifies those 
instances when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate. The 
proposal looks at the particular cases where a previously held 
certificate has been revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes to clarify 
recent revisions to the repair station regulations. This action is 
necessary to reflect changes in aviation technology and repair station 
business practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before March 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-
26408 using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For 
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George W. Bean, General Aviation and 
Repair Station Branch, AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3109; facsimile (202) 267-5115, e-mail George.W.Bean@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to take part in this rulemaking 
by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments 
about the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that 
might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most 
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain 
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We 
ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
about this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site, 
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, 
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing 
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments 
filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or 
delay. We may change this proposal because of the comments we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

[[Page 70255]]

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106, 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
title 49, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, General 
requirements, and Section 44707, Examining and rating air agencies. 
Under section 44701, the FAA may prescribe regulations and standards in 
the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. It may also 
prescribe equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, 
inspecting, servicing, and overhauling. Under section 44707, the FAA 
may examine and rate repair stations.
    This regulation is within the scope of section 44701 since it 
establishes new regulations for a repair station to establish a quality 
program, requires a repair station to maintain a capability list, 
designate a chief inspector, and have permanent housing for all its 
facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel. This regulation is 
within the scope of section 44707 since it revises the system of 
ratings for repair stations and specifies those instances when the FAA 
may deny the issuance of a repair station certificate, especially when 
a previously held certificate has been revoked.

Background

    In 1975, industry participants in the FAA's First Biennial 
Operations Review recommended that the agency revise Title 14, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 145, Repair Stations. The FAA 
subsequently adopted minor amendments to part 145; however, the FAA did 
not make any major revisions until November 22, 1988 (Amendment No. 
145-21, 53 FR 47376). In that amendment, the FAA expanded the scope of 
work that U.S.-certificated repair stations located outside the United 
States may perform. It also allowed certain repair stations to contract 
maintenance functions to noncertificated entities under specific 
conditions.
    The FAA held four public meetings in 1989 as part of a regulatory 
review of 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, 
Rebuilding, and Alteration, 14 CFR part 65, Certification: Airmen Other 
than Flight Crewmembers, subpart E, Repairmen, and 14 CFR part 145. 
These meetings provided a forum for the public to comment on possible 
revisions to the rules governing repair stations. More than 500 
representatives of repair stations, airlines, unions, manufacturers, 
foreign governments, industry organizations, and individuals attended 
the meetings.
    The goal of the meetings was to gather enough factual information 
from the public to decide whether the FAA should revise the repair 
station regulations, and if so, to determine what revisions the FAA 
should make. To prepare for the meetings, the FAA identified several 
areas of the repair station rules that might need revision. These areas 
were:
     Organization and format;
     Ratings and classes;
     Operations and inspection procedures;
     Manufacturers' maintenance facilities;
     Contracting of maintenance by repair stations;
     Repair station privileges;
     Facility, housing, and equipment requirements;
     Recordkeeping and report requirements; and
     Management, inspection personnel, and repairmen 
qualifications.
    Participants discussed these issues at the FAA public meetings and 
sent written comments to Docket No. 25965, which the FAA set up for the 
regulatory review. Responses from participants at the meetings and 
comments received in the docket showed a need to revise and update 
repair station regulations.
    After considering the comments and data collected, the FAA issued 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 99-09, ``Part 145 Review: Repair 
Stations'' (64 FR 33142, June 21, 1999). On July 30, 2001, the FAA 
issued ``Repair Stations; Final rule with request for comments and 
direct final rule with request for comments'' (66 FR 41088, August 6, 
2001). The FAA requested comments on removing appendix A from part 145, 
which the FAA had not proposed originally, and on the paperwork burden. 
In that final rule, the FAA:
     Reorganized and clarified certain subparts and sections of 
part 145;
     Removed limited ratings for manufacturers' maintenance 
facilities;
     Changed repair station housing and equipment requirements;
     Included rules for exchanging equipment among satellite 
repair stations and for leasing equipment;
     Required repair stations to develop a repair station 
manual that prescribes its operating procedures;
     Required repair stations to develop a quality control 
manual that is similar to the previously required inspection procedures 
manual;
     Provided for the operation of satellite repair stations;
     Expanded the scope of contract maintenance; and
     Required repair stations to develop a training program.
    Although the FAA proposed a new system of ratings and classes in 
Notice No. 99-09, the FAA kept the existing system in the final rule.
    The FAA received a significant number of comments opposing the 
proposal. Commenters agreed the repair station industry needs new 
ratings, however, they opposed the FAA's proposed system of ratings and 
classes. Therefore, the FAA decided to seek advice and recommendations 
from the affected aviation community before developing new rules for 
ratings and classes.
    Also, the final rule did not include a quality assurance program, 
as proposed originally. Again, the FAA decided to seek advice and 
recommendations from the affected aviation community before developing 
new rules for quality assurance. The FAA also elected to use an 
established Federal advisory committee to gather information regarding 
ratings and quality assurance.
    On October 15, 2001, FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) to address ratings and quality assurance for repair 
stations. (66, FR 53281, October 19, 2001) The FAA asked ARAC to 
recommend a system of ratings for repair stations that would mitigate 
problems associated with the existing system and allow for growth of 
the aviation industry. Also, the FAA tasked ARAC to recommend a quality 
assurance program that would reflect industry requirements and account 
for the varying scope of repair station operations. Specifically, under 
the ratings task, the FAA tasked ARAC to:
     Review the existing system of ratings and classes 
contained in the current part 145 and in any other documents issued by 
the FAA pertaining to aeronautical repair stations.
     Review comments submitted to the FAA in response to the 
public meetings held in 1989 and the system of ratings proposed in June 
1999 in Notice No. 99-09.
     Review challenges reported by Aviation Safety Inspectors 
(ASIs) under the existing system of ratings.
     Identify the challenges that aeronautical repair stations 
encounter under the existing system of ratings and classes, including 
those pertaining to:


[[Page 70256]]


--Current business practices that are not regulated that may require 
some form of control;
--Provisions in the current regulation that prevent repair stations 
from performing desired business practices; and
--Enforcement problems associated with the current regulations.

     Draft a Technical Report that:

--Presents a review of the existing system of ratings and classes;
--Identifies various choices for rating systems;
--Identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each option;
--Provides economic information for each of the alternative rating 
systems; and
--Recommends a preferred system of ratings.

    Under the quality assurance task, the FAA tasked ARAC to:
     Review the discussion about quality assurance in the June 
1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 99-09).
     Review comments relating to quality assurance submitted to 
the FAA in response to the public meetings held in 1989 and the quality 
assurance program requirements proposed in Notice No. 99-09.
     Review current industry practices relating to quality 
assurance issues to:

--Identify quality assurance systems currently used by some repair 
stations; and
--Analyze the elements of the systems used by the aviation industry.

     Develop a Technical Report that:

--Presents a review of regulatory requirements that comprise a quality 
assurance program;
--Identifies various options for regulating quality assurance programs;
--Identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each option;
--Provides information on the economic impacts of applying a quality 
assurance system to various segments of the repair station industry; 
and
--Recommends a preferred quality assurance program or system.

    ARAC sent its technical reports and recommendations to the FAA on 
August 13, 2002. The technical reports and recommendations contain 
details about each of the various options. Information on ARAC is 
available on the ARAC Web site: https://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac.

Action

    In this rulemaking action, the FAA proposes a new rating system for 
repair stations and proposes requirements for a quality system. The FAA 
bases this proposed rule on the public meetings held in 1989, comments 
to Docket No. 25965, comments to Notice No. 99-09, and recommendations 
from ARAC. The FAA also proposes additional changes critical to 
maintaining safety. These include: requiring a repair station to 
maintain a capability list; designating a chief inspector; and having 
permanent housing for all its facilities, equipment, materials, and 
personnel. In addition, the proposal also specifies those instances 
when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate. The proposal looks 
at the particular cases where a previously held certificate has been 
revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes several minor amendments to the July 
30, 2001 final rule. These amendments are necessary to clarify the 
rule.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart B--Certification

Section 145.51 Application for Certificate

    The FAA proposes to add a provision to the application procedures 
that would require an applicant for a repair station certificate to 
provide the FAA with a letter explaining how the applicant intends to 
comply with the requirements of part 145. Under long-standing FAA 
policy and practice, repair station certificate applicants have 
provided this letter that the FAA refers to as a ``Letter of 
Compliance.'' Since the letter is an essential part of the application 
process, the FAA finds it appropriate to include a requirement to 
provide the letter in the regulations for application for a repair 
station certificate.
    The FAA proposes an editorial change to current Sec.  145.51(a)(2) 
(proposed Sec.  145.51(a)(3)) to make the wording consistent with 
proposed Sec.  145.211(d). It would refer to a ``quality system 
manual'' rather than a ``quality control manual.''
    The FAA proposes adding the words ``manufacturer'' and ``category'' 
to proposed Sec.  145.51(a)(4) to ensure consistency with the 
capability list requirements found in Sec.  145.215.
    The FAA proposes to clarify the text of Sec.  145.51(b) by removing 
the ambiguity in the relieving provision concerning the availability of 
the equipment at the time of certification. This ambiguity results from 
the phrase specifying that the equipment requirement of the paragraph 
could be met ``if the applicant has a contract acceptable to the FAA 
with another person to make the equipment available to the applicant at 
the time of certification. * * * '' The FAA believes that the phrase 
lacks clarity and could be subject to arbitrary application in 
individual cases; i.e., one inspector might require the contract to be 
executed and all the equipment brought to the premises for a pre-
certification inspection, while another inspector might only review the 
contract for the specified items. In the first example, the equipment 
could be returned to the supplier the next day, and not be returned to 
the repair station until the relevant work is being performed, as 
required by Sec.  145.109(a).
    Consistent with the requirement in Sec.  145.109(a), and as noted 
by some of the commenters to the proposal in Notice No. 99-09, it is 
important that the equipment be in place when the work is being 
performed. That is the safety basis for the equipment requirement. If, 
at the time of initial certification or rating approval, an applicant 
has a contract acceptable to the FAA to make the equipment available 
when the relevant work is being performed, the FAA will be able to 
determine that the repair station has assessed its relevant needs, and 
that it has the means to obtain the pertinent equipment, tools, and 
test apparatus when necessary. The applicant, of course, retains the 
option to have the equipment, tools, and test apparatus in place during 
the certification process. The requirement remains in Sec.  145.109(a) 
that those items be on the premises and under the repair station's 
control whenever the work is being performed.
    Additionally, the FAA notes that the text of existing Sec.  
145.109(a) contains a requirement to have ``tools,'' in addition to 
equipment and materials, whereas existing Sec.  145.51(b) does not 
refer to tools. Section 145.109(a) currently requires a repair station 
to ``have the equipment, tools, and materials necessary to perform the 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations. * * * '' [and 
that] The equipment, tools, and materials must be located on the 
premises and under the repair station's control when the work is being 
done.'' The FAA did not include the term ``tools'' in Sec.  145.51(b) 
because of possible uncertainty as to what tools should be required for 
an applicant to have on site or under contract at the time of 
certification. We did not believe that an applicant, in order to obtain 
a repair station certificate, should be required to have on site at the 
time of initial certification or rating approval all the particular 
hand tools, etc., that an individual repairman or mechanic might 
possess. The term ``equipment'' in Sec.  145.51(b) was meant to include 
items the FAA would consider to be ``tools''

[[Page 70257]]

of the repair station. For example, a repair station's equipment might 
include items such as machines, jigs, fixtures, basic shop tools and 
associated tooling, necessary for the repair station to perform the 
work for which it is rated, as reflected on its proposed operations 
specifications and capability list.
    We propose to clarify the scope of the kinds of items a repair 
station must have for initially obtaining certification by adding both 
tools and test apparatus to the list of items a repair station must 
have either on site or under contract. While the term equipment could 
be interpreted to include many examples of each, i.e., basic shop tools 
and test equipment, adding the term ``tools'' to the regulation would 
ensure that an applicant for a repair station certificate also includes 
on site, or in the contract, certain tools necessary for the rating 
sought that individual mechanics or repairmen might not possess. For 
example, this might include tools that are of a specialized nature for 
the rating or other tools that might be too large or expensive, or of a 
limited specialized nature. For the same reasons, and for consistency 
with the requirements in 14 CFR Sec.  43.13(a), we propose to add 
``test apparatus'' to the list of items a repair station must have in 
place for inspection or under contract at the time of initial 
certification or rating approval.
    The FAA also proposes to remove the modifier ``technical'' from the 
term ``data'' for consistency with the other sections of the rule that 
use the term ``data.''
    The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph (e) to Sec.  145.51 to 
detail conditions under which a person may not apply for a repair 
station certificate. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, the 
following persons could not apply for a repair station certificate (nor 
would the FAA accept such an application) for one year from the date a 
previously revoked certificate was surrendered pursuant to the FAA's 
order of revocation:
     Any person who held a repair stations certificate that was 
revoked; and
     Any person who had a substantial ownership interest or 
substantial control over the operations of a repair station that has 
had its certificate revoked and who materially contributed to the 
circumstances causing the revocation.
    The proposed rule would specify that the one-year period would 
begin to run on the date the certificate is surrendered to the FAA 
pursuant to the order of revocation. This proposed paragraph parallels 
Sec.  61.13(d)(2), which pertains to pilots being able to reapply for a 
certificate following revocation. Under the proposed text, a person 
whose certificate has been revoked needs prior authorization only if 
the person wishes to apply before the one-year term is up. The FAA 
revokes repair station certificates only for serious infractions of the 
regulations. The FAA believes that imposing a waiting period would 
serve as an additional deterrent against serious violations of the 
repair station regulations, thereby enhancing safety in the repair 
station industry.

Section 145.53 Issuance of certificate

    Section 145.53 identifies who is entitled to a repair station 
certificate and appropriate ratings. Specifically, the section states 
that a person who meets the requirements of part 145 is entitled to a 
repair station certificate and appropriate ratings. Section 145.53(b) 
states, ``if the person is located in a country with which the United 
States has a bilateral aviation safety agreement, the FAA may find that 
the person meets the requirements of this part based on certification 
from the civil aviation authority of that country.'' The FAA proposes 
to amend Sec.  145.53(b) to state that the FAA may also base such 
finding on certification from an authority acceptable to the FAA.
    This change permits the Administrator to base such a finding on a 
recommendation from a civil aviation authority that may not necessarily 
be the civil aviation authority of the country in which the repair 
station is located. Recent changes in Europe, for example, have led to 
the European Union forming the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 
This new agency will carry out certain civil aviation safety functions 
for the European Community. The FAA must consider that over a period of 
time the United States may enter into aircraft maintenance agreements 
under which the FAA may base its actions on a certification made by a 
civil aviation authority other than a national aviation authority. 
Therefore, the proposal would revise the current regulation to allow 
for these different types of agreements. The FAA has determined that 
the change has no additional technical or economic impact on the 
regulation.
    Also, the FAA proposes to add a new paragraph to Sec.  145.53 
identifying reasons the FAA may use to deny the issuance of a repair 
station certificate. The FAA proposes to deny a person a repair station 
certificate if:
     The applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements 
for the certificate sought, or does not complete the certification 
process.
     The applicant previously held a repair station certificate 
that was revoked.
     The applicant intends to fill or fills a key management 
position, (for example, accountable manager or chief inspector), with 
an individual who exercised control over or who held the same or a 
similar position with a repair station whose certificate was revoked, 
or was in the process of being revoked. That individual must have 
materially contributed to the circumstances causing the revocation or 
revocation process.
     The applicant held a key management position with a repair 
station certificate holder whose certificate was revoked, or was in the 
process of being revoked. The applicant must have materially 
contributed to the circumstances causing the revocation or causing the 
revocation process.
     An individual who will have control over or substantial 
ownership interest in the applicant had the same or similar control or 
interest in a repair station whose certificate was revoked, or is in 
the process of being revoked. That individual must have materially 
contributed to the circumstances causing revocation or causing the 
revocation process.
    The last four criteria for denial are necessary because the FAA is 
aware of recent instances where persons whose repair station 
certificates were revoked continued to operate by obtaining new repair 
station certificates shortly after the revocation process. In a similar 
situation, a key management official with decision-making authority 
(chief inspector) from a repair station that lost its certificate for 
serious maintenance-related safety violations applied for and received 
a new repair station certificate. That individual also became the chief 
inspector at the newly certificated repair station. While under the 
chief inspector's direction, employees of the newly certificated 
station performed improper maintenance on a number of propellers, one 
of which came apart in flight causing a fatal accident.
    As a result of this incident, the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB), in a Safety Recommendation dated February 9, 2004 (A-04-
01 and A-04-02), expressed concern that the FAA did not have a 
mechanism for preventing individuals who were associated with a 
previously revoked repair station, such as the owner described above, 
from continuing to operate through a new repair station. The NTSB made 
a number of observations.

[[Page 70258]]

    The FAA has such a mechanism in place for air carriers and other 
commercial operators.
    14 CFR Sec.  119.39(b) allows the FAA to deny an application for a 
Part 121 or 135 air carrier or operating certificate. This can occur if 
the applicant previously held a certificate that was revoked or if a 
person who exercised control over (or held a key management position 
in) a previously revoked operator will be exercising control over (or 
hold a key management position in) the new operator.
    The Part 119 rule allows the FAA to deny certification to an 
applicant who is substantially owned by (or intends to fill a key 
management position with) an individual who had a similar interest in a 
certificate holder whose certificate was (or is being) revoked when 
that individual materially contributed to the circumstances causing the 
revocation.
    The NTSB, pointing out the safety concerns offered by the FAA when 
it issued the above-described rules for air carriers and commercial 
operators, believed the same reasoning should apply equally to Part 145 
certificate holders. The FAA agrees. The proposed language is 
consistent with other revocations that the FAA imposes. The changes 
that we propose are based to a large extent on the language contained 
in Sec.  119.39(b). In 1978, when the predecessor regulation to Sec.  
119.39(b) was published, the FAA stated:

    Noncompliance data is a significant factor to consider with an 
application for an ATCO [air taxi/commercial operator] operating 
certificate. Similar information has been helpful in evaluating air 
carrier applicants and the persons they propose for management 
positions. The FAA revokes an operating certificate only for a very 
serious infraction of the regulations. If a person contributes 
materially to that infraction, the fact should be considered as a 
factor in evaluating the new application. This does not mean the 
approval of the application or employment position will be 
automatically withheld, but that each situation will be carefully 
evaluated on its merits. (43 FR 46762, Oct. 10, 1978)

Section 145.59 Ratings

    The FAA proposes to revise the ratings and classes that may be 
issued to certificated repair stations. A comparison of the proposed 
ratings with the current ratings follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Current Rating                      Proposed Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Airframe Rating                      Aircraft Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Composite construction of       The Aircraft rating, which the
 small aircraft.                          FAA did not divide into
Class 2: Composite construction of        classes, would replace the
 large aircraft.                          Airframe rating and its
Class 3: All-metal construction of        associated classes. The FAA
 small aircraft.                          proposes to expand the current
Class 4: All-metal construction of        Airframe rating to include all
 large aircraft.                          articles except those for
                                          which a Powerplant, Propeller,
                                          or Avionics rating is
                                          required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Powerplant Rating                    Powerplant Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Reciprocating engines of 400    Class 1: Reciprocating engines.
 horsepower or less.
Class 2: Reciprocating engines of more   Class 2: Turbine engines.
 than 400 horsepower.
Class 3: Turbine engines...............  Class 3: Auxiliary power units
                                          (APU).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Propeller Rating                     Propeller Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: All fixed-pitch and ground-     This proposed Propeller rating
 adjustable propellers of wood, metal,    no longer includes classes.
 or composite construction.               This rating would not include
Class 2: All other propellers, by make.   the main and auxiliary rotors
                                          (airframe articles) or
                                          rotating airfoils of aircraft
                                          engines (powerplant articles).
                                          This rating would allow a
                                          repair station to remove and
                                          replace articles attached to
                                          the propeller and to remove
                                          and reinstall the propeller.
                                          Also, the rating would allow a
                                          repair station to remove,
                                          replace, install, and test the
                                          propeller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Radio Rating                       Avionics Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Communication equipment.......  The Avionics rating would
Class 2: Navigational equipment........   combine the Radio, Instrument,
Class 3: Radar equipment...............   and parts of the Accessory
                                          ratings into a single rating.
                                          The proposed Avionics rating
                                          would group together items
                                          that operate electrically or
                                          electronically and that
                                          require a unique set of skills
                                          not associated with other
                                          ratings. In addition, this
                                          rating would allow repair
                                          stations to perform
                                          maintenance on in-flight
                                          entertainment units or other
                                          electronic units, as specified
                                          in their operations
                                          specifications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
           Instrument Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Class 1: Mechanical....................
Class 2: Electrical....................
Class 3: Gyroscopic....................
Class 4: Electronic....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Accessory Rating                     Component Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1: Mechanical accessories that     The Component rating would
 depend on friction, hydraulics,          allow a repair station to
 mechanical linkage, or pneumatic         perform maintenance,
 pressure for operation.                  preventive maintenance, and
Class 2: Electrical accessories that      alterations on individual
 depend on electrical energy for their    component parts that are not
 operation..                              installed on or in aircraft,
Class 3: Electronic accessories that      powerplant, propeller, or
 depend on an electron tube,              avionics equipment. The
 transistor, or similar device..          Component rating would include
                                          any item that is not a
                                          complete aircraft, powerplant,
                                          propeller, or avionics
                                          article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70259]]

 
     Limited Rating (Sec.   145.61)       Limitations to a Rating (Sec.
                                                      145.61)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airframes; engines; propellers;      In response to industry and
 instruments; radio equipment;            ARAC recommendations, the FAA
 accessories; landing gear; components;   would no longer issue limited
 floats; nondestructive inspection,       ratings. Instead, the FAA
 testing, and processing; emergency       would issue limitations to the
 equipment; rotor blades by make and      rating of a certificated
 model; aircraft fabric work; and other   repair station governing
 purposes.                                maintenance or alterations on
                                          a particular type of aircraft,
                                          powerplant, propeller,
                                          avionics, or component part
                                          thereof for which part 43
                                          applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limited Rating for Specialized Service     Specialized Service Rating
            (Sec.   145.61)                       (Sec.   145.63)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, landing gear components;    The proposed Specialized
 nondestructive inspection, testing,      Service rating is
 and processing; emergency equipment;     substantially the same as the
 aircraft fabric work; and any other      existing Limited Specialized
 specialized service the FAA finds        Service rating. The FAA would
 appropriate for this rating.             issue the Specialized Service
                                          rating to a repair station
                                          that performs only specific
                                          processes associated with the
                                          maintenance, preventive
                                          maintenance, and alterations
                                          of an aviation article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aircraft Rating
    Currently, the FAA may issue a repair station an Airframe rating 
with any of four class ratings: Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. These classes 
are based on aircraft weight (large or small as defined in 14 CFR Sec.  
1.1) and construction (composite or all-metal). The FAA finds that 
issuing ratings for aircraft based on their construction is no longer 
appropriate because modern aircraft are no longer built of either all 
composite material or all metal. Further, the FAA finds that 
classifying aircraft by weight is no longer appropriate. The FAA 
proposes to remove the Airframe rating and its associated class ratings 
and establish an Aircraft rating without classes.
    In its technical report, ARAC noted that in 1962, most aircraft had 
a dope and fabric or wood construction. The aviation industry commonly 
referred to aircraft made from a combination of wood, fabric, and metal 
materials as aircraft with a ``composite'' construction. ARAC noted 
that a better description of the term ``composite'' may have been 
``not-all metal.'' The term ``composite material'' also refers to 
carbon-carbon compounds and advanced polymers.
    Many modern aircraft have an airframe made of both metal and 
composite materials. The airframe is metal while certain portions, such 
as control surfaces and fairings, are composite materials. This causes 
confusion among FAA inspectors and the aviation industry over how much 
of an airframe must be of composite or metal construction for various 
class ratings within the Airframe category.
    Since defining ``composite'' is difficult and the current classes 
are no longer suitable for the repair station industry, the FAA has 
tentatively determined that a better approach is to adopt general 
ratings. ARAC found that a repair station rating based solely on the 
type or variety of material in aircraft construction is unduly 
restrictive. These factors no longer determine the scope of work repair 
stations are able to perform under the Airframe rating. ARAC found that 
airframe maintenance capabilities do not depend on the materials used 
in aircraft construction.
    Further, ARAC found that classification of ratings by weight is no 
longer appropriate. Historically, the FAA and the aviation industry 
used the weight classification of small and large aircraft to 
distinguish aircraft used in commercial air carrier service from 
general aviation aircraft. Commercial operations normally used aircraft 
over 12,500 pounds while general aviation typically used smaller 
aircraft. This distinction also reflected the relative complexity of 
the aircraft. Today, however, aircraft weight does not reflect the 
complexity or intended use of an aircraft.
    The Aircraft rating, which is not divided into classes, would 
replace the Airframe rating and its associated classes. Under the 
Aircraft rating, a repair station could perform maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, and alterations on the complete aircraft, except those 
articles for which a Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating is 
required. Replacing the current Airframe rating with an Aircraft rating 
would allow for inclusion of future technological advancements in 
aircraft construction. The Aircraft rating would allow the repair 
station to work on the aircraft electrical distribution system external 
to avionics units. In addition, a repair station could remove, replace, 
install, and test any powerplant, propeller, or avionics equipment to 
perform its rated work on the complete aircraft and approve it for 
return to service if the repair station has the capabilities.
    At the time of application, the FAA would require an applicant for 
an Aircraft rating to identify the manufacturer, type, make, model, or 
series of aircraft on which the repair station intends to perform 
maintenance, preventive maintenance and alterations. The repair station 
must list the aircraft on its capability list, which would be required 
by Sec.  145.215. The FAA would require the repair station to 
demonstrate that it has on its premises and under its control the 
necessary housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test apparatus, 
trained personnel, and data to perform the maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, and alterations on the aircraft listed.
    After the FAA certificates a repair station, the repair station 
could add additional capabilities as needed. The repair station could 
change its capability list after performing a self-evaluation that is 
part of the repair station's quality system. This internal review would 
ensure that the FAA could evaluate the work being performed under the 
rating and confirm that a repair station has the capabilities to 
perform the specified maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations.
    It is not the FAA's intent to allow a repair station to change its 
ratings simply by performing the self-evaluation. The self-evaluation 
is used to add capabilities to its capability list that are within the 
scope of its rating. Aircraft-rated repair stations would be required 
to list the type, make, model, or series of aircraft on its capability 
list. The Aircraft rating, along with the types of aircraft the repair 
station may maintain, constitutes its rating. An Aircraft-rated repair 
station could not add different aircraft types to its capability list 
by performing the self-evaluation. For example, if its operations 
specifications authorize the repair station to maintain B-737 aircraft 
types, and it was currently maintaining only B-737-100-500 models, it 
could perform the self-evaluation to add other B-737 models to its 
capability list, but it could not add B-757 aircraft.

[[Page 70260]]

    The word ``aircraft type'' when used in the text associated with an 
Aircraft rating is defined in 14 CFR part 1 and means those aircraft 
that are similar in design. Examples include: DC-7 and DC-7C; 1049G and 
1049H; and F27 and F27F.
Powerplant Rating
    The current Powerplant rating has three classes: Class 1: 
Reciprocating engines of 400 horsepower or less, Class 2: Reciprocating 
engines of more than 400 horsepower, and Class 3: Turbine engines.
    When the FAA established the current Powerplant ratings, 
reciprocating radial engines that produced more than 400 horsepower 
powered nearly all large aircraft. In its report, ARAC noted that these 
engines differed substantially from the horizontally opposed 
reciprocating engines with less than 400 horsepower that manufacturers 
used to power general aviation aircraft. Distinguishing powerplant 
classes by horsepower was helpful considering the engines in use at 
that time. Today, however, it is possible for small horizontally 
opposed reciprocating engines to produce more than 400 horsepower. 
Further, most modern transport category aircraft have turbine engines, 
and manufacturers no longer produce high horsepower radial engines. 
ARAC determined, therefore, that separate classes for reciprocating 
engines are no longer useful.
    When the FAA established the current Powerplant rating, 
manufacturers were just beginning to use turbine engines on civil 
aircraft. Therefore, the FAA found it appropriate to establish a class 
for turbine engines.
    Unlike the other ratings, the FAA would retain classes for the 
Powerplant rating. The Powerplant rating still has natural and 
permanent divisions between reciprocating, turbine, and APU engines. 
Engines do not cross the boundaries between these classes. This would 
not be true for the other ratings, especially the Aircraft rating.
    Under the proposed rating system, a repair station holding a new 
Powerplant rating may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations of the powerplant and all components necessary for the 
powerplant to work properly. The proposed Powerplant rating includes 
aircraft engines, as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, and auxiliary power units.
    An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) refers to any gas turbine-powered 
unit delivering rotating shaft power or compressed air, or both, that 
is not intended for the propelling of an aircraft. APUs often drive 
aircraft generators and air-conditioning packs. In some cases APUs also 
can be used as an additional source of energy to start the primary 
aircraft engines. The design configurations of some aircraft rely on an 
APU for provisional back-up electrical power in flight in the event of 
a failure of the primary power sources. The APU has been included in 
the Powerplant rating due to its similarity to an aircraft turbine 
engine.
    The proposed rating, therefore, would still have 3 classes. 
However, the classes would be organized as follows:
    Class 1: Reciprocating engines, combining current Classes 1 and 2;
    Class 2: Turbine engines, encompassing current Class 3; and
    Class 3: Auxiliary power units (APU).
    This rating, like the Aircraft rating, would allow repair stations 
to remove and replace propellers and powerplant components, as needed, 
and to perform powerplant maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations. Powerplant-rated repair stations also could remove and 
replace nacelles and fairings because most engine work cannot be 
performed unless the repair station removes these items. However, this 
rating would not allow the repair station to remove or replace engines. 
To perform this function, the repair station would, at a minimum, have 
to hold an Aircraft rating with a limitation to remove and replace 
engines. Also, this rating would not allow a repair station to perform 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on the aircraft or 
propeller.
    An application for the Powerplant rating must include a list of the 
make, model, or series of all powerplant articles that the repair 
station intends to maintain. The repair station must list these 
articles on its capability list. The repair station may add different 
makes and models of engines within its class rating to its capability 
list by following the self-evaluation procedures of the repair 
station's quality system. The FAA does not intend that a repair station 
alter its rating by adding powerplants outside the scope of the 
powerplant class the repair station is rated to maintain. This means a 
Class 1-rated repair station cannot add a Class 2 powerplant simply by 
performing a self-evaluation. This would be considered a change of 
rating, and must be handled through the certification process.
Propeller Rating
    Under the current regulations, a repair station holding a Class 1 
Propeller rating may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations on all fixed-pitch and ground-adjustable propellers of 
wood, metal, or composite construction. A repair station holding a 
Class 2 Propeller rating may perform maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, and alterations on all other propellers by make.
    In its report, ARAC noted that this distinction is based on the 
different levels of complexity between a propeller with no moving parts 
and a propeller with a mechanical system that controls the pitch of the 
propeller while operating. ARAC also noted that aircraft with small 
reciprocating engines generally have fixed pitch propellers, while 
aircraft with high horsepower engines have variable pitch propellers. 
ARAC found that, although varying levels of complexity exist for 
propellers, most repair stations performing maintenance on propellers 
hold both class ratings. Therefore, ARAC recommended that the FAA 
eliminate class ratings that distinguish the types of propellers.
    The proposed Propeller rating would allow a repair station to 
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on 
propellers. This rating does not include the main and auxiliary rotors 
(airframe articles) or rotating airfoils of aircraft engines 
(powerplant articles). This rating would allow a repair station to 
remove and replace control components attached to the propeller. Also, 
the rating would allow a repair station to remove, replace, install, 
and test the propeller. However, it would not allow a repair station to 
perform installations that would constitute a major alteration to an 
aircraft or aircraft engine.
    An applicant for a Propeller rating must list the make, model, or 
series of propellers to be included on its capability list. The repair 
station could add makes or models of propellers to its capability list 
by following the self-evaluation procedures of the repair station's 
quality system. Although a repair station holding a Propeller rating 
could remove and install the propeller on an aircraft engine, it could 
not perform any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on 
the aircraft, aircraft engine, or airframe. For example, a repair 
station that intends to install propellers of a different make and 
model using a supplemental type certificate (STC) would be required to 
hold a Propeller rating and would need an Aircraft rating, with the 
necessary limitation.
Avionics and Component Ratings
    The proposed Avionics and Component ratings present different 
challenges to the rating system because of the sheer volume of articles 
that can be addressed by the ratings, the variety of these articles, 
and the number of

[[Page 70261]]

manufacturers of similar articles. Providing only the make, model, or 
series of these articles may not provide the necessary information to 
determine what requirements the repair station must meet in order to be 
eligible for a rating. As a result, the FAA must include a requirement 
for the name of the manufacturer of the articles to be included in the 
capability list. Also, the FAA proposes a requirement that the 
capability list for a repair station certificated to maintain avionics 
or component articles be separated by categories to make it easier for 
both the repair station's customers and the FAA to ascertain the 
capabilities of the repair station.
    The inclusion of the manufacturer on the capability list is 
necessary because, unlike the aircraft or powerplant manufacturers, 
there are several manufacturers who produce similar articles, such as 
radios, integrated electronic units, pumps, and actuators. Because the 
rule requires repair stations to use the data, tools, and equipment 
recommended by the manufacturer, these items will differ between 
manufacturers even though the articles may be similar in design. Also, 
since repair stations will be performing self-evaluations to add items 
to their capability lists, not identifying the different items required 
for articles produced by different manufacturers could make it 
difficult for a repair station to determine if it has the capability to 
maintain articles from various manufacturers.
    Identifying the manufacturer would assist the FAA in separating the 
capability list into categories. The category headings can be broad to 
encompass several similar articles, but should be detailed enough so 
that a cursory review can determine the types of articles maintained by 
the repair station. Examples of categories may include: radios, 
instruments, integrated modules, hydraulic pumps, fuel pumps, hydraulic 
actuators, brakes, integrated entertainment systems, cargo loading 
units/pallets, or cargo floor tracks and locks. Under these categories, 
the repair station would list each article by manufacturer, make, 
model, or series.
Avionics Rating
    The Avionics rating would combine the current Radio, Instrument, 
and parts of the Accessory ratings into a single rating. This rating 
would include all articles used for aircraft communication, navigation, 
and operation that operate electrically or electronically.
    The proposed Avionics rating groups together items that operate 
electrically or electronically and that require a unique set of skills 
not associated with other ratings. In addition, this rating would allow 
repair stations to perform work on in-flight entertainment units or 
other electronic units. The current rating and classification system 
does not have a rating or class that clearly includes in-flight 
entertainment electronics. In its report, ARAC stated that although the 
aviation industry typically does not consider these devices as avionics 
equipment, the FAA should include them with other electronic devices 
that require similar skills to maintain.
    The current Radio rating consists of three classes: Class 1: 
Communication equipment, Class 2: Navigation equipment, and Class 3: 
Radar equipment. In its report, ARAC indicated that technological 
advances in avionics have led to much controversy over this 
categorization of equipment. ARAC noted that modern avionics equipment 
typically integrates communication and navigation functions into a 
single avionics appliance. Radar and radio equipment that operate using 
pulse technology also serve communication and navigation functions. 
Therefore, repair stations performing work on avionics equipment often 
hold a Radio rating with all three of the classes.
    The current Instrument rating consists of four classes: Class 1: 
Mechanical, Class 2: Electrical, Class 3: Gyroscopic, and Class 4: 
Electronic. The FAA established these classes based on the technology 
available at the time. However, ARAC notes that today, most instruments 
operate using a combination of these principles. Therefore, class 
distinctions are no longer appropriate.
    The current Accessory rating has three classes. Class 1: Mechanical 
includes accessories that depend on friction, hydraulics, mechanical 
linkage, or pneumatic pressure for operation. Class 2: Electrical 
includes accessories that depend on electrical energy for their 
operation and generators. Class 3: Electronic includes accessories that 
depend on the use of an electron tube, transistor, or similar devices. 
Similar to the Instrument rating, the classes for the Accessory rating 
identify the article's principle of operation. Many articles maintained 
under this rating use a combination of principles, thus requiring 
repair stations to hold all the class ratings for an Accessory rating.
    The proposed Avionics rating would allow a repair station with the 
required capabilities to remove and reinstall access panels, brackets, 
or clamps in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions on 
aircraft, powerplants, or propellers, as needed, to gain access to 
avionics equipment or instruments. The repair station also could 
remove, replace, install, and test the avionics equipment on an 
aircraft, provided the repair station does not alter the aircraft. An 
Avionics-rated repair station would not be authorized to remove 
articles that it was not rated to reinstall. To perform a major or 
minor alteration to an aircraft, powerplant, or propeller, a repair 
station would be required to hold the appropriate additional ratings.
    As with the Aircraft, Powerplant, and Propeller ratings, a repair 
station with an Avionics rating would have to identify on its 
capability list the articles that it intends to maintain. Unlike the 
other ratings, in addition to identifying the article by make or model 
and series, the Avionics-rated repair station must also include the 
manufacturer and the category of the article, such as communication, 
navigation, pulsed (radar), mechanical, electric, gyroscopic, or 
electronic.
Component Rating
    The Component rating would allow a repair station to perform 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on individual 
uninstalled component parts that are included on or in aircraft, 
powerplant, propeller, or avionics equipment. The Component rating 
would include any item that is not a complete aircraft, powerplant, 
propeller, or avionics article. However, a Component-rated repair 
station must have a limitation to an Aircraft, Powerplant, or Propeller 
rating to remove and install articles. A repair station with an 
Aircraft, Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating would not need a 
Component rating to work on items associated with its respective rating 
and capabilities. For example, an Aircraft or Powerplant-rated repair 
station would not need a Component rating to perform work on an airfoil 
surface, engine case, or other parts of the aircraft or powerplant, as 
applicable.
    The capability list for this rating must provide enough detail to 
ensure that a repair station has the appropriate housing, facilities, 
equipment, tools, test apparatus, training, personnel, and data at 
certification and when the work is being performed. The FAA agrees with 
ARAC's recommendation that a repair station list the general part 
nomenclature of an item, and that it is unnecessary to list articles by 
part number. The capability list would have to identify each component 
by manufacturer, make, model, or other nomenclature as designated by 
the manufacturer.

[[Page 70262]]

Section 145.61 Limitations to Ratings

    In response to industry and ARAC recommendations, the FAA would no 
longer issue limited ratings. Instead, the FAA would issue limitations 
to the rating of a certificated repair station governing maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, or alterations on a particular type of 
aircraft, powerplant, propeller, avionics unit, or component part 
thereof. Currently, the rule allows for limited ratings based on the 
repair station performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations on particular makes or models of aircraft, powerplants, or 
propellers. However, as the repair industry has become more 
specialized, the concept of limited ratings had to be stretched to 
apply to repair stations performing only certain maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, or alteration functions on one or several 
makes/models of articles. Eliminating limited ratings would allow more 
flexibility in determining what rating an applicant or a repair station 
should obtain. For example, if a repair station intends to perform only 
a specific maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration function, 
such as interior configuration work or aircraft painting, the FAA would 
issue the repair station an Aircraft rating and list that function as a 
limitation on the repair station's operations specifications. The 
repair station's operations specifications would specify the rating to 
which the limitation applies and the limitation to that rating in 
sufficient detail to describe the maintenance capabilities of the 
repair station.

Section 145.63 Specialized Service Rating

    Currently, the FAA issues limited ratings to repair stations to 
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations to 
airframes, engines, propellers, instruments, radio equipment, 
accessories, landing gear components, emergency equipment, rotor 
blades, and floats, and to perform specialized services.
    The proposed Specialized Service rating is substantially the same 
as the existing Limited Specialized Service rating. The Specialized 
Service rating would allow a repair station to perform a specific 
process associated with the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alteration of an article; this work might not constitute a complete 
repair sufficient to approve an article for return to service. The 
repair station's operations specifications would contain the 
specification used in performing that specialized service. The 
specification could be a military-, industry-, or applicant-developed 
specification that was approved by the FAA. Examples of specialized 
services would include, but not be limited to, non-destructive testing 
or inspection, welding, heat treating, plating, and plasma spraying.
    There are three situations in which the FAA would issue a 
Specialized Service rating. The FAA would issue this rating to a repair 
station that:
     Performs only a specific process;
     Has in-house capabilities to perform the specific process 
but the work being requested is not within the scope of its rating; or
     Performs a function not found in the manufacturer's data.
    If specialized service tasks are contained within a repair 
station's data for existing ratings, the repair station would not 
require an additional rating to perform that service. For example, if 
an Aircraft-rated repair station wants to perform plating on a 
propeller part, it would need a Specialized Service rating to perform 
the operation on the propeller part. If, however, a Powerplant-rated 
repair station has the in-house capability to perform x-ray 
inspections, it would not need to ha