Unwanted NPRM Withdrawn... For Now

A controversial and much-unloved NPRM is being withdrawn by the FAA in a rare victory for common sense and the power of a collective industry response to objectionable rulemaking. 

All the hub-bub concerns a proposed rule published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 70254). The FAA states that it 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. 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."

According to the background published with the withdrawal notice, "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. 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. The FAA requested comments on the paperwork burden and on removing appendix A3 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. ARAC provided its recommendations in May 2002.

On December 1, 2006, the FAA published the NPRM entitled Repair Stations 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.

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.

The FAA says that they received more than 500 comments to the NPRM (and published a number of pages that summarized some very effective and contructive commentary). "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."

The FAA notes that "while 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."

FMI: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Withdrawal_AI53.pdf