Repair Stations; Withdrawal, 21287-21290 [E9-10638]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
During routine inspection procedures on
the wing assembly line it was identified the
possibility of cracks and deformation
developing during assembly on the internal
wing spars and rib flanges, causing a safe[ty]
margin reduction.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(Embraer): Docket No. FAA–2009–0418;
Directorate Identifier 2009–NM–020–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by June 8,
2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:34 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model
ERJ 190–100 ECJ, –100 LR, –100 IGW, –100
STD, –200 STD, –200 LR, and –200 IGW
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 19000002, 19000004, and 19000006
through 19000062 inclusive.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 57: Wings.
*
*
*
*
*
The unsafe condition is cracking and
deformation of wing spar and rib flanges,
which could result in loss of structural
integrity of the wing. Corrective actions
include performing a detailed inspection for
damage on wing spar I, II, and III flanges and
ˆ
on certain rib flanges, and contacting Agencia
Nacional de Aviacao Civil (ANAC) (or its
¸˜
delegated agent) and Embraer for an
approved repair.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done, do the following
actions.
(1) Before 5,000 total flight cycles on the
airplane, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform a detailed inspection of
the left and right wing rib and spars I, II, and
III flanges, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer
Service Bulletin 190–57–0023, dated June 9,
2008.
(2) If any cracking or deformation is
detected during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, send the inspection results and request
for repair instructions to ANAC (or its
delegated agent) and Embraer Technical
Support; e-mail structure@embraer.com.br;
and do the repair.
FAA AD Differences
Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows:
Although the MCAI or service information
allows further flight after cracks are found
during compliance with the required action,
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD requires that you
repair the crack(s) before further flight.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21287
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425)
227–2848; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your
principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer or other source,
use these actions if they are FAA-approved.
Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State
of Design Authority (or their delegated
agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness
Directive 2008–10–03, effective October 21,
2008; and Embraer Service Bulletin 190–57–
0023, dated June 9, 2008; for related
information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30,
2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–10624 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 145
[Docket No. FAA–2006–26408]
RIN 2120–AI53
Repair Stations; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a
previously published NPRM that
proposed to revise the system of ratings
and require repair stations to establish
a quality program. The NPRM also
proposed to require each repair station
to maintain a capability list, designate a
chief inspector, and have permanent
housing for facilities, equipment,
materials, and personnel. The proposal
would have specified additional
instances where the FAA may deny a
repair station certificate, and clarified
some existing repair station regulations.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
21288
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules
We are withdrawing the NPRM because
we have determined that it does not
adequately address the current repair
station environment, and because of the
significant issues commenters raised.
DATES: The proposed rule published on
December 1, 2006 (71 FR 70254), is
withdrawn as of May 7, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George W. Bean, Repair Station Branch,
AFS–340, Federal Aviation
Administration, 955 L’Enfant Plaza,
SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone
202–385–6405; facsimile (202) 385–
6474, e-mail george.w.bean@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1989, the FAA held four public
meetings to provide a forum for the
public to comment on possible revisions
to the rules governing repair stations.
After considering the comments and
data collected from these meetings, the
FAA published the Repair Stations
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
in June 1999.1 Subsequently, in August
2001, the FAA published the Repair
Stations; final rule with request for
comments and direct final rule with
request for comments; final rule.2 The
FAA requested comments on the
paperwork burden and on removing
appendix A 3 from part 145, which the
FAA had not originally proposed.
On October 19, 2001, the FAA tasked
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) to address ratings
and quality assurance for repair
stations.4 ARAC provided its
recommendations in May 2002.5
On December 1, 2006, the FAA
published the NPRM entitled Repair
Stations 6 that considered ARAC’s
recommendations. The comment period
closed on March 1, 2007. However, the
FAA received a request from the
Aeronautical Repair Station Association
(ARSA) to extend the comment period.
In a notice published in the Federal
Register on February 27, 2007, the FAA
granted a 45-day comment period
extension to April 16, 2007.7
The December 1, 2006 NPRM,
applicable to repair station operators
and applicants, proposed the following
changes to part 145:
• Repair stations would establish and
maintain a capability list of all articles
1 64
FR 33142; June 21, 1999.
FR 41088; August 6, 2001.
3 This Appendix set forth job functions and
equipment requirements for repair stations.
4 66 FR 53281; October 19, 2001.
5 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/committees/arac/.
6 71 FR 70254; December 1, 2006.
7 72 FR 8641; February 27, 2007.
2 66
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:34 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
for which they are rated. The list would
identify each article by manufacturer
and the type, make, model, category or
other nomenclature designated by the
article’s manufacturer. Repair stations
with an Avionics or a Component rating
would be required to organize their lists
by category of the article.
• The FAA would revise the ratings
and classes that may be issued to a
certificated repair station. The proposed
amendments included ones that would
discontinue the issuance of limited
ratings, and instead allow issuance of
limitations to the rating the certificated
repair station holds.
• The FAA would require repair
stations to establish a quality system
that includes an internal evaluation
system that reviews the complete repair
station once a year.
• Applicants for a repair station
certificate would include a letter of
compliance as part of their application.
• A certificate holder would be
required to provide permanent housing
for its facilities, equipment, materials,
and personnel.
• Certificate holders would be
required to designate a chief inspector.
• The FAA would use certification
from an authority ‘‘acceptable to the
FAA’’ as a basis for issuing a certificate
to a person located outside the United
States.
• The FAA would identify reasons it
could use to deny the issuance of a
repair station certificate.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received more than 500
comments to the NPRM. While there
was general support for the need to
revise the repair station rules, several
commenters asked us to withdraw the
rule. Many other commenters expressed
concerns related to ratings (particularly
avionics rating), capability list, quality
system, letter of compliance, chief
inspector, housing and facilities, the
FAA’s denial of a repair station
certificate, and some were out of scope.
Requests To Withdraw the NPRM
The ARSA, Aircraft Electronics
Association (AEA), AGC Incorporated,
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Temple
Electronics Company, and Lynden Air
Cargo recommended withdrawal of the
rule. While ARSA commended the FAA
for attempting to clarify and simplify
the rating system, it suggested the FAA
issue a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking that considers the comments
to the NPRM. The other commenters
recommended withdrawal because there
has been too much regulation of repair
stations within the past few years.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Oversight and Inconsistent Application
Comments received from the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Professional Airways Systems
Specialists, and Transportation Trades
Department generally support the
proposal. The unions did argue,
however, that the agency did not go far
enough in certain areas involving
oversight and surveillance. While the
issues they raised were outside the
scope of the proposal, various legislative
proposals under consideration by the
Congress may address these issues in
the future.
Ratings
Several commenters, including
Southern Avionics & Communications,
Executive AutoPilots, Inc., Genesis
Aviation, Aircom Avionics, American
Airlines, Turbine Weld, Inc., and others,
expressed general disapproval of the
proposed rating system.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., believes to
combine the proposed new avionics
rating with current market forces will
negatively affect the ability of avionicsonly repair stations to remain viable.
The commenter said the NPRM does not
recognize that avionics service facilities
are transitioning to flight line repairs
and avionics upgrades as main sources
of revenue. The commenter also said the
NPRM does not recognize that avionics
repair stations’ ability to perform such
services are based primarily on the
avionics equipment onboard the aircraft
rather than on the type, make, or model
of the aircraft.
Midcoast Aviation said while it
believes including electrical equipment
as part of an avionics rating to be
appropriate, it does not see legitimacy
in removing those [electrical] systems/
components from the aircraft or
powerplant rating.
Goodrich Aviation Technical Services
said the proposed rule does not
adequately define the type of work
required for the avionics rating. It said
a repair station with an aircraft,
powerplant, or propeller rating should
not be required to obtain a separate
avionics rating to maintain articles
associated with its ratings and
capabilities. Midcoast Aviation
commented similarly.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., and Griffin
Avionics, Inc., commented the change
from an airframe to an aircraft rating is
ambiguous and completely unnecessary.
These commenters argued that this
change is unwarranted and would result
in dramatic increases in administrative
costs, without improving aircraft
maintenance safety or capability.
ARSA said since all ratings would
require a capabilities list under the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules
proposal, there does not appear to be a
need for class ratings. It also said it does
not agree with the limitations of some
of the ratings or the proposed
requirement for capabilities listing.
Other commenters expressed a similar
disagreement with the limitations and
privileges of some ratings, stating the
limitations do not appear consistent.
Capability List
Eighteen commenters, including
Chromalloy Connecticut, Southern
Avionics and Communication, Avionics
Shop, Inc., Turbine Weld, Inc.,
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines,
National Air Transportation Association
(NATA), and others, stated strong
opposition to the proposed capability
list requirement. These commenters
expressed concern that the proposed
requirement would cause chaos and
bankruptcy. They said such
requirements are not justified, are
unnecessary, are irrelevant, and are
economically punitive, without offering
further safety benefits.
Boeing believes the capability list
would require a significant amount of
administrative resources to be kept
current and would require excessive
amounts of information to be
documented and tracked, particularly
for larger repair stations. Boeing sees
minimal to no safety benefits from these
proposed requirements.
Airbus believes the requirement for a
capability list is implicitly included in
§ 145.211. While it fully understands
the need for a standardized format for
such a list, the details as proposed in
§ 145.215 seem to go beyond a practical
documentation under an approved
system.
A number of commenters, including
United Airlines, Turbine Weld, Inc.,
Griffin Avionics, Inc., AEA, and Temple
Electronics Company object to the
proposed capability list because it could
require having several hundred types of
ratings attached to a single repair station
aircraft rating.
Quality System
ARSA commented that the majority of
repair stations have not instituted
quality assurance systems and most do
not use computers. Therefore,
reviewing, changing, and maintaining
the proposed quality system would be
expensive. Also, ARSA said repair
stations cannot be held responsible for
compliance with all part 145
regulations. But, can be held
accountable only for ensuring
compliance with those requirements
under their specific responsibility and
control.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:34 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
AEA and Temple Electronics
Company believe the stated benefit of
the quality system requirements is based
on ‘‘false premises’’ because the FAA
cited different cost-benefit estimates in
prior repair station rules. They
commented that the FAA removed the
quality assurance requirements
proposed in the 1999 NPRM from the
subsequent 2001 final rule because the
requirements were overly burdensome
and not cost effective. The commenters
further said that, despite removal of
these requirements from the 2001 final
rule, the FAA introduced similar
requirements in the 2006 NPRM,
without taking time to assess whether
the prior rule had proven successful.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Weld Avionics,
Inc., Southern Avionics &
Communications, Executive AutoPilots,
Inc., Vero Beach Avionics, Inc., Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, and two
individual commenters said if a repair
station properly performs maintenance
according to FAA-approved processes,
maintaining a Quality Assurance
System would be extremely burdensome
and would have little merit.
Letter of Compliance
ARSA, AEA, Temple Electronics
Company, and Aeropro, Inc., said a
mandatory Letter of Compliance would
be burdensome, unnecessary, and
redundant. AEA said the letter is a
carryover from the period when the
repair station manual was simply a
statement of commitment to comply
with the regulations. Aeropro, Inc.,
commented that because something has
been a long standing practice is not
sufficient reason to include it as a
mandatory provision in the rule. It said
including language similar to that in
§ 119.35, for certificate applications,
would be more appropriate.
Chief Inspector
ARSA asked the FAA to withdraw the
proposed requirement for a chief
inspector, unless the agency can provide
a specific definition of the position and
justify the position’s expenses against
an increase in safety. Similarly,
Aerospace Industries Association of
America commented that its member
companies cannot support the proposed
requirement to create a chief inspector
post in every repair station. The NPRM
does not clearly define the functional
responsibilities, accountability, and
authority of the position, nor are the
benefits of having such a position
clearly defined.
Several other commenters, including
Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., Boeing,
TCI Inc., Aeropro, Inc., British Airways,
Vero Beach Avionics, Inc., Marshall
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21289
Aerospace, and several individual
commenters expressed support for the
above sentiments.
Housing and Facilities
The NATA, Midcoast Aviation, and
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., said if the aircraft
and personnel are protected during the
repair or maintenance process, there is
no need to build or lease an expensive
hangar, which may prove to be
financially unsound.
United Airlines and Islip Avionics,
Inc., disagreed with the proposed
permanent housing provision. They said
they disagreed because not all repair or
maintenance work requires a fully
enclosed facility as some operations can
be performed at the maintenance
terminal, instead of at the hangar. Also,
they said that some repair stations are
located at airports that are publicly
owned.
General Electric Company, Aviation
Services, Boeing, and Aerospace
Industries commented that repair
stations holding aircraft ratings with
limitations must not be subject to the
undue burden of obtaining permanent
housing. These commenters said the
housing requirements should be in line
with the appropriate ratings limitations.
Denial of a Repair Station Certificate
Aviation Services, Inc., (ASI) does not
agree that a person who has had a repair
station certificate revoked and met the
other applicable conditions should be
permanently ineligible for issuance of a
repair station certificate, as proposed in
§ 145.53. ASI expressed concern that the
primary basis for the FAA’s proposed
permanent revocation is based on one
incident that ASI believes is not
representative. It said if a permanent
revocation is appropriate, it should
apply only to repair stations that
perform work for persons who operate
under parts 121 and 135.
Aviation Suppliers Association
(ASA), AEA, Temple Electronics
Company, and Aeropro, Inc., believe
proposed § 145.53(c) would apply
overly severe punishment. AEA and
Temple Electronics Company suggested
that any revocation should be bound by
some time frame and should be
included as part of the enforcement
action that revoked the certificate.
An individual commenter said, while
the rule punishes inappropriate
behavior, it does little to positively
reinforce the safety culture created and
sustained by top management.
Reason for Withdrawal
We are withdrawing the December
2006 Repair Station NPRM because it
does not adequately address the current
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
21290
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules
repair station operating environment.
Also, we are withdrawing it because of
the many significant issues commenters
to the NPRM raised, which the FAA
needs to consider in developing a better
proposal.
The current NPRM is based on
recommendations developed in 2001 by
ARAC. At that time, air carriers
performed the majority of their
maintenance work in-house. Since then,
air carriers have increasingly contracted
their maintenance. According to an
analysis by the Office of Inspector
General in 2003, the nine major air
carriers were contracting 34 percent of
their heavy airframe maintenance
checks to repair stations. By 2007, this
figure had increased to 71 percent.8 The
NPRM as written does not address this
changing operational dynamic.
In their comments to the NPRM, many
small repair station operators said the
proposal takes a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’
approach. This approach, they argue,
does not adequately address the
operational differences between large
and small repair stations. As a result,
the commenters said, the NPRM would
place a substantial economic and
administrative burden on their
operations.
Many commenters, as noted in the
Discussion of Comments section of this
document, argued against adopting key
portions of the NPRM for a variety of
reasons. Several commenters asked us to
withdraw the NPRM in its entirety. For
the reasons we have discussed, we
believe the best course of action is to
withdraw the NPRM. Withdrawal will
give us time to thoroughly review and
properly address the substantial changes
in the repair station operating
environment and the many issues raised
by commenters.
Conclusion
Withdrawal of the December 1, 2006,
Repair Stations; Proposed Rule does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another
proposal on the subject. In fact, we have
initiated rulemaking to update and
revise the regulations for repair stations
to more fully address the significant
changes in the repair station business
model. The new proposed rule will
address concerns from the 2006 NPRM,
as well as other issues related to
bringing the repair station regulations
up-to-date with industry practice. The
public will be provided the opportunity
for public comment on this rulemaking
through the NPRM process.
8 Air Carriers’ Outsourcing of Aircraft
Maintenance, OIG Report Number: AV–2008–090,
September 30, 2008—https://www.oig.dot.gov/
item.jsp?id=2364.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:34 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30,
2009.
Chester D. Dalbey,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9–10638 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 1
RIN 3038–AC66
Revised Adjusted Net Capital
Requirements for Futures Commission
Merchants and Introducing Brokers
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
proposes to amend its regulations that
prescribe minimum adjusted net capital
(‘‘ANC’’) requirements for futures
commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) and
introducing brokers (‘‘IBs’’). The
proposed amendments would increase
the required minimum dollar amount of
ANC, as defined in the regulations, that
an FCM must maintain from $250,000 to
$1,000,000. The proposed amendments
also would increase the required
minimum dollar amount of ANC that
IBs must maintain from $30,000 to
$45,000. The Commission also is
proposing to amend the computation of
an FCM’s margin-based minimum ANC
requirement to incorporate into the
calculation customer and noncustomer
positions in over-the-counter derivative
instruments that are submitted for
clearing by the FCM to derivatives
clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’) or other
clearing organizations (‘‘cleared OTC
derivative positions’’). In addition, the
Commission is proposing to amend the
regulations to require that FCM
proprietary cleared OTC derivative
positions be subject to capital
deductions in a manner that is
consistent with the capital deductions
required by the Commission’s
regulations for FCM proprietary
positions in exchange-traded futures
contracts and options contracts. Further,
the Commission proposes to amend the
FCM capital computation to increase the
applicable percentage of the total
margin-based requirement for futures,
options and cleared OTC derivative
positions in customer accounts from
eight percent to ten percent and in
noncustomer accounts from four percent
to ten percent. Lastly, the Commission
solicits public comments on the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
advisability of increasing the ANC
requirement for FCMs that are also
securities brokers and dealers by the
amount of net capital required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’) Rule 15c3–1(a).
DATES: Submit comments on or before
July 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN number, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web Site: https://
www.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the Web
site.
• E-mail: secretary@cftc.gov. Include
the RIN number in the subject line of
the message.
• Fax: 202–418–5521.
• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of
the Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail
above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thelma Diaz, Associate Director,
Division of Clearing and Intermediary
Oversight, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581. Telephone
number: 202–418–5137; facsimile
number: 202–418–5547; and electronic
mail: tdiaz@cftc.gov or Mark Bretscher,
Special Counsel, Division of Clearing
and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, 525 W.
Monroe, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois
60661. Telephone number: 312–596–
0529; facsimile number: 312–596–0714;
and electronic mail:
mbretscher@cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Minimum Financial Requirements for
FCMs and IBs
Section 4f(b) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’) provides that
FCMs and IBs must meet the minimum
financial requirements that the
Commission ‘‘may by regulation
prescribe as necessary to insure’’ that
FCMs and IBs meet their obligations as
registrants.1 FCMs are subject to higher
capital requirements than IBs because
the Act permits FCMs, but not IBs, to
hold funds of customers trading on
designated contract markets and to clear
such positions with a DCO. In addition,
Section 4d of the Act and the
Commission’s regulations provide
1 The Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The
Commission regulations cited herein may be found
at 17 CFR Ch. I (2008).
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 87 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21287-21290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10638]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 145
[Docket No. FAA-2006-26408]
RIN 2120-AI53
Repair Stations; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a previously published NPRM that
proposed to revise the system of ratings and require repair stations to
establish a quality program. The NPRM also proposed to require each
repair station to maintain a capability list, designate a chief
inspector, and have permanent housing for facilities, equipment,
materials, and personnel. The proposal would have specified additional
instances where the FAA may deny a repair station certificate, and
clarified some existing repair station regulations.
[[Page 21288]]
We are withdrawing the NPRM because we have determined that it does not
adequately address the current repair station environment, and because
of the significant issues commenters raised.
DATES: The proposed rule published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 70254),
is withdrawn as of May 7, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George W. Bean, Repair Station Branch,
AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 955 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024; telephone 202-385-6405; facsimile (202) 385-6474,
e-mail george.w.bean@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1989, the FAA held four public meetings to provide a forum for
the public to comment on possible revisions to the rules governing
repair stations.
After considering the comments and data collected from these
meetings, the FAA published the Repair Stations notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in June 1999.\1\ Subsequently, in August 2001, the
FAA published the Repair Stations; final rule with request for comments
and direct final rule with request for comments; final rule.\2\ The FAA
requested comments on the paperwork burden and on removing appendix A
\3\ from part 145, which the FAA had not originally proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 64 FR 33142; June 21, 1999.
\2\ 66 FR 41088; August 6, 2001.
\3\ This Appendix set forth job functions and equipment
requirements for repair stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2001, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) to address ratings and quality assurance for
repair stations.\4\ ARAC provided its recommendations in May 2002.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 66 FR 53281; October 19, 2001.
\5\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/arac/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2006, the FAA published the NPRM entitled Repair
Stations \6\ that considered ARAC's recommendations. The comment period
closed on March 1, 2007. However, the FAA received a request from the
Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) to extend the comment
period. In a notice published in the Federal Register on February 27,
2007, the FAA granted a 45-day comment period extension to April 16,
2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 71 FR 70254; December 1, 2006.
\7\ 72 FR 8641; February 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 1, 2006 NPRM, applicable to repair station operators
and applicants, proposed the following changes to part 145:
Repair stations would establish and maintain a capability
list of all articles for which they are rated. The list would identify
each article by manufacturer and the type, make, model, category or
other nomenclature designated by the article's manufacturer. Repair
stations with an Avionics or a Component rating would be required to
organize their lists by category of the article.
The FAA would revise the ratings and classes that may be
issued to a certificated repair station. The proposed amendments
included ones that would discontinue the issuance of limited ratings,
and instead allow issuance of limitations to the rating the
certificated repair station holds.
The FAA would require repair stations to establish a
quality system that includes an internal evaluation system that reviews
the complete repair station once a year.
Applicants for a repair station certificate would include
a letter of compliance as part of their application.
A certificate holder would be required to provide
permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and
personnel.
Certificate holders would be required to designate a chief
inspector.
The FAA would use certification from an authority
``acceptable to the FAA'' as a basis for issuing a certificate to a
person located outside the United States.
The FAA would identify reasons it could use to deny the
issuance of a repair station certificate.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received more than 500 comments to the NPRM. While there
was general support for the need to revise the repair station rules,
several commenters asked us to withdraw the rule. Many other commenters
expressed concerns related to ratings (particularly avionics rating),
capability list, quality system, letter of compliance, chief inspector,
housing and facilities, the FAA's denial of a repair station
certificate, and some were out of scope.
Requests To Withdraw the NPRM
The ARSA, Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), AGC Incorporated,
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Temple Electronics Company, and Lynden Air Cargo
recommended withdrawal of the rule. While ARSA commended the FAA for
attempting to clarify and simplify the rating system, it suggested the
FAA issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that considers
the comments to the NPRM. The other commenters recommended withdrawal
because there has been too much regulation of repair stations within
the past few years.
Oversight and Inconsistent Application
Comments received from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, and Transportation Trades
Department generally support the proposal. The unions did argue,
however, that the agency did not go far enough in certain areas
involving oversight and surveillance. While the issues they raised were
outside the scope of the proposal, various legislative proposals under
consideration by the Congress may address these issues in the future.
Ratings
Several commenters, including Southern Avionics & Communications,
Executive AutoPilots, Inc., Genesis Aviation, Aircom Avionics, American
Airlines, Turbine Weld, Inc., and others, expressed general disapproval
of the proposed rating system.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., believes to combine the proposed new
avionics rating with current market forces will negatively affect the
ability of avionics-only repair stations to remain viable. The
commenter said the NPRM does not recognize that avionics service
facilities are transitioning to flight line repairs and avionics
upgrades as main sources of revenue. The commenter also said the NPRM
does not recognize that avionics repair stations' ability to perform
such services are based primarily on the avionics equipment onboard the
aircraft rather than on the type, make, or model of the aircraft.
Midcoast Aviation said while it believes including electrical
equipment as part of an avionics rating to be appropriate, it does not
see legitimacy in removing those [electrical] systems/components from
the aircraft or powerplant rating.
Goodrich Aviation Technical Services said the proposed rule does
not adequately define the type of work required for the avionics
rating. It said a repair station with an aircraft, powerplant, or
propeller rating should not be required to obtain a separate avionics
rating to maintain articles associated with its ratings and
capabilities. Midcoast Aviation commented similarly.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., and Griffin Avionics, Inc., commented the
change from an airframe to an aircraft rating is ambiguous and
completely unnecessary. These commenters argued that this change is
unwarranted and would result in dramatic increases in administrative
costs, without improving aircraft maintenance safety or capability.
ARSA said since all ratings would require a capabilities list under
the
[[Page 21289]]
proposal, there does not appear to be a need for class ratings. It also
said it does not agree with the limitations of some of the ratings or
the proposed requirement for capabilities listing. Other commenters
expressed a similar disagreement with the limitations and privileges of
some ratings, stating the limitations do not appear consistent.
Capability List
Eighteen commenters, including Chromalloy Connecticut, Southern
Avionics and Communication, Avionics Shop, Inc., Turbine Weld, Inc.,
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, National Air Transportation
Association (NATA), and others, stated strong opposition to the
proposed capability list requirement. These commenters expressed
concern that the proposed requirement would cause chaos and bankruptcy.
They said such requirements are not justified, are unnecessary, are
irrelevant, and are economically punitive, without offering further
safety benefits.
Boeing believes the capability list would require a significant
amount of administrative resources to be kept current and would require
excessive amounts of information to be documented and tracked,
particularly for larger repair stations. Boeing sees minimal to no
safety benefits from these proposed requirements.
Airbus believes the requirement for a capability list is implicitly
included in Sec. 145.211. While it fully understands the need for a
standardized format for such a list, the details as proposed in Sec.
145.215 seem to go beyond a practical documentation under an approved
system.
A number of commenters, including United Airlines, Turbine Weld,
Inc., Griffin Avionics, Inc., AEA, and Temple Electronics Company
object to the proposed capability list because it could require having
several hundred types of ratings attached to a single repair station
aircraft rating.
Quality System
ARSA commented that the majority of repair stations have not
instituted quality assurance systems and most do not use computers.
Therefore, reviewing, changing, and maintaining the proposed quality
system would be expensive. Also, ARSA said repair stations cannot be
held responsible for compliance with all part 145 regulations. But, can
be held accountable only for ensuring compliance with those
requirements under their specific responsibility and control.
AEA and Temple Electronics Company believe the stated benefit of
the quality system requirements is based on ``false premises'' because
the FAA cited different cost-benefit estimates in prior repair station
rules. They commented that the FAA removed the quality assurance
requirements proposed in the 1999 NPRM from the subsequent 2001 final
rule because the requirements were overly burdensome and not cost
effective. The commenters further said that, despite removal of these
requirements from the 2001 final rule, the FAA introduced similar
requirements in the 2006 NPRM, without taking time to assess whether
the prior rule had proven successful.
Spirit Avionics, Ltd., Weld Avionics, Inc., Southern Avionics &
Communications, Executive AutoPilots, Inc., Vero Beach Avionics, Inc.,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and two individual commenters
said if a repair station properly performs maintenance according to
FAA-approved processes, maintaining a Quality Assurance System would be
extremely burdensome and would have little merit.
Letter of Compliance
ARSA, AEA, Temple Electronics Company, and Aeropro, Inc., said a
mandatory Letter of Compliance would be burdensome, unnecessary, and
redundant. AEA said the letter is a carryover from the period when the
repair station manual was simply a statement of commitment to comply
with the regulations. Aeropro, Inc., commented that because something
has been a long standing practice is not sufficient reason to include
it as a mandatory provision in the rule. It said including language
similar to that in Sec. 119.35, for certificate applications, would be
more appropriate.
Chief Inspector
ARSA asked the FAA to withdraw the proposed requirement for a chief
inspector, unless the agency can provide a specific definition of the
position and justify the position's expenses against an increase in
safety. Similarly, Aerospace Industries Association of America
commented that its member companies cannot support the proposed
requirement to create a chief inspector post in every repair station.
The NPRM does not clearly define the functional responsibilities,
accountability, and authority of the position, nor are the benefits of
having such a position clearly defined.
Several other commenters, including Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.,
Boeing, TCI Inc., Aeropro, Inc., British Airways, Vero Beach Avionics,
Inc., Marshall Aerospace, and several individual commenters expressed
support for the above sentiments.
Housing and Facilities
The NATA, Midcoast Aviation, and Spirit Avionics, Ltd., said if the
aircraft and personnel are protected during the repair or maintenance
process, there is no need to build or lease an expensive hangar, which
may prove to be financially unsound.
United Airlines and Islip Avionics, Inc., disagreed with the
proposed permanent housing provision. They said they disagreed because
not all repair or maintenance work requires a fully enclosed facility
as some operations can be performed at the maintenance terminal,
instead of at the hangar. Also, they said that some repair stations are
located at airports that are publicly owned.
General Electric Company, Aviation Services, Boeing, and Aerospace
Industries commented that repair stations holding aircraft ratings with
limitations must not be subject to the undue burden of obtaining
permanent housing. These commenters said the housing requirements
should be in line with the appropriate ratings limitations.
Denial of a Repair Station Certificate
Aviation Services, Inc., (ASI) does not agree that a person who has
had a repair station certificate revoked and met the other applicable
conditions should be permanently ineligible for issuance of a repair
station certificate, as proposed in Sec. 145.53. ASI expressed concern
that the primary basis for the FAA's proposed permanent revocation is
based on one incident that ASI believes is not representative. It said
if a permanent revocation is appropriate, it should apply only to
repair stations that perform work for persons who operate under parts
121 and 135.
Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), AEA, Temple Electronics
Company, and Aeropro, Inc., believe proposed Sec. 145.53(c) would
apply overly severe punishment. AEA and Temple Electronics Company
suggested that any revocation should be bound by some time frame and
should be included as part of the enforcement action that revoked the
certificate.
An individual commenter said, while the rule punishes inappropriate
behavior, it does little to positively reinforce the safety culture
created and sustained by top management.
Reason for Withdrawal
We are withdrawing the December 2006 Repair Station NPRM because it
does not adequately address the current
[[Page 21290]]
repair station operating environment. Also, we are withdrawing it
because of the many significant issues commenters to the NPRM raised,
which the FAA needs to consider in developing a better proposal.
The current NPRM is based on recommendations developed in 2001 by
ARAC. At that time, air carriers performed the majority of their
maintenance work in-house. Since then, air carriers have increasingly
contracted their maintenance. According to an analysis by the Office of
Inspector General in 2003, the nine major air carriers were contracting
34 percent of their heavy airframe maintenance checks to repair
stations. By 2007, this figure had increased to 71 percent.\8\ The NPRM
as written does not address this changing operational dynamic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Air Carriers' Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, OIG
Report Number: AV-2008-090, September 30, 2008--https://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their comments to the NPRM, many small repair station operators
said the proposal takes a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. This
approach, they argue, does not adequately address the operational
differences between large and small repair stations. As a result, the
commenters said, the NPRM would place a substantial economic and
administrative burden on their operations.
Many commenters, as noted in the Discussion of Comments section of
this document, argued against adopting key portions of the NPRM for a
variety of reasons. Several commenters asked us to withdraw the NPRM in
its entirety. For the reasons we have discussed, we believe the best
course of action is to withdraw the NPRM. Withdrawal will give us time
to thoroughly review and properly address the substantial changes in
the repair station operating environment and the many issues raised by
commenters.
Conclusion
Withdrawal of the December 1, 2006, Repair Stations; Proposed Rule
does not preclude the FAA from issuing another proposal on the subject.
In fact, we have initiated rulemaking to update and revise the
regulations for repair stations to more fully address the significant
changes in the repair station business model. The new proposed rule
will address concerns from the 2006 NPRM, as well as other issues
related to bringing the repair station regulations up-to-date with
industry practice. The public will be provided the opportunity for
public comment on this rulemaking through the NPRM process.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2009.
Chester D. Dalbey,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-10638 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
