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."