Comments - MARPA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proposed Change Revise proposed section 145.1055(a and b) to read as follows (proposed additions are shown as underlined words - proposed deletions are shown as struck-out): § 145.1055 Duration and renewal of certificate. (a) A certificate or rating issued to a repair station located in the United States is effective from the date of issue until the repair station surrenders the certificate and the FAA accepts it for cancellation, or the FAA suspends or revokes it. (b) A certificate or rating issued to a repair station located outside the United States is effective from the date of issue until the last day of the 12th month after the date of issue unless the repair station surrenders the certificate and the FAA accepts it for cancellation, or the FAA suspends or revokes it. The FAA may renew the certificate or rating for 24 months if the repair station has operated in compliance with the applicable requirements of part 145 within the preceding certificate duration period. Asset Sale Issue The proposed rule requires a repair station to apply for an amended certificate if the holder “sells or transfers its assets.” This is ambiguous in that it does not set a threshold for how much of an asset sale will trigger the requirement. Also, in cases where the sale of the assets does not affect the repair station’s ability to meet its regulatory responsibilities, this seems unnecessary. Analysis The proposed rule would add clauses that state: “If the holder of a repair station certificate sells or transfers its assets, the new owner must apply for certification in accordance with § 145.1051.” (§ 145.57(b)). “If the holder of a repair station certificate sells or transfers its assets, the new owner must apply for an amended certificate in accordance with § 145.1051.” (§ 145.1055(d)). The trigger for this re-application requirement is the sale or transfer of assets. This is ambiguous in that it does not set a threshold for how much of an asset sale will trigger the requirement. In cases where the sale of the assets does not affect the repair station’s ability to meet its regulatory responsibilities, this seems unnecessary. This is also true in cases where the entity is sold to a new owner (which appears to be the intended reach of the change). In such cases, if the repair station is not changing the way in which it operates, nor the way that it meets the Modification and Replacement Parts Association Page 8
equirements of the regulations, then there is no need for a re-application. Imposing such a requirement is a waste of resources. In the past, FAA offices have used the occasion of a new purchase of an existing repair station to impose onerous conditions on the new owners which were not imposed on the prior owners. This violates due process when similarly situated certificate holders are held to different requirements and standards. Proposed Change: All references to a requirement to re-apply for certification where there is a new owner, or where there is a substantial sale of assets, should be removed from the regulations, including the above-referenced provisions in subsections 145.57(b) and 145.1055(d). Ratings Issue The ratings proposal does not modernize the ratings system. Instead, the proposed system creates new problems without really solving any of the old ones. Analysis The proposed rating system fails to meet the FAA’s primary objective, which was to modernize the ratings system. Instead, the proposed system creates new problems without really solving any of the old ones. One example of a new problem is found in the proposed component rating. The preamble to the rule states that the FAA expects that component-rated repair stations would have a list of their components in their operations specifications. Today, most repair stations find it very difficult to amend their operations specifications. In light of the difficulty now faced by repair stations in amending their operations specifications, keeping the component list in the op specs would likely make it very difficult for a component repair station to add new components to their list of permissible components, which in turn would probably cause many smaller component shops to stagnate as new products come out but the operations specification amendment process limited their ability to add them as capabilities. This would have a parallel effect on PMA manufacturers. As corollary PMA parts are produced, the difficulty in adding new components to the permissible component list would prevent smaller repair stations from adding the new OEM components, but the equivalent PMA part as well. There is also a fear that some offices might more readily approve operations specifications changes for so-called “OEM repair stations” and for so-called “OEM-authorized repair stations.” If this were to happen, then it would impose an even greater burden on independent repair stations that did not benefit from this positive presumption. This would also adversely affect PMA manufacturers, as repair stations found it easier to amend operations specification for OEM parts, but not the corollary PMA part. The effect would be a discriminatory system Modification and Replacement Parts Association Page 9
Page 1 and 2: Repair Stations Comments on the Not
Page 3 and 4: Contents Who is MARPA? ............
Page 5 and 6: working with aviation authorities t
Page 7: Certificate Surrender Issue The pro
Page 11 and 12: Proposed Change The proposed rating
Page 13 and 14: This set of rules provides the loca
Page 15 and 16: and increase quality as well as pro
Page 17 and 18: Analysis The FAA has recognized tha
Page 19 and 20: officials may have had no control o
Page 21 and 22: persisting obligation to provide th
Page 23 and 24: (b) For major repairs made in accor

Comments - MARPA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?