Organization Does Not Support Proposed Changes

In response to Docket No. FAA-2006-26408, the Aircraft Electronics Association submitted strongly worded comments on the FAA's proposed changes to Part 145... emphasizing it does NOT support the overall proposal.

The comments assert, "the repair station industry has been administratively burdened by regulatory action almost continuously since 2001. The last of the repair station training programs were to be submitted only 16 days ago at the end of March 2007. A moratorium on all but essential changes to Part 145 is long overdue."

The Association even seems to have caught the FAA in a time warp. The letter discusses the FAA citing NTSB data collected from July 1997 to June 2003 for its rulemaking justification,  but " this analysis predates the August 6, 2001 change to 14 CFR Part 145, which did not become effective until August 6, 2003. The FAA cannot make statements of the safety and financial benefit based on data that predates the last regulatory change to Part 145."

The AEA also complains that, if enacted, this rule, "would require significant amendments to the repair  station manuals, quality manual, training manual and the establishment and management  of a capability list and...will require a minimum of 184 hours of administrative  burden for a proposal that the Agency cannot quantify any benefit." 

And speaking of capability lists, "the Association completely disagrees with the Agency regarding the development and  management of the Capability Lists.  In the August 6, 2001 Federal Register, the FAA  estimated that each repairs station would take on average 12 hours just to manage the  capability list. The time to develop and manage the capability list far exceeds the modest  suggest by the FAA in this NPRM that the "administrative burden to repair stations to  prepare a capability list would require 4 hours of maintenance management time plus 4  hours of administrative support personnel time for small repair stations and  corresponding times of 8 hours for large repair stations." 

The AEA accuses the FAA of continuing a process of rulemaking that puts a "significantly higher administrative and financial burden on small business"  than on the larger repair stations. The comments further state, "The  burden from this proposal to small Part 145 businesses that support general aviation  aircraft is excessive and completely unjustified from a safety perspective. The FAA routinely defends their overzealous regulations because of their direct affect on  Part 121 air carriers.

While AEA acknowledges this position, the FAA fails to recognize  that the vast majority of repair stations do not work on Part 121 aircraft but rather support  the general aviation fleet.

The AEA also says independent maintenance providers (non-certified maintenance facilities) are operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 65 and are being granted the same return-to-service authority as a certified repair station even though they work outside FAA oversight, and "without the mandated training and record keeping requirements of Part 145 and with only a bi-annual records review to validate their qualifications."

Calling this practice "discriminatory", the AEA is demanding it be stopped.

The organization notes there are "over 500 aircraft types in operation today." Yet, the proposal demands each repair station to submit a request to change their Ops Specs when a need to support a different type of aircraft arises.

AEA calls this"logistically ridiculous," stating it would further stretch already limited industry resources. 

The comments call the proposal "unmanageable and extremely costly" and requests a two-tiered approach to regulations. They propose a "basic Part 145 requirement more in line with the FAA  accepted criterion of the independent maintenance providers which would be similar to  the pre-2001 regulations. 

For those businesses that choose to facilitate air carrier maintenance, a Part 145 (a) regulation which adds all of the Part 121 focused requirements of the 2001 rulemaking along with certain aspects of the current proposal would be required."   

FMI: www.aea.com