This article is published in Aviation Week & Space Technology and is free to read until Jul 06, 2024. If you want to read more articles from this publication, please click the link to subscribe.
Opinion: Regulatory Rulemaking Requires Attention To Detail
ARSA and other trade associations are aiming to improve consistency and clarity in the FAA’s repair station rules.
April 2024 was a busy month for ARSA IN commentS on maintenance-centric rulemaking, including issues around falsification and drug and alcohol testing.
This column, however, follows up on an FAA proposal to remove the requirement that repair stations have “current and accessible” versions of needed documents and data even when those “current” manuals are not used. The change was nestled within a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on “miscellaneous maintenance-related updates” to 14 CFR. That NPRM also attempted to clean up language regarding a repair station’s privilege of contracting with another person to perform maintenance.
Specific to the “current data” amendment, the rulemaking made no mention of ARSA’s 2019 petition for the exact action considered: removing the specific list of required documents, along with the condition that they be current when the relevant work is performed. Part 43 requires no other person performing maintenance to meet this standard. As a recent ARSA column in Inside MRO noted, it does not matter who gets credit for the idea as long as it is implemented properly (Inside MRO March, p. MRO6).
In the spirit of proper implementation, ARSA and three trade association allies submitted extensive comments on the NPRM. These went beyond supporting the FAA’s efforts to improve the consistency and clarity of the rule by suggesting further edits to 11 sections of the repair station rule.
Many of those additional edits addressed other requirements for possession of data. The ARSA team is smarter now than it was upon submitting that 2019 petition; the spirit of continuous improvement is alive in the association. Upon this year’s review of the language, the team recognized multiple areas requiring repair stations to hold “current” data. Adhering to the plain language of regulations—such as one requiring that the quality control manual include a description of the system and procedures for establishing and maintaining current technical data—would put certificate holders in the middle of conflicting mandates in the same rule over the same data.
The “miscellaneous” rulemaking provided an opportunity to reconcile Part 145 with a fundamental standard in Part 43: An approval for return to service is issued only for the work performed and not as a statement that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or component on which that work was performed is airworthy. The current repair station rule language gets this backward by repeatedly referring to “approving the article for return to service.”
Much of the repair station rule incorrectly referenced the approval of equipment for return to service, contrary to the rule in §43.9(a)(4), in which the signature constitutes “the approval for return to service only for the work performed.”
Stepping back from the rulemaking specifics, the larger point is that industry’s duty to engage the process requires attention to detail. A colleague contacted ARSA regarding the proposal to remove the “current data burden,” noting that it should “clearly be supported.” Could he have imagined the “support” would be delivered via 21 pages of comments suggesting broader edits to the rule?
Though the updates to Part 145 felt like simple edits stuck in the middle of a larger proposal, the truth is that plain writing of a rule requires a big effort to get it right.
Brett Levanto is vice president for operations at Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, managing firm and client communications in conjunction with regulatory and legislative policy initiatives. He provides strategic and logistical support for the Aeronautical Repair Station Association.
