Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46971 

1NTSB Recommendation No. A–04–01, February 

9, 2004. 

directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE–170, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or 

Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA Design Approval 

Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, 

the approval must include the DAOauthorized signature. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF– 

2014–19, dated June 20, 2014, for related 

information. You may examine the MCAI on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0490. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference may 

be obtained at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD. 

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A600–0769, Revision 01, dated June 26, 

2014. 

(ii) Canadair Temporary Revision 600/29, 

dated June 20, 2014, to the Canadair CL–600– 

1A11 Airplane Flight Manual. 

(iii) Canadair Temporary Revision 600/30, 

dated June 6, 2014, to the Canadair CL–600– 

1A11 Airplane Flight Manual. 

(iv) Canadair Temporary Revision 600–1/

24, dated June 20, 2014, to the Canadair CL– 

600–1A11 Airplane Flight Manual (Winglets) 

including Erratum, Publication No. PSP 600– 

1AFM (US), TR No. 600–1/24, June 20, 2014. 

(v) Canadair Temporary Revision 600–1/

26, dated June 6, 2014, to the Canadair CL– 

600–1A11 Airplane Flight Manual 

(Winglets). 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; email thd.crj@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://

www.bombardier.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

4, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18866 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 145 

[Docket No.: FAA–2006–26408; Amdt. No. 

145–30] 

RIN 2120–AJ61 

Repair Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the FAA’s 

repair station regulations to allow the 

FAA to deny an application for a new 

repair station certificate if the applicant 

or certain associated key individuals 

had materially contributed to the 

circumstances that caused a previous 

repair station certificate revocation 

action. The rule also adds a new section 

prohibiting fraudulent or intentionally 

false entries or omissions of material 

facts in any application, record, or 

report made under the repair station 

rules, and provides that making the 

fraudulent or intentionally false entry or 

omitting or concealing the material fact 

is grounds for imposing a civil penalty 

and for suspending or revoking any 

certificate, approval, or authorization 

issued by the FAA to the person who 

made or caused the entry or omission. 

These changes are necessary because the 

repair station rules do not presently 

provide these safeguards as do other 

parts of the FAA’s regulations. Both of 

these changes will enhance safety by 

reducing the number of individuals in 

the repair station industry who commit 

intentional and serious violations of the 

regulations or who demonstrate they are 

otherwise unqualified to hold repair 

stations certificates. 

DATES: Effective November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Susan Traugott, Repair 

Station Branch (AFS–340), Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (214) 

277–8534; email Susan.M.Traugott@

faa.gov. For legal questions concerning 

this action, contact Edmund Averman, 

Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC–210), 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3147; email Ed.Averman@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106, describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in title 49, 

subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 

44701, General requirements, and 

section 44707, Examining and rating air 

agencies. Under section 44701, the FAA 

may prescribe regulations and standards 

in the interest of safety for inspecting, 

servicing, and overhauling aircraft, 

aircraft engines, propellers, and 

appliances. The FAA may also prescribe 

equipment and facilities for, and the 

timing and manner of, inspecting, 

servicing, and overhauling these items. 

Under section 44707, the FAA may 

examine and rate repair stations. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

section 44707 since it specifies 

instances when the FAA may deny the 

issuance of a repair station certificate, 

especially when a previously held 

certificate has been revoked. 

I. Background 

A. NTSB Recommendations 

As a result of a fatal accident, the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) recommended 1 that an 

applicant’s past performance should be 

a consideration in determining whether 

a new certificate should be issued. The 

NTSB was concerned that the FAA had 

no mechanism for preventing 

individuals who have been associated 

with a previously revoked repair station 

certificate from continuing to operate 

through a new repair station certificate. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2NTSB Recommendation No. A–04–02, February 

9, 2004. 

The NTSB pointed out that the FAA has 

addressed this issue in the context of air 

carriers and other commercial operators. 

Specifically, 14 CFR 119.39(b) allows 

the FAA to deny an application for a 

part 121 or 135 air carrier or operating 

certificate if the applicant has 

previously held a certificate that was 

revoked or if a person who exercised 

control over (or held a key management 

position in) an operator with a revoked 

certificate will be exercising control 

over (or holding a key management 

position in) the new operator. 

Additionally, § 119.39(b) allows the 

FAA to deny certification to an 

applicant who is substantially owned by 

(or who intends to fill a key 

management position with) an 

individual who had a similar interest in 

a certificate holder whose certificate 

was (or is being) revoked when that 

individual materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing revocation. The 

FAA agrees with the NTSB that part 145 

should have the same safeguards as 

§ 119.39(b). 

The NTSB also took issue with the 

practice of an individual whose repair 

station was being investigated for 

serious violations of the regulations 

surrendering the certificate to stop the 

investigation process. Accordingly, the 

NTSB recommended that the ‘‘FAA 

should complete the investigation to the 

extent necessary to document all 

available facts relating to the fitness of 

the involved individuals; . . . .’’ 2

The FAA is publishing this final rule 

in part to address these 

recommendations from the NTSB. 

B. Summary of NPRM 

On May 21, 2012, the FAA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) titled ‘‘Repair Stations’’ (77 FR 

30054). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

to amend the regulations for repair 

stations by revising the system of 

ratings, the repair station certification 

requirements, and the regulations 

applicable to repair stations providing 

maintenance for air carriers. The 

proposal also addressed the NTSB 

recommendation (discussed previously) 

by proposing amendments that would 

permit the FAA to deny certain 

applicants new certificates based on 

their enforcement history. The FAA 

believed these changes were necessary 

because many portions of the existing 

repair station regulations do not reflect 

current repair station aircraft 

maintenance and business practices, 

and the existing regulations have not 

kept pace with advances in aircraft 

technology. The agency proposed the 

changes to modernize the regulations to 

keep pace with current industry 

standards and practices. 

The comment period was scheduled 

to close on August 20, 2012. However, 

the FAA received a request from the 

Aeronautical Repair Station Association 

(ARSA) and other organizations to 

extend the comment period. In a notice 

published on August, 17, 2012 (77 FR 

49740), the FAA granted a 90-day 

comment period extension to November 

19, 2012. 

The NPRM proposed to amend part 

145 by: 

• Significantly revising the system of 

ratings to eliminate class, radio, 

instrument, and accessory ratings; 

• Requiring each repair station 

choosing to use a capability list to audit 

the list for currentness at least every two 

years; 

• Requiring new applicants for a 

repair station certificate to include a 

letter of compliance as part of their 

application; 

• Requiring repair stations to provide 

permanent housing for their facilities, 

equipment, materials, and personnel; 

• Identifying specific reasons that the 

issuance of a repair station certificate 

could be denied; 

• Prohibiting fraudulent or 

intentionally false entries in an 

application, record, or report made 

under the repair station rules; and 

• Accommodating revisions made to 

14 CFR parts 91 and 43 providing for 

the change in rating system and 

standardization of language. 

C. Summary of Comments 

The FAA received more than 230 

public comments to the NPRM. The 

majority of the commenters, including 

Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), 

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), 

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association 

(AOPA), Aeronautical Repair Station 

Association (ARSA), Aviation Suppliers 

Association (ASA), Experimental 

Aircraft Association (EAA), General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA), Helicopter Association 

International (HAI), Modification and 

Replacement Parts Association 

(MARPA), National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA), the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, Coordinating Agency for 

Supplier Evaluation (CASE) and several 

individual commenters had serious 

concerns with the proposed changes, 

and many suggested withdrawing the 

entire proposal. 

Although commenters recognized that 

the system of ratings is outdated, there 

was general dissatisfaction with the 

proposed new system of ratings and the 

transition process. Commenters also 

expressed concerns on the proposals for 

a capability list, recurring audit, letter of 

compliance, permanent housing, 

facilities and equipment, and the FAA’s 

proposed authority to deny a repair 

station application. 

D. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

significant changes to the system of 

ratings, the repair station certification 

requirements, and the rules for repair 

stations providing maintenance for air 

carriers. 

The FAA is withdrawing most of the 

changes proposed in the NPRM because 

of the issues raised by commenters. 

Many commenters argued that the 

proposed ratings system would not be 

satisfactory for current and future repair 

stations. Also, many expressed concern 

that the FAA does not have sufficient 

resources to perform recertification of 

all currently certificated repair stations 

while continuing to certificate new 

repair stations in the course of the 

proposed 24-month transition. This 

concern is exacerbated by the possible 

influx of hundreds of repair station 

applicants resulting from the 

finalization of the Transportation 

Security Administration foreign repair 

station rule, which allows for the 

certification of new repair stations 

outside the United States for the first 

time since 2004. 

The NPRM proposed extensive 

changes to the repair station regulations 

with accommodating changes to 14 CFR 

parts 43 and 91. The final rule 

implements only the denial authority, 

the falsification penalty, and several 

minor revisions and corrections. The 

rule also requires that a certificate 

surrender is not complete until the FAA 

accepts the certificate for surrender. The 

final rule does not change 14 CFR parts 

43 and 91 as initially proposed. 

II. Overview of Final Rule 

Currently, 14 CFR 145.53 provides 

that, with certain exceptions, an 

applicant who meets the requirements 

of the rule is entitled to a repair station 

certificate. Section 145.53 does not 

provide an exception related to a past 

regulatory non-compliance history. 

There has been at least one incident 

where the FAA revoked a repair station 

certificate for serious maintenancerelated safety violations, and a key 

management official from the repair 

station shortly thereafter obtained a new 

repair station certificate under which 

improper maintenance resulted in a 

fatal accident. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46973 

As a result of the fatal accident, the 

NTSB recommended that an applicant’s 

past performance should be a 

consideration in determining whether a 

new certificate should be issued. The 

FAA agrees that this is an important 

consideration in assessing an 

applicant’s overall fitness to hold a 

certificate and is providing a new 

exception to certificate entitlement in 

§ 145.51(e). 

The new exception will apply to: 

• An applicant who previously held a 

repair station certificate that was 

revoked or is in the process of being 

revoked; 

• An applicant who intends to fill 

certain key management positions with 

individuals who had materially 

contributed to the circumstances that 

led to a prior repair station certificate 

revocation, or to an ongoing revocation 

action against a repair station; and 

• An applicant whose repair station 

will be owned or controlled by an 

individual or individuals who 

previously owned or exercised control 

over a repair station that had its 

certificate revoked or is in the process 

of being revoked. 

With regard to the exception stated in 

the second bullet above, the FAA notes 

that in the NPRM the agency 

erroneously proposed two nearly 

identical paragraphs— 

(§§ 145.1051(e)(2) and 145.1051(e)(3)) 

pertaining to individuals who would be 

slated to hold management positions 

with a new applicant. Proposed 

paragraph (e)(2) addressed instances 

where the applicant intended to (or did) 

fill a management position with an 

individual who exercised control over 

or who held the same or a similar 

position with a repair station that had 

its certificate previously revoked, and 

paragraph (e)(3) addressed instances 

where an individual who would hold a 

management position in the new repair 

station previously held a management 

position with a repair station that had 

a certificate revoked. The FAA has 

determined that these two paragraphs 

are largely redundant and would 

accomplish essentially the same thing. 

As discussed below, proposed 

§ 145.51(e) was meant to parallel the 

similar exceptions found for air carrier 

operating certificates in 14 CFR 

119.39(b), and that section does not 

contain the text of paragraph (e)(3) 

discussed above. Therefore, the FAA is 

withdrawing § 145.51(e)(3) as proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Under this new exception, the FAA 

may still issue a new certificate, but the 

applicant will no longer be entitled to 

a certificate, even if other qualifying 

criteria are met. Knowledge of the 

compliance disposition of key 

management personnel is an important 

component of the fitness assessment the 

FAA makes in determining the overall 

qualifications of an applicant who will 

conduct repair station operations. 

To implement this new exception, the 

FAA is adding a two-part question to 

FAA Form 8310–3, Application for 

Repair Station Certificate and/or Rating. 

The question asks: Will any person as 

described in part 145.51(e) be involved 

with the management, control, or have 

substantial ownership of the repair 

station? If yes, provide a detailed 

explanation on a separate page. The 

detailed response to a ‘yes’ answer will 

allow the FAA to evaluate the 

circumstances of the revocation and 

determine whether the certification will 

or will not continue. 

Also, in response to the NTSB 

recommendation, the FAA is adding a 

requirement that a certificate surrender 

is not complete until the FAA accepts 

the certificate for surrender. The new 

surrender requirement codifies existing 

FAA policy, and will prevent a repair 

station under investigation from 

attempting to circumvent a possible 

enforcement action that could result in 

a revocation of the repair station 

certificate by surrendering its certificate 

to stop the investigation before it is 

completed. 

The other significant amendments in 

this final rule are: 

• The addition of a new § 145.12 that 

prohibits fraudulent or intentionally 

false entries or omissions in 

applications, records, or reports made 

under the repair station rules. The rule 

provides that making a prohibited 

fraudulent or intentionally false entry or 

knowingly omitting a material fact is 

grounds for suspending or revoking any 

certificate, approval, or authorization 

the FAA issued to the person who made 

the entry or caused the omission. 

• A revision to paragraph (a) of 

§ 145.53 to incorporate the new grounds 

for denying a certificate under 

§ 145.51(e) (discussed above) as another 

exception to certificate entitlement even 

if the other qualification requirements 

are met. 

• A revision to § 145.55 to add that a 

certificate surrender is not complete 

until the FAA accepts the certificate for 

cancellation. 

This final rule will also make the 

following amendments: 

• A revision to § 145.55 to add a new 

paragraph (c)(3) to require that a repair 

station outside the United States 

applying for certificate renewal must 

show the required fee has been paid. 

• A revision to § 145.57 to add a 

requirement in paragraph(a)(1) that a 

certificate change is necessary if the 

repair station certificate holder changes 

the name of the repair station. 

• A revision to § 145.57(b), which 

currently requires that if a repair 

station’s assets are sold the new owner 

must apply for a certificate. The revision 

clarifies that a new owner will need to 

apply for a new certificate only if the 

new owner chooses to operate as a 

repair station. 

• Revisions to §§ 145.153, 145.157, 

and 145.213 to add the terms 

‘‘appropriately’’ before ‘‘certificated’’ 

and ‘‘as a mechanic or repairman’’ 

before ‘‘under part 65’’ in three 

instances: (1) Supervisory personnel 

requirements (§ 145.153(b)(1)); (2) 

Personnel authorized to approve an 

article for return to service 

(§ 145.157(a)); and (3) Inspection of 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations (§ 145.213(d)). The first 

two of these revisions were proposed in 

the NPRM; however, the third was 

inadvertently omitted, and we are 

including it here for clarity and 

consistency. As discussed in the NPRM, 

the omission of the term 

‘‘appropriately’’ in the 2001 final rule 

was an oversight we proposed to correct 

with this final rule. This omission 

technically provides that any individual 

holding a certificate issued under part 

65 (other than mechanics and 

repairmen—such as air traffic control 

tower operators and aircraft dispatchers) 

could fill these positions. Under these 

amendments, supervisors and persons 

authorized to inspect and approve an 

article for return to service would, at a 

minimum, have to hold a certificate 

appropriate for the work being 

performed (e.g., a mechanic or a 

repairman certificate). 

• A revision to § 145.155 to remove 

the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

(a)(2). Since no § 145.155(a)(3) currently 

exists, it is an error for ‘‘and’’ to appear 

after paragraph (a)(2), and its removal 

corrects this error. 

• A revision to § 145.163 to add the 

term ‘‘and use’’ after ‘‘must have’’ in 

paragraph (a). This section requires a 

repair station to have an approved 

training program, but does not provide 

a specific requirement that the program 

be used. This revision is necessary to 

clarify the intent of the current rule that 

repair stations must have and use an 

employee training program approved by 

the FAA. This rule also removes the 

reference to April 6, 2006, (added by the 

2001 amendments) as the date by which 

the FAA required new applicants to 

submit a training program for approval, 

and also the starting date from which 

each existing repair station would be 

required to submit its training program 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

for approval based on the specified 

staggered schedule, i.e., by the last day 

of the month in which its repair station 

certificate had been issued. This 

revision results in the necessary 

inclusion of the text of paragraph (a)(1) 

into § 145.163(a) and the consequent 

deletion of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). 

In addition, we are also making a 

correction that was not proposed in the 

NPRM. Specifically, we are correcting 

§ 145.221(a) to remove the erroneous 

insertion of the word ‘‘serious’’ when 

addressing the service difficulty 

reporting requirements from any failure, 

malfunction, or defect. The word 

‘‘serious’’ was removed through notice 

and comment rulemaking in the 2001 

final rule entitled ‘‘Repair Stations,’’ (66 

FR 41088, August 6, 2001) that 

significantly revised part 145. The word 

‘‘serious’’ was inadvertently inserted by 

a separate final rule entitled ‘‘Service 

Difficulty Reports,’’ (65 FR 56191, 

September 15, 2000). 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense 

with notice and comment procedures 

for rules when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under this 

section, an agency, upon finding good 

cause, may issue a final rule without 

seeking comment prior to the 

rulemaking. The removal of the term 

‘‘serious’’ in § 145.221(a) does not 

change a standard, nor will there be any 

effect on regulated entities other than to 

prevent future misunderstandings that 

would have been resolved when 

interested persons contacted the FAA. 

Accordingly, due to the nature and 

circumstances of the error explained 

above, the FAA finds that further notice 

and comment are unnecessary to effect 

the correction. 

III. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

of the Final Rule 

The FAA determined that the 

expected outcome of the rule will be a 

minimal impact with positive net 

benefits. Therefore, a regulatory 

evaluation was not prepared for this 

final rule. The FAA has, therefore, 

determined that this final rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. 

IV. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

A. System of Ratings (§§ 145.59 and 

145.61) 

The NPRM proposed reducing the 

number of repair station ratings from 

eight to five, and revising the ratings’ 

definitions to indicate the type of work 

that a repair station would be 

authorized to perform. Approximately 

190 commenters, including AEA, AIA, 

GAMA, and Duncan Aviation, 

commented specifically on the proposed 

change to the system of ratings. 

Generally, these organizations stated 

that the proposed rule would not 

modernize the ratings (or that the 

changes would be regressive), would be 

cost prohibitive, and would not enhance 

safety. The following are some examples 

of the comments received on this 

proposal. 

AEA noted that the proposed changes 

in the rating system are the basis for the 

reissuance of the repair station 

certificates, but that the perceived 

added benefit of the ratings revision 

does not justify the extreme cost of 

reapplication. AEA recommended that 

the FAA retain the current rating 

classification system and provide a 

better description of the maintenance 

authorized by each rating. 

AIA stated that class ratings are 

beneficial to industry, and that the 

FAA’s proposal to eliminate this type of 

rating would cause additional burdens 

beyond those set forth in the NPRM. 

AIA further stated that the transition 

from class to category will most likely 

cause significant disruption to existing 

repair stations with no appreciable 

safety benefit. Large repair stations 

would need time and resources to make 

the transition based on the breadth of 

their customer base and complexity of 

their operations. Small repair stations 

would be faced with an overwhelming 

burden, with a lack of resources to make 

the transition to build compliant 

capability lists or operations 

specifications systems. 

GAMA stated that the FAA’s proposal 

would allow airframe-rated repair 

stations to repair and alter radios and 

instruments without any specific ratings 

or obvious qualifications. GAMA added 

that the FAA’s proposed ratings did not 

provide due consideration to avionics, 

which are increasingly more complex 

integrated systems that require greater 

and unique levels of technical skills to 

maintain properly. 

Duncan Aviation stated that the 

current outdated rating system was 

better than the proposed rating system, 

which added no value to the way a 

repair station conducts business. 

Duncan Aviation suggested that the 

current system remain in place until a 

better system is developed with input 

from industry. 

Based on the comments received, and 

because the ARAC recommendation on 

which the FAA based the proposed 

ratings changes is dated, the FAA will 

retain the current system of ratings until 

such time it can better understand and 

learn from all stakeholders what the 

future of repair station ratings should 

look like. The comments on the 

proposed ratings system changes clearly 

point to differences between those 

repair stations that are well suited to the 

current ratings system and those who 

find the current ratings system outdated 

and not meaningfully descriptive. 

B. Certification Requirements 

(§§ 145.51, 145.103, and 145.163) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

changes to allow for certification denial 

when certain enforcement history exists. 

The proposal also clarified existing 

regulatory language. Approximately 175 

commenters, including EAA, AOPA, 

AIA, ARSA, ASA, CASE, GAMA, 

NATA, and the SBA Office of Advocacy 

expressed concerns with several of the 

proposed changes to the repair station 

certification requirements. 

EAA, GAMA, NATA, and other 

commenters also expressed concerns 

with the FAA’s proposed requirement 

that equipment, tools, test apparatus, 

materials, and personnel must be in 

place for inspection at the time of 

certification, with no provision that the 

equipment requirement could be met 

with an acceptable contract for its 

availability when needed. They 

proposed that the FAA retain the 

current language. GAMA further stated 

that the proposed change would require 

a financial impact assessment. EAA 

added that the requirement is 

unrealistic and noted that many of 

today’s modern materials are shelf-life 

limited and would likely expire during 

the application and approval process, 

and that it was unrealistic to begin 

hiring technicians when the repair 

station certification process could take 

as long as 24 to 36 months. 

As to the proposal to eliminate the 

option for an applicant to have a 

contract to make equipment available at 

the time of certification and any other 

time when needed when the relevant 

work is being performed in lieu of 

actually having the equipment on site, 

the FAA believes there is uncertainty 

within the industry on both the current 

and proposed requirements. This 

uncertainty is exacerbated by the 

inconsistent application of the contract 

clause regarding whether the equipment 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46975 

or only the contract must be on hand 

during the certification inspection. 

Many certificate holders have long 

argued that it makes no economic sense 

to own or have on hand expensive, 

seldom used tools and equipment 

during certification. 

In view of these comments, the FAA 

is withdrawing the proposal to require 

that the equipment must be in place for 

inspection at the time of certification or 

rating approval by the FAA. The 

original purpose for permitting 

applicants to meet the equipment 

requirement at certification approval by 

having a contract to make the 

equipment available when the relevant 

work is being performed remains. This 

is because it makes no economic sense 

to require an applicant to have on site 

expensive and seldom used equipment 

that would be costly to locate on site 

and that might sit unused for extended 

periods of time. By having a contract 

acceptable to the FAA, an applicant 

would be able to demonstrate that the 

required equipment could be made 

available when needed. In some cases 

this ‘‘contract’’ may actually be a letter 

of intent from an air carrier for which 

the repair station intends to perform 

work, or something similar from an 

equipment supplier. We recognize that 

the mere existence of a contract at the 

time of certification does not guarantee 

equipment availability at some 

unknown future date—indeed, contracts 

may be broken and suppliers may go out 

of business. Nevertheless, the presence 

of documentation that the repair station 

has planned for its needs and has at 

least a present means of meeting those 

needs provides some assurance to the 

FAA that it would not be certificating a 

‘‘paper repair station.’’ 

Because of the potential ambiguity in 

the existing text of § 145.51(b), however, 

we are amending the paragraph for 

clarification. We proposed this 

clarification in the 2006 NPRM, which 

was withdrawn in its entirety on May 7, 

2009, due to the large number of adverse 

comments received on many of the 

other proposals. The ambiguity arose 

from the text in paragraph (b) that states: 

‘‘An applicant may meet the equipment 

requirement of this paragraph if the 

applicant has a contract acceptable to 

the FAA with another person to make 

the equipment available to the applicant 

at the time of certification and at any 

time that it is necessary when the 

relevant work is being performed by the 

repair station.’’ (§ 145.51(b), emphasis 

added.) Except that we are no longer 

including tools and test apparatus in 

this paragraph as proposed in 2006, our 

reasoning to clarify this paragraph as 

proposed in the 2006 NPRM remains, 

and is quoted in pertinent part below: 

The FAA proposes to clarify the text of 

§ 145.51(b) by removing the ambiguity in the 

relieving provision concerning the 

availability of the equipment at the time of 

certification. This ambiguity results from the 

phrase specifying that the equipment 

requirement of the paragraph could be met 

‘‘if the applicant has a contract acceptable to 

the FAA with another person to make the 

equipment available to the applicant at the 

time of certification. * * * ’’ The FAA 

believes that the phrase lacks clarity and 

could be subject to arbitrary application in 

individual cases, i.e., one inspector might 

require the contract to be executed and all 

the equipment brought to the premises for a 

pre-certification inspection, while another 

inspector might only review the contract for 

the specified items. In the first example, the 

equipment could be returned to the supplier 

the next day, and not be returned to the 

repair station until the relevant work is being 

performed, as required by § 145.109(a). 

Consistent with the requirement in 

§ 145.109(a), and as noted by some of the 

commenters to the proposal in Notice No. 

99–09, it is important that the equipment be 

in place when the work is being performed. 

That is the safety basis for the equipment 

requirement If, at the time of initial 

certification or rating approval, an applicant 

has a contract acceptable to the FAA to make 

the equipment available when the relevant 

work is being performed, the FAA will be 

able to determine that the repair station has 

assessed its relevant needs, and that it has 

the means to obtain the pertinent equipment 

. . . when necessary. (71 FR 70256, Dec. 1, 

2006 (emphasis in original)). 

EAA, NATA, and other commenters 

questioned the legality of the proposed 

regulatory transition and expressed 

concern over the FAA’s ability to 

recertify every repair station in a timely 

manner during the 24-month transition 

period. Several commenters stated that 

the intent of the proposed language was 

unclear and that the procedural 

elements lacked safety benefits. 

EAA commented that the FAA does 

not have the necessary resources to 

reissue approximately 5,000 repair 

station certificates in 24 months. 

Another commenter stated that it is 

currently not uncommon for applicants 

to experience extended delays in 

processing new and amended repair 

station certificates due to the reported 

lack of availability of FAA staff and 

resources. NATA stated that the 

recertification effort is likely to be 

impossible to achieve given the scope of 

the other proposed changes in the 

NPRM. As a result, the proposed rule 

would be too costly for repair stations 

and would result in some existing repair 

stations ceasing operations. 

The SBA Office of Advocacy and 

others expressed concern that the cost 

estimate associated with re-certification 

was understated. Additionally, NATA 

added that the FAA will likely have far 

less than 24 months for approving or 

disapproving applications and foresees 

a situation of cascading delays. Pratt & 

Whitney, The Boeing Company, and 

other commenters suggested a 

grandfather clause limiting the need for 

existing repair stations to re-apply. 

Based on the negative comments and 

concerns regarding the FAA’s ability to 

resource and complete the recertification of all currently certificated 

repair stations in 24 months, and 

because this lengthy transition period 

was prompted by the proposed new 

ratings system that the FAA is not 

adopting in this rule, the FAA is not 

proceeding with the proposed 

transition. 

With respect to the proposed 

amendment to § 145.103 that would 

have required each certificated repair 

station to provide and maintain suitable 

permanent housing for its facilities, 

equipment, materials, and personnel, 

AEA, GAMA, and other commenters 

stated that any definition of ‘‘maintain’’ 

would impose requirements that do not 

comport with the FAA’s intent to 

provide flexible requirements that align 

with current repair station business 

practices. Additionally, they argued that 

the proposed language would require a 

certificate holder to have sole 

operational control of its housing at all 

times, and any repair stations that may 

currently share space within a hangar 

would no longer be permitted to share 

space. 

Some commenters stated that the FAA 

failed to provide a definition of 

‘‘maintain’’ in the proposed requirement 

that each repair station ‘‘provide and 

maintain’’ suitable permanent housing 

for its facilities, etc., whereas the 

current rule requires only that the 

certificate holder ‘‘provide’’ this 

housing. They also stated that this 

proposal would have imposed 

additional costs not reflected in the 

FAA’s economic impact assessment. 

As pointed out by commenters, FAA 

did not define ‘‘maintain’’ in changing 

‘‘provide suitable permanent housing’’ 

to ‘‘provide and maintain suitable 

permanent housing.’’ This lack of 

definition created confusion. The FAA 

agrees with the commenters and is not 

amending § 145.103. 

EAA, GAMA, and several other 

commenters questioned the need for the 

proposal that repair stations provide a 

description of their training program for 

approval by the FAA. EAA stated that 

the FAA had not adequately explained 

the failure of the current training 

program requirements and the need to 

increase the regulatory burden by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

requiring a description of the training 

program for FAA approval. GAMA 

questioned the purpose of the language 

when the entire training program, not 

just a description of the training 

program, is required to be approved by 

the FAA. Both organizations requested 

that the FAA retain the current 

language. 

With respect to commenters’ concerns 

that requiring a description of the 

training program for approval to be 

included in the application package 

would be burdensome and not justified, 

the FAA notes that a meaningful 

description of the program would be 

necessary under the current training 

requirements regulation (§ 145.163), 

which requires the program be approved 

by the FAA. The agency concurs, 

however, that this description is not 

necessary as a separate part of the 

application, and is withdrawing this 

proposed requirement. 

C. Personnel Requirements (§§ 145.153 

and 145.157) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring supervisors to be present to 

oversee the work being performed by 

the repair station and that they be 

appropriately certificated under 14 CFR 

part 65 for the work being supervised. 

The NPRM also proposed that both 

supervisors and inspection personnel be 

able to speak English. The FAA is not 

adopting this proposal, except for a 

minor editorial change. 

Many of the large repair stations, as 

well as ARSA, did not concur with the 

proposals that supervisors be present to 

oversee the work performed and that 

they speak English. AEA and others 

commented that if the FAA proceeded 

with the proposed regulation, it would 

have essentially required a supervisor to 

be present and to oversee every 

individual performing every 

maintenance activity at repair stations. 

This also would have had broad 

implications for contract maintenance. 

The commenters further stated that a 

clear unintended consequence of this 

proposed language would have been a 

substantial increase in the cost of 

maintenance services to compensate 

additional supervisory positions, as well 

as a corresponding decrease in 

availability of maintenance services due 

to limited availability of supervisory 

personnel. 

Most of the comments regarding the 

proposal that supervisors be present 

when the work was performed stated 

that this requirement would have 

required industry to hire numerous 

additional supervisory personnel at 

great cost to cover eventualities such as 

night work, emergency field 

maintenance, line maintenance, and 

work conducted at additional fixed 

locations. 

EAA commented that the proposed 

requirement for supervisors to speak 

English was not justified, and that the 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

prohibits such discrimination. EAA 

reasoned that a supervisor might not be 

able to speak English, but could 

effectively ‘‘communicate’’ in English. 

Pratt and Whitney suggested the 

requirement to speak English served no 

purpose, was subjective, and would be 

a detriment to safety by forcing foreign 

persons to speak in a non-native 

language. Foreign repair stations Hong 

Kong Aircraft Engineering Company, 

Ltd., and Tamagawa Aero Systems Co., 

Ltd., and other domestic repair stations 

and individuals commented that the 

requirement to speak English was 

unnecessary as it did not enhance 

safety. The commenters also disagreed 

with the proposed requirement for 

inspection personnel to speak English. 

Commenters also disagreed with the 

proposed requirement for a repair 

station inspector to be available at the 

article while performing inspections. 

The commenters viewed the need to 

have an inspector at each phase while 

the work was being performed as too 

costly and not necessary. 

Based on the comments received, the 

FAA will not revise the current 

requirements for supervisory personnel, 

inspection personnel, or personnel 

authorized to approve an article for 

return to service, except to insert 

‘‘appropriately’’ before ‘‘certificated’’ 

and ‘‘as a mechanic or repairmen’’ 

before ‘‘under part 65’’ in §§ 145.153 

and 145.157. This will correct the 

inadvertent omissions from the 2001 

rulemaking. The repair station industry 

generally agreed with this proposed 

editorial change. As discussed above in 

the Overview of Final Rule section, we 

are making the same change to 

§ 145.213(d) for clarification and 

consistency. 

D. Denial Authority (§§ 145.51, 145.53, 

and 145.55) 

As proposed in the NPRM, the FAA 

may deny a repair station a certificate in 

instances where one or more key 

individuals had materially contributed 

to the circumstances causing a previous 

repair station certificate revocation. As 

discussed previously, the FAA’s 

proposed changes were based on an 

NTSB recommendation, and the 

proposal was influenced to a large 

extent by 14 CFR 119.39(b). The FAA is 

also amending § 145.55, to now contain 

a certificate surrender provision that 

requires acceptance for cancellation by 

the FAA to render the certificate no 

longer effective. 

Some commenters were concerned 

with the proposed amendment to 

§ 145.55 (Duration and renewal of 

certificate) that would maintain the 

effectiveness of a surrendered repair 

station certificate until the FAA accepts 

it for cancellation. This new 

requirement addresses a loophole that 

allowed certificate holders to avoid the 

ramifications of a revoked certificate by 

voluntarily surrendering a repair station 

certificate at any point during the FAA’s 

investigation prior to the certificate’s 

actual revocation. Once surrendered, 

there would be no certificate to take 

action against, and the investigation 

would stop. Accordingly, no order 

would be issued, and there would be no 

findings of violations or certificate 

revocation of record. 

Several commenters expressed their 

understanding of the proposed denial 

provision and credited the FAA’s desire 

for safety, but they asserted that the 

agency’s implementation of the denial 

provision in a fair and uniform manner 

would be difficult. The commenters 

generally stated that the increase in 

safety was outweighed by the burden 

that would be placed on the agency and 

the industry. In addition, the 

requirement would waste FAA 

resources through unnecessary 

paperwork exercises without providing 

any safety benefits. 

The SBA Office of Advocacy stated 

that small entities expressed concerns 

about repair stations lacking the 

knowledge and ability to track parties 

whose certificates have been revoked or 

who voluntarily surrendered certificates 

during an enforcement proceeding. 

Additionally, repair stations have no 

way of knowing who these disqualified 

individuals are, thereby making the cost 

of complying with the certificate denial 

provisions highly unpredictable or 

impossible. Small entity representatives 

suggested that if the agency adopted this 

proposal, the FAA should maintain a 

list of disqualified individuals. 

GAMA recommended the insertion of 

‘‘knowingly’’ in proposed 

§ 145.1051(e)(2) (§ 145.51(e)(2) in this 

final rule) to implicate the intent of an 

applicant and suggested that the text be 

amended to read ‘‘the applicant 

knowingly fills or intends to fill a 

management position.’’ The FAA 

declines to adopt this suggestion 

because, in general, the purpose of this 

provision is to help ensure that persons 

who have committed serious (and often 

intentional) violations of the regulations 

are not able to continue doing so under 

a newly issued repair station certificate. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46977 

3Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing 

Company (1079). 

It is important that the FAA be aware 

of the compliance disposition of key 

management personnel when the agency 

assesses the fitness of those who will be 

operating repair stations. This safeguard 

is necessary whether or not the 

applicant has knowledge of the person’s 

compliance history. An applicant’s 

knowledge of the person’s compliance 

history is implicated only when he or 

she completes the application and 

checks ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ to the 2-part 

question on FAA Form 8310–3, whether 

key personnel described in § 145.51(e) 

will be involved in the management or 

control of the new repair station. If the 

applicant knowingly provides a false 

answer to this question, the entry would 

be considered intentionally false and in 

violation of § 145.12. 

The International Association of 

Machinist Aircraft Workers (IAMAW), 

International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters—Aircraft Division (IBT–AD), 

Transportation Trades Department 

(TTD) of the AFL–CIO, and 

Transportation Workers Union (TWU) 

endorsed the new requirement. The 

IAMAW stated that it is a common 

sense reform. The IBT–AD stated that 

the proposal did not go far enough, and 

suggested that the FAA consider 

maintaining a list of persons or entities 

that have been involved in repair station 

certificate revocations, or require an 

applicant to affirmatively disclose 

whether it has previously had a 

certificate revoked. 

AIA, ASA, GAMA, NATA, and HEICO 

Aerospace generally supported the 

FAA’s intent to follow the NTSB’s 

recommendation. However, with regard 

to the FAA’s proposal to change the 

word ‘‘entitled’’ in § 145.53(a) to 

‘‘eligible,’’ as one means to implement 

the denial provisions, AIA stated that it 

was unclear what the specifics of being 

found ‘‘eligible’’ are, and that the term 

left too much discretion to FAA 

inspector preference or interpretation. 

AIA also stated that its membership 

recognizes that there may be 

circumstances where the public interest 

is best served by denying a certificate, 

even when the other conditions are met. 

AIA suggested that ‘‘entitled’’ be 

retained with an additional exception 

that would remove the variability of 

local inspector preference or 

interpretation, but which would retain 

the intent of the proposal. 

The FAA agrees with the suggestion 

from AIA that the term ‘‘entitled’’ be 

retained in § 145.53(a), and that an 

additional exception to entitlement 

reference be added to include the new 

exceptions. The FAA also agrees and 

will retain the current language that 

provides for entitlement of the 

certificate when the requirements of 

part 145 have been met. Paragraph (a) of 

§ 145.53, however, is amended to add 

the denial authority (found in new 

§ 145.51(e)) as another exception to the 

current certificate entitlement provision. 

EAA believes it is not an applicant’s 

responsibility to determine if certain 

individuals are subject to this provision 

and that the responsibility for this 

determination should remain with the 

FAA. EAA is concerned that the 

proposal introduces uncertainty and 

confusion into the application process 

by not providing a method for 

determining whom a repair station 

should not employ. To address this 

concern, the FAA will respond to an 

applicant request for information 

regarding specific persons. 

MARPA stated that the proposed 

language would permit the FAA to deny 

a certificate to a range of applicants 

associated with previous certificate 

revocations and requested that the 

entire proposed rule be rescinded. 

MARPA noted the following effects this 

proposal would have on the repair 

station industry: 

• It would impose a de facto blacklist 

of certain parties, potentially excluding 

those on the list from significant 

participation in the repair station 

industry, and could include personnel 

who may have had nothing to do with 

the offenses that caused the prior repair 

station certificate to be revoked. 

• It would have a chilling effect on 

subsequent employment of experienced 

repair station personnel who had 

previous association with repair stations 

whose certificates were revoked. 

• Although the language is 

permissive (‘‘may be denied’’), the 

expense of a repair station certificate 

application would make it impractical 

to proffer an application that might be 

denied on a discretionary basis, further 

leading to an effective blacklisting of 

such persons. 

MARPA noted further that in cases 

where a repair station (especially a 

small one) accepts a revocation by the 

FAA due to a lack of resources to fight 

the action, the applicant would be 

effectively blacklisted from the repair 

station industry. It added that in such 

cases in the past, FAA employees have 

specifically advised certificate holders 

to accept the proposed revocation and 

then to reapply. For all past revocations, 

the proposed rule would effectively 

impose a new penalty that was 

unanticipated at the time of the original 

revocation. MARPA also stated that the 

ex post facto imposition of such a 

penalty on a class of persons represents 

a Bill of Attainder (or a Regulation of 

Attainder) and is in violation of Article 

I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution. 

The FAA does not agree with 

MARPA’s assertion that the new denial 

authority amendments to § 145.51 

would effectively impose a new penalty 

that was unanticipated at the time of the 

original revocation, and therefore that 

this would amount to an ex post facto 

imposition of a penalty on a class of 

persons. Because the agency did not 

discuss the prospective nature of the 

proposal in the NPRM, it is 

understandable that MARPA raised this 

concern. The FAA intends, however, 

that the new denial authority in 

§ 145.51(e) will be exercised only 

prospectively. It will be applied only in 

instances where the revocation at issue 

takes place after the effective date of this 

rule. Accordingly, no ‘‘ex post facto 

imposition of a penalty’’ issue could 

arise. 

The FAA also disagrees with 

MARPA’s characterization that the 

denial provision would represent a Bill 

of Attainder (or a Regulation of 

Attainder). Black’s Law Dictionary 

defines Bill of Attainder as: ‘‘Legislative 

acts, no matter what their form, that 

apply either to named individuals or to 

easily ascertainable members of a group 

in such a way as to inflict punishment 

on them without a judicial trial.’’ 3

Section 145.51(e) will not provide for 

punishment of any person without due 

process. First, a full appeal process 

through the NTSB and the federal courts 

is provided by 49 U.S.C. 44709 for any 

person identified in paragraph (e)(1)— 

an applicant who holds a repair station 

certificate that is undergoing a 

revocation process, or who held a repair 

station certificate that had been revoked. 

Second, to respond to the commenters’ 

concerns about an absence of due 

process for individuals identified in 

paragraph (e)(2) and (3), we are adding 

a new paragraph (f) to § 145.51 to 

provide that, if the FAA revokes a repair 

station certificate for violations of the 

repair station regulations, those 

individuals identified in § 145.51(e)(2) 

and (3) may be subject to an order 

finding that they materially contributed 

to the circumstances causing the 

revocation. Issuance of these orders will 

be governed by the FAA’s Investigative 

and Enforcement Procedures, 14 CFR 

part 13—specifically the procedures set 

forth in § 13.20 will apply, including the 

right to a hearing under subpart D of 

part 13. 

In order to effectively implement this 

new provision, the FAA’s investigation 

underpinning the revocation process 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

must develop evidence that supports the 

factual allegations leading to a charge 

that the identified person materially 

contributed to the circumstances that 

caused the revocation. The FAA will 

develop guidance to assist agency 

inspectors in gathering and 

documenting the necessary evidence 

simultaneously with an investigation 

leading to the associated repair station 

certificate revocation. In accordance 

with § 13.20, except in egregious matters 

in which the Administrator determines 

that an emergency exists requiring 

immediate issuance of an order, each 

identified individual would first be 

provided with a notice that would 

include the pertinent factual allegations 

and the charge that he or she materially 

contributed to the circumstances 

causing the revocation. Though § 13.20 

presently does not provide for the 

opportunity for a person who receives a 

notice under that section to participate 

in an informal conference with an FAA 

attorney prior to the FAA issuing an 

order, the agency is simultaneously with 

this rule amending the part 13 

regulation to provide for that option. 

The FAA believes that providing this 

option for all orders issued under 

§ 13.20 would be beneficial for all 

affected parties because often the issues 

are resolved, or at least narrowed, at that 

stage, providing for economies of 

resources. 

Section 145.51(e) is nearly identical to 

the similar rule for air carriers. In the 

same manner that § 119.39(b) applies to 

air carriers, this new repair station rule 

is intended to help ensure those persons 

who exercise operational authority over 

business decisions in a repair station are 

those who have not demonstrated an 

unwillingness or an inability to ensure 

safe and compliant operations. Along 

these lines, the FAA views the 

restriction on new repair stations being 

controlled or managed by persons 

identified in § 145.51(e)(2) and (3) as a 

continuing and ongoing requirement. In 

other words, the FAA would look with 

disfavor on the actions of a certificate 

holder who, sometime after obtaining 

the certificate with no association with 

key personnel identified in those 

paragraphs, becomes associated with 

one or more of the persons the 

regulation was designed to preclude 

from controlling repair station 

operations. In egregious cases, such a 

repair station could be subject to an 

enforcement action under § 145.51(e) 

based on its not meeting the original 

certification requirement. The FAA 

Administrator has previously decided 

that a regulation imposing a 

requirement addressed to an 

‘‘applicant’’ can impose an ongoing and 

continuing qualification requirement. 

See Alphin Aircraft, Inc., FAA Order 

No. 97–10 at 3 (1997), 1997 WL 93230 

(FAA). For air carriers, in applying the 

similar provisions of 14 CFR 119.39(b), 

the FAA considers the obligation for an 

air carrier not to be controlled by one or 

more of these persons to be ongoing and 

continuing. 

For the purposes of implementing 

§ 145.51(e)(2) and (3), the notice sent to 

an identified individual will set forth 

the factual allegations supporting the 

agency’s determination and advise the 

person that he or she may be subject to 

an order finding that he or she 

materially contributed to the revocation 

circumstances. The notice will also 

advise the person that, if the order 

described above is issued and affirmed, 

the person’s name will be included in 

an FAA data base of individuals that 

have been found to have materially 

contributed to the circumstances 

causing a repair station certificate 

revocation. In addition, the notice will 

also advise that, under § 145.51(e), an 

applicant for a new repair station 

certificate in the future may be denied 

the certificate if a person in this data 

base will have the same or similar 

position of authority or control over the 

new repair station’s operations. The 

notice should also advise that, as 

described above, the person may be 

denied a similar controlling role in an 

existing repair station. The means to 

facilitate this preclusion would be an 

action against the repair station to 

enforce the provisions of § 145.51(e). 

AEA stated that it did not understand 

the proposed change to § 145.55—that a 

surrender of a certificate was not 

effective until the FAA accepted the 

certificate for cancellation. AEA stated 

the proposed language was not clear and 

recommended the current text be 

retained without that addition. ARSA 

was vehemently opposed to the FAA 

having to ‘‘accept’’ the surrender of a 

repair station certificate and therefore 

requested the proposal not be adopted. 

Airborne Maintenance and 

Engineering Services, Inc. (Airborne) 

commented that adopting the proposed 

requirement would encourage entities 

working on the fringes of the regulations 

to impede or otherwise not support FAA 

inspector corrective actions and create a 

disincentive for a poorly run repair 

station to voluntarily surrender its 

certificate. 

The FAA is including the proposed 

amendment to § 145.55(a) to make clear 

that an attempt by a repair station 

undergoing an enforcement 

investigation to surrender its certificate 

in order to stop the investigation will be 

ineffective, as the certificate will remain 

effective until the FAA accepts it for 

cancellation or otherwise takes 

appropriate enforcement action. As a 

consequence, the investigation would 

continue, and, if appropriate, 

enforcement action could be taken. If 

serious violations of the regulations 

were found and the FAA concluded that 

the certificate holder lacked 

qualifications to hold the certificate, an 

order revoking the certificate could 

ensue. 

E. Falsification of Records (§ 145.12) 

The FAA is adding new § 145.12 to 

prohibit any fraudulent or intentionally 

false entry or omission of a material fact 

in any application, record, or report 

made under part 145. Among other 

things, this new prohibition will help 

discourage applications that fail to 

include the names of the persons 

contemplated by the denial provisions 

found in § 145.51(e). The sanction for 

any of those acts is suspension or 

revocation of the repair station 

certificate and any certificate, approval, 

or authorization issued by the FAA and 

held by the person committing the act. 

Several companies, along with three 

associations and one individual, 

commented on this proposal. None of 

the commenters disagreed with the need 

to prohibit fraudulent or intentionally 

false entries. The most common 

concerns were that the proposed 

requirement lacked due process, and 

that it was redundant to a similar 

prohibition in the maintenance rules, 

specifically 14 CFR 43.12. At least three 

of the commenters raised issues 

concerning determinations made by 

individual inspectors in initiating 

enforcement actions. Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation questioned 

whether ‘‘intent’’ to make the false entry 

must be determined. 

Other than expressing concerns over 

possible abuses resulting from 

determinations made by individual 

inspectors, the comments concerning a 

lack of due process were rather vague 

and unspecific. The FAA notes that any 

report of an alleged violation made by 

an individual inspector will be 

reviewed at several levels within the 

FAA—including by legal counsel— 

before a notice or order is issued. 

Further, legal counsel will not issue a 

notice or order unless the agency has 

evidence that such a violation, in fact, 

had occurred. In any case brought by the 

FAA against an alleged violator of a 

falsification regulation, or any other 

regulation, the burden of proving the 

violation is on the agency, and the 

affected person is entitled to a full 

appeal process. Alleged violators of a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46979 

4 77 FR 30067; May 21, 2012. 

prohibition against making intentionally 

false entries, as with any other alleged 

violation, are entitled to due process in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44709 or 

46301 and associated FAA and NTSB 

regulations. 

In answer to a comment by 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation as to 

whether ‘‘intent’’ must be determined, 

the answer is yes, but only to the extent 

that the false entry was made 

knowingly. That is, at the time the 

person made the false entry, the person 

knew the entry was false. Other FAA 

regulations already prohibit fraudulent 

or intentionally false entries, either of 

which necessarily incorporates an 

element of intentionality in making the 

false entry, i.e., the person knew at the 

time of making the entry that it was 

false, but the person made the entry 

anyway. Similarly, an explicit element 

of the new paragraph (b) in this final 

rule (discussed below) is a knowing 

concealment of a material fact. As with 

knowingly making a false entry, 

paragraph (b) is triggered when a person 

knew that he or she failed to include the 

material fact in the document at issue. 

As to the comments that opined that 

the proposal was redundant to the 

falsification prohibition already existing 

in the maintenance rules (§ 43.12), the 

FAA addressed both the differences 

between that rule and the one proposed 

for repair stations, and the need for this 

regulation in the NPRM. While § 43.12 

provides for suspension or revocation of 

the applicable airman and other 

mentioned certificates and privileges for 

requisite maintenance record 

falsifications or fraudulent acts, it does 

not provide for repair station certificate 

suspension or revocation for the same 

kind of conduct (77 FR 30066, May 21, 

2012). 

In addition, we are adding two 

additional consequences that will apply 

to the making of intentionally false 

entries or omissions. The first additional 

potential consequence is that the 

proscribed conduct may warrant 

imposition of a civil penalty either in 

addition to or in combination with a 

certificate action. This sanction option 

reflects the civil penalty authority 

granted to the FAA by the Congress in 

49 U.S.C. 46301, whereby the FAA can 

assess civil penalties against both 

individuals and businesses for 

violations of the statute and the agency’s 

regulations. Depending on the 

circumstances, sometimes a civil 

penalty may be an appropriate 

deterrent. The second additional 

consequence is that the FAA may deny 

an application if it is supported by an 

intentionally false entry or omission. 

The FAA views this consequence to be 

within the scope of what was proposed 

in the NPRM. This reflects the common 

sense notion that, if a certificate could 

be suspended or revoked based on an 

intentional falsification, it would make 

no economic sense for the agency to first 

issue the certificate and then turn 

around and initiate a certificate action 

based on the falsification. This change 

is consistent with a November 2013 

amendment to 14 CFR part 121, in 

which the agency added a new § 121.9, 

which, among other things, provides for 

the imposition of a civil penalty and/or 

the denial of an application if a person 

made or caused to be made a fraudulent 

or intentionally false statement or 

knowing omission as described in that 

section (78 FR 67836; Nov. 12, 2013). 

The agency notes that, while 

§ 43.12(b) does provide for the 

suspension or revocation of an 

applicable operator certificate, in 

addition to the applicable airman 

certificate, it does not provide for the 

suspension or revocation of a repair 

station certificate. Because of the 

importance to safety of accurate records, 

this final rule adopts the text proposed 

that provides for the suspension or 

revocation of not only the repair station 

certificate but also of any FAA-issued 

certificate, approval, or authorization 

held by the person who committed the 

falsification. 

As stated in the NPRM, in view of the 

FAA’s limited resources, both the 

agency and ultimately the flying public 

depend heavily on the integrity of the 

system of self-reports. Because of the 

importance of honest and trustworthy 

records and reports to aviation safety, 

the FAA believes that any person who 

makes or causes to be made an 

intentionally false or fraudulent entry in 

any record or report the agency needs to 

provide proper oversight of repair 

stations should be subject to 

enforcement action as noted above. 

Accordingly, the agency may suspend or 

revoke not only the repair station 

certificate, but any certificate, approval, 

or authorization issued by the FAA and 

held by that person.4

Another company, Airborne, 

expressed concern that most of the other 

falsification prohibition regulations 

referenced in the NPRM (e.g., §§ 61.37, 

61.59, 63.18, 63.20, 65.18, 65.20, and 

67.403) refer to certificates held by 

individuals, not companies. Airborne 

stated that its review of other operating 

rules (e.g., those in parts 121, 125, 129, 

and 135) found no similar falsification 

provisions applicable to those certificate 

holders. The company also referenced 

Chapter 7 of the FAA’s Compliance and 

Enforcement Program, FAA Order 

2150.3B, Paragraph 2.a(1), which states 

that the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate 

holders for violations, but usually takes 

civil penalty action against air carriers 

and airports. The commenter was 

especially concerned that a wrongful act 

(fraudulent or intentional falsification) 

by a single individual could result in 

the closing of an entire certificated 

entity. 

Although Airborne may be correct in 

observing that the other falsification 

prohibition regulations cited in the 

NPRM refer to suspending or revoking 

certificates held by individuals and not 

by companies, the FAA does not believe 

that is a reason to refrain from issuing 

this rule. Besides, as discussed briefly 

above, in November 2013 

(approximately a year and a half after 

the Repair Station NPRM), the FAA 

published amendments to 14 CFR part 

121, which added a new § 121.9 (Fraud 

and falsification), which provided for 

sanctions against air carriers and 

persons employed by them for 

violations of similar proscribed conduct. 

Those sanctions include: (1) A civil 

penalty; (2) suspension or revocation of 

any FAA-issued certificate held by that 

person; (3) the denial of an application 

for any FAA-issued approval; and (4) 

the removal of any FAA-issued approval 

(78 FR 67836; November 12, 2013). As 

noted in the NPRM, the importance of 

accurate records to assist the FAA in 

exercising its aviation safety oversight 

responsibilities cannot be overstated. If 

repair station officials know that one 

consequence of falsifying records is the 

loss of the repair station certificate, they 

may be motivated to produce accurate 

and truthful records. 

The FAA also notes that Airborne, in 

opposing a regulation that could result 

in the revocation of a repair station’s 

certificate, selectively quoted from the 

FAA’s Compliance and Enforcement 

Program, FAA Order 2150.3B, when it 

stated: ‘‘Thus, the agency generally 

suspends the certificates of individual 

certificate holders for violations. 

However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and 

airports. . . .’’ Airborne, however, 

neglected to reference the next sentence 

in Order 2150.3B, which states: 

‘‘Nevertheless, when the FAA 

determines that safety considerations 

warrant it, the agency will suspend the 

certificate of any type of certificate 

holder. In no case will the FAA take 

civil penalty action alone when 

remedial legal action is necessary or 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5FAA Order 2150.3B, Ch. 7, Para. 2.a(1). 

6FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Table of 

Sanctions, in Part Two, Section 1 (U.S. Air Carriers, 

U.S. Commercial Operators, Part 125 Operators, and 

Part 129 Operators) in Figure B–1–j (Records and 

Reports), in (1)(a). 

7Administrator v. Alvarez, 5 NTSB 1906, 1907 

NTSB Order No. EA–2504, 1987 WL 122066 

(N.T.S.B.) 

8Administrator v. Anderson, NTSB Order No. 

EA–4564, 1997 WL 355350 (N.T.S.B.). 

appropriate.’’ 5 Additional FAA 

guidance in this area is found in 

paragraph 2.b(4) of the Order which 

states that revocation is normally 

appropriate when a certificate-holding 

entity deliberately or flagrantly violates 

the statute or regulations or falsifies 

records. Moreover, in the FAA’s 

published sanction guidance, the 

sanction generally called for in the case 

of an intentionally false or fraudulent 

entry, reproduction, or alteration in a 

record or report is certificate 

revocation.6

As discussed above, however, we 

have added the additional sanctions of 

a civil penalty and the denial of an 

application. Consistent with § 121.9 

(Fraud and falsification), three different 

sanctions will be available to the agency 

to enforce this rule. Section 145.12(c) 

provides that committing an act 

prohibited by either paragraph (a) or (b) 

is a basis for any one or any 

combination of (1) suspension or 

revocation, (2) a civil penalty, and (3) 

denial of an application. The addition of 

the civil penalty sanction addresses 

commenters’ concerns that in some 

cases a civil penalty would be more 

appropriate for a company than a 

revocation of its certificate. Whether a 

civil penalty, a certificate action, or 

both, is an appropriate sanction would 

depend on the actual circumstances of 

the matter and a consideration of 

appropriate factors, including agency 

sanction guidance, related to 

determining the sanction or sanctions to 

be applied. 

As discussed above and in the NPRM, 

the FAA has long considered intentional 

falsification of required records to be a 

serious safety-related problem with a 

potential for dire consequences. The 

referenced regulatory prohibitions 

against individual falsifications are 

long-standing, as are the recommended 

sanctions for both individuals and 

entities in the agency’s published 

sanction guidance. Including in the 

regulations a proscription against 

entities falsifying records made, kept, or 

used to show compliance with a 

requirement is in the public interest, 

and the FAA is adopting this section as 

proposed, but with the added 

clarification that a falsification in 

material submitted in support of an 

application is also proscribed. This is to 

forestall an argument that information 

submitted, while false, technically was 

not in the application, and therefore was 

outside the reach of the regulation. Also, 

in response to a comment, the FAA is 

adding a proscription against 

concealment of a material fact by 

omission, as discussed below. 

Finally ARSA, in stating it had no 

objection to the proposal, also noted 

that the FAA should be mindful that 

similar sections in 14 CFR include 

omission of material information as 

equally egregious. Consequently, ARSA 

suggested that the FAA may wish to 

consistently express all prohibitions of 

such actions. 

The FAA agrees with ARSA’s 

recommendation that the regulation 

should prohibit omissions of material 

information. ARSA’s reference in its 

comments to similar sections in 14 CFR 

that include omission of material 

information may be a reference to the 

omission prohibition in 14 CFR 

3.5(c)(2). The FAA issued 14 CFR part 

3 in 2005 to prohibit persons from 

making fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements in records when conveying 

information in an advertisement or sales 

transaction about the airworthiness of a 

type-certificated product. Section 

3.5(c)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that 

no person may make, or cause to be 

made, through the omission of material 

information, a representation that a 

type-certificated product is airworthy if 

that representation is likely to mislead 

a consumer. 

Clearly, omissions of material 

information can be as damaging as the 

insertion of false information in a 

required document. This issue is 

brought to light in contemplation of new 

§ 145.51(e) (Application for certificate), 

in which the FAA seeks information on 

who an applicant proposes to place in 

management or controlling positions. 

Information on the compliance history 

of these personnel is important to the 

FAA in determining the qualifications, 

including the compliance disposition, of 

those persons who could make 

operational decisions. Omitting the 

requested information could be as 

damaging as making an intentionally 

false entry. 

The NTSB, in interpreting the plain 

language of current falsification 

prohibition regulations, has held that 

the failure to make an entry cannot 

constitute an intentionally false entry 

because the omission is not an entry.7

The FAA aims to close this ‘‘loophole’’ 

by adding new paragraph (b) to new 

§ 145.12, to provide that no person may, 

by omission, knowingly conceal or 

cause to be concealed, a material fact. 

This text also finds support in the 

Government’s general falsification 

prohibition statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, 

which, in paragraph (a)(1), provides for 

criminal penalties for whoever falsifies, 

conceals, or covers up by any trick, 

scheme, or device a material fact. 

The FAA has also eliminated the 

phrase ‘‘required to be’’ with regard to 

any record or report made, kept, or used 

to show compliance. The agency has 

done so to forestall an argument a 

falsifier could make that, although the 

falsity occurred in a record or report 

that was made, kept, or used to show 

compliance, it was not a record or report 

that was required by a regulation to be 

made or kept. The NTSB has already 

rejected that argument in addressing a 

violation of § 43.12.8 There, the 

respondent argued that he was not 

required to use those particular records 

that formed the basis for the falsification 

charge. The NTSB agreed instead with 

the FAA’s position that the rule reaches 

falsifications in any maintenance 

documents kept or used to show 

compliance with a requirement in part 

43, whether or not the documents are 

records or reports in a form or format 

the FAA requires an individual to keep 

or to use for that purpose. 

The NTSB offered a second rationale 

in that case for construing the term 

‘‘required’’ in the regulation. The term 

should not be restricted to mean 

‘‘required’’ by the FAA Administrator. 

The NTSB decision noted that the term 

can also be broadly construed to mean 

required by the circumstances for which 

compliance is sought or necessary. Here, 

the respondent presented documents 

purporting to establish compliance with 

various airworthiness directives to 

establish that the aircraft was airworthy. 

The respondent’s submission of the 

records attesting the airworthiness 

directives’ accomplishment represented 

his recognition that they constitute 

records that he was required to make, 

keep, and use in order to satisfy the 

requirements of part 43. Even though 

NTSB case law should preclude an 

alleged falsifier from arguing the false 

entry at issue was not in a required 

record or report, the FAA determined 

that eliminating the term from this 

regulation will, at a minimum, remove 

the potential ambiguity. 

The FAA also notes that a similar 

falsification prohibition in the FAA’s 

certification rules (14 CFR part 21) does 

not contain the phrase ‘‘required to be’’ 

to modify the phrase ‘‘kept, made, or 

used.’’ Specifically, § 21.2(a)(2) 

prohibits any fraudulent, intentionally 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46981 

false, or misleading statement in any 

record or report that is kept, made, or 

used to show compliance with any 

requirement of this part. The FAA’s 

removal of the phrase ‘‘required to be’’ 

from the text proposed in the NPRM 

simply aligns this rule with the existing 

certification falsification provision and, 

as noted above, accords with NTSB 

precedent. 

F. Other Specific Comments 

The comments in this section concern 

proposed changes in definitions, 

contract maintenance, and compliance 

costs. All of the concerns raised by the 

commenters in this section are 

addressed by the FAA’s withdrawal of 

the applicable proposed sections. 

AEA, ARSA, CASE, EAA, and some 

repair stations voiced objection to the 

definitions of avionics and line 

maintenance proposed in § 145.1003, 

Definition of terms. AEA did not concur 

with the definition of avionics and 

suggested that it should include both 

mechanical and electronic radios, 

indicators, and instruments. Both AEA 

and ARSA commented that although the 

FAA defined avionics, the agency never 

used the term in part 145. ARSA added 

that the definition is unnecessary and 

should be removed in its entirety. 

AEA and EAA objected to the 

definition of line maintenance, stating 

that the FAA has not given justification 

for establishing a new requirement on 

where line maintenance may be 

performed. AEA stated that 

maintenance authorizations may be 

limited to commercial operators; 

however the definition of line 

maintenance is much broader than 

unscheduled maintenance for a part 121 

and 135 air carrier. 

ARSA stated that the line 

maintenance definition should be 

stricken in its entirety and that the term 

can be defined only within the context 

of a repair station’s capabilities and the 

operator’s requirements. Therefore, the 

amount, type, and extent of line 

maintenance is already controlled by 

the performance standards; the only 

additional ‘‘control’’ needed under part 

145 is the validation that the repair 

station has appropriate capabilities and 

quality procedures. ARSA also stated 

that if the agency keeps the definition it 

cannot be limited purely to work under 

parts 121 and 135; it must include part 

91, subpart K, at a minimum. Further, 

the time allotment must be removed; it 

places an artificial barrier on the type of 

work that can and should be performed 

with limited resources in accordance 

with part 43. 

GAMA commented on the proposed 

section covering contract maintenance, 

stating that on-site inspection of the 

subcontractor would be required before 

any maintenance is performed by that 

person. GAMA emphasized that this is 

not stated in the rule and should not be 

added as an interpretation without 

being added to the rule. For 

organizations with multiple service 

facilities, the proposed rule would have 

required each facility to inspect the 

subcontractor, which would place an 

undue burden on both the repair station 

and the subcontractor. 

Almost all commenters disagreed 

with the FAA’s economic forecast. They 

stated that the FAA’s calculations 

grossly underestimated the costs to 

industry. EAA added that at a time 

when the aviation industry is in 

perilous condition, it does not seem 

appropriate to impose a large economic 

impact on aviation businesses and their 

customers for little or no safety benefit. 

NATA, AOPA, Mobile Transponder 

Services, LLC, and others stated that the 

FAA identified two compliance costs to 

repair stations: The cost to apply for a 

rating and the cost to revise their 

manuals. However, the FAA also 

proposed significant changes to training 

program requirements but did not 

account for the resources required to 

develop the new training curriculum 

and the staff-hours necessary to re-train 

all applicable staff members. Some 

commenters also stated the FAA did not 

consider the complications and costs of 

limiting mobile maintenance operations, 

particularly to general aviation aircraft 

owners and operators. These expenses 

will increase the cost of these elements 

of the proposed rules exponentially. 

Additionally, several commenters, 

including AOPA, noted that the agency 

estimated the average one-time 

compliance costs would be $1,146 for a 

small repair station, and $2,848 for a 

medium sized repair station. The 

commenters argued that those costs are 

just a fraction of the cost of the 

proposed rule. They also expressed the 

view that even considering just the costs 

identified by the FAA (application for 

rating and revision of manuals) the 

estimates are unrealistically low. 

Furthermore, the commenters stated 

that the costs assigned by the FAA are 

especially unreasonable if the FAA 

intended for currently certificated repair 

stations to complete a letter of 

compliance, in addition to enduring the 

entire certification process and revising 

manuals and other documents. 

Collectively, the commenters stated 

that in large repair stations, 

‘‘supervisors’’ are often hourly-paid lead 

personnel. The term ‘‘supervisor’’ in 

some instances may refer to the 

administrative supervisor who does not 

give technical guidance to those who are 

unfamiliar with all the necessary job 

requirements. Therefore, the 

commenters argued that naming each 

supervisor on a roster, as proposed in 

the NPRM, would be ineffective for 

enhancing safety. 

The FAA is withdrawing the 

overarching ratings proposal with 

associated certification and personnel 

requirements. The proposals for changes 

to definitions, contract maintenance, 

and the required 24-month transition 

are inseparably linked to the 

overarching proposals and are not 

adopted in this final rule. This rule 

contains only the amendments that add 

denial authority, require FAA 

acceptance of a surrendered certificate, 

and prohibit fraudulent or intentionally 

false entries and omissions, as well as 

several minor administrative changes. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

9Federal Aviation Administration Safety 

Performance Analysis System Database (SPAS). 

10SPAS Database—Applications for Repair 

Station Certificates: CY 2010—185 applications; CY 

2011—171 applications; CY 2012—168 

applications. 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This rule amends regulations for 

repair stations in four areas. First, it 

introduces a new exception that enables 

the FAA to deny an applicant a repair 

station certificate if the applicant 

previously held a repair station 

certificate that had been revoked, or if 

certain key individuals (those that 

would be in a management position or 

who would have control or a substantial 

ownership interest in the applicant) had 

materially contributed to the 

circumstances that caused a previous 

repair station certificate revocation. 

Along these lines, the rule also provides 

that a repair station’s attempt to 

surrender its certificate is not effective 

until the FAA accepts the certificate for 

cancellation. Secondly, the rule 

provides that false or fraudulent entries 

or omissions in applications, records, or 

reports may result in revocation of any 

certificate issued by the FAA. Thirdly, 

the rule adopts administrative changes 

to clarify the intent of the current rule. 

Lastly, the rule corrects several errors in 

the repair station regulations. 

Current regulations do not allow the 

FAA to deny a repair station certificate 

to a technically qualified applicant, 

regardless of conduct. This rule permits 

the FAA to deny an application if the 

applicant previously had a certificate 

revoked or if the certificate is in the 

process of being revoked, or the 

applicant intends to fill a position with 

an individual as described in part 

145.51(e). To determine if an applicant 

fits the criteria described in part 

145.51(e), the FAA will add one twopart question to FAA Form 8310–3 

‘‘Application for Repair Station 

Certificate and/or Rating.’’ The new 

question is: ‘‘Will any person as 

described in part 145.51(e) be involved 

with the management, control, or have 

substantial ownership of the repair 

station? If ’YES’, provide a detailed 

explanation on a separate page.’’ If an 

applicant declares ‘‘No,’’ no additional 

explanation by the applicant is required. 

If an applicant declares ‘‘Yes,’’ the 

applicant is required to give a written 

narrative of the circumstances leading to 

the revocation. Based on the 

information provided in the narrative, 

the FAA can deny the applicant a repair 

station certificate, if warranted. In 

addition, an applicant, on occasion, may 

find it necessary to contact FAA 

personnel to determine if a certain 

individual has been identified as a 

contributor to a repair station certificate 

revocation. The time expended by both 

parties for this query, as well as the 

increased time required for an applicant 

to complete revised FAA Form 8310–3, 

is expected to be negligible. 

Since the expected outcome will be a 

minimal impact with positive net 

benefits, a regulatory evaluation was not 

prepared. The FAA has, therefore, 

determined that this final rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

For this regulatory flexibility analysis, 

the FAA used the SBA-defined 

categories of ‘‘small’’ (1,500 or fewer 

employees) and ‘‘non-small’’ (more than 

1,500 employees) for the aircraft 

manufacturing industry. As of May 

2013, there were 4,779 FAA certificated 

repair stations. Of these repair stations, 

a vast majority (99.5 percent or 4,753) 

are defined as ‘‘small.’’ The last time a 

certificate application was made by a 

‘‘non-small’’ entity was in 2005.9

During the three-year period from 

2010 through 2012, the FAA received 

526 applications for repair station 

certification, for an average of 175 

applications per year.10 All 526 

applications for certification were 

submitted by small entities. 

Consequently, it is projected that most 

future applicants for repair stations 

certificates will also be small entities. 

Accordingly, this final rule will impact 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The SBA Office of Advocacy provided 

comments to the FAA on the NPRM. 

One comment was that the cost estimate 

for the re-certification of repair stations 

(which was prompted by a new ratings 

system) is understated. The FAA 

withdrew the provision for a new 

ratings system from the final rule. Thus, 

the cost estimate for recertification of 

repair stations has been eliminated. 

The SBA also commented that small 

industry representatives stated that they 

lack the knowledge and ability to track 

parties whose certificates were either 

revoked or voluntarily surrendered 

during an enforcement proceeding, 

thereby making the cost of complying 

with the ‘‘bad actor’’ provisions highly 

unpredictable or impossible. The 

representatives recommended that 

should this provision be adopted then 

the FAA should maintain a list of 

disqualified individuals. Repair station 

applicants could then query the FAA 

regarding that information on certain 

persons. To address this concern, the 

FAA will respond to an applicant 

request for information regarding 

specific persons; however a list of 

disqualified persons will not be made 

available to the public. 

There will be a substantial number of 

small entities impacted by this rule. 

However the expected economic impact 

to these entities will be minimal. To 

assist in implementing this rule, the 

FAA will add one additional two-part 

question to the application for a repair 

station certificate. To further assist 

applicants in answering this question, 

the FAA will answer an applicant’s 

inquiry as to whether a named 

individual has contributed to the 

revocation of a repair station certificate. 

Thus, the cost of this incremental time 

required for these activities is expected 

to be minimal. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46983 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will impose the same 

costs on domestic and international 

entities and thus has a neutral trade 

impact. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This final rule will impose a revision 

to the existing information collection 

requirements previously approved 

under OMB Control Number 2120–0682, 

Application for Repair Station 

Certificate and/or Rating (FAA Form 

8310–3). The FAA has determined that 

the revision to the information 

collection is not significant or 

substantive and does not change the 

terms of the existing OMB approval. As 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, the FAA submitted the information 

collection revision to OMB for its 

review to ensure that the public record 

is accurate. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

(1) In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

(2) Executive Order (EO) 13609, 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation, promotes international 

regulatory cooperation to meet shared 

challenges involving health, safety, 

labor, security, environmental, and 

other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or 

prevent unnecessary differences in 

regulatory requirements. The FAA has 

analyzed this action under the policies 

and agency responsibilities of EO 13609, 

and has determined that this action 

would have no effect on international 

regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(d) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VII. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 145 

Air carriers, Air transportation, 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Recordkeeping 

and reporting, Safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 145 as follows: 

PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 145 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. 

■ 2. Section 145.12 is added to subpart 

A to read as follows: 

§ 145.12 Repair station records: 

Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or 

omission. 

(a) No person may make or cause to 

be made: 

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false entry in: 

(i) Any application for a repair station 

certificate or rating (including in any 

document used in support of that 

application); or 

(ii) Any record or report that is made, 

kept, or used to show compliance with 

any requirement under this part; 

(2) Any reproduction, for fraudulent 

purpose, of any application (including 

any document used in support of that 

application), record, or report under this 

part; or 

(3) Any alteration, for fraudulent 

purpose, of any application (including 

any document used in support of that 

application), record, or report under this 

part. 

(b) No person may, by omission, 

knowingly conceal or cause to be 

concealed, a material fact in: 

(1) Any application for a repair station 

certificate or rating (including in any 

document used in support of that 

application); or 

(2) Any record or report that is made, 

kept, or used to show compliance with 

any requirement under this part. 

(c) The commission by any person of 

an act prohibited under paragraphs (a) 

or (b) of this section is a basis for any 

one or any combination of the 

following: 

(1) Suspending or revoking the repair 

station certificate and any certificate, 

approval, or authorization issued by the 

FAA and held by that person. 

(2) A civil penalty. 

(3) The denial of an application under 

this part. 

■ 3. Amend § 145.51 by revising 

paragraph (b), and adding paragraphs (e) 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 145.51 Application for certificate. 

* * * * * 

(b) The equipment, personnel, 

technical data, and housing and 

facilities required for the certificate and 

rating, or for an additional rating, must 

be in place for inspection at the time of 

certification or rating approval by the 

FAA. However, the requirement to have 

the equipment in place at the time of 

initial certification or rating approval 

may be met if the applicant has a 

contract acceptable to the FAA with 

another person to make the equipment 

available to the repair station at any 

time it is necessary when the relevant 

work is being performed. 

* * * * * 

(e) The FAA may deny an application 

for a repair station certificate if the FAA 

finds that: 

(1) The applicant holds a repair 

station certificate in the process of being 

revoked, or previously held a repair 

station certificate that was revoked; 

(2) The applicant intends to fill or fills 

a management position with an 

individual who exercised control over 

or who held the same or a similar 

position with a certificate holder whose 

repair station certificate was revoked, or 

is in the process of being revoked, and 

that individual materially contributed to 

the circumstances causing the 

revocation or causing the revocation 

process; or 

(3) An individual who will have 

control over or substantial ownership 

interest in the applicant had the same or 

similar control or interest in a certificate 

holder whose repair station certificate 

was revoked, or is in the process of 

being revoked, and that individual 

materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing the revocation or 

causing the revocation process. 

(f) If the FAA revokes a repair station 

certificate, an individual described in 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section 

is subject to an order under the 

procedures set forth in 14 CFR 13.20, 

finding that the individual materially 

contributed to the circumstances 

causing the revocation or causing the 

revocation process. 

■ 4. Amend § 145.53 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 145.53 Issue of certificate. 

(a) Except as provided in § 145.51(e) 

or paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this 

section, a person who meets the 

requirements of subparts A through E of 

this part is entitled to a repair station 

certificate with appropriate ratings 

prescribing such operations 

specifications and limitations as are 

necessary in the interest of safety. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 145.55 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), and adding 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 145.55 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. 

(c) * * * 

(3) Show that the fee prescribed by 

the FAA has been paid. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Revise § 145.57 to read as follows: 

§ 145.57 Amendment to or transfer of 

certificate. 

(a) A repair station certificate holder 

applying for a change to its certificate 

must submit a request in a format 

acceptable to the Administrator. A 

change to the certificate must include 

certification in compliance with 

§ 145.53(c) or (d), if not previously 

submitted. A certificate change is 

necessary if the certificate holder— 

(1) Changes the name or location of 

the repair station, or 

(2) Requests to add or amend a rating. 

(b) If the holder of a repair station 

certificate sells or transfers its assets and 

the new owner chooses to operate as a 

repair station, the new owner must 

apply for an amended or new certificate 

in accordance with § 145.51. 

■ 7. Amend § 145.153 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 145.153 Supervisory personnel 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46985 

1 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to set minimum 

efficiency standards and develop test procedures to 

measure energy use. 

2 78 FR at 8365. 

3 79 FR 34642, 34652 (June 18, 2014). 

(1) If employed by a repair station 

located inside the United States, be 

appropriately certificated as a mechanic 

or repairman under part 65 of this 

chapter for the work being supervised. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 145.155 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 145.155 Inspection personnel 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Proficient in using the various 

types of inspection equipment and 

visual inspection aids appropriate for 

the article being inspected. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 145.157 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 145.157 Personnel authorized to approve 

an article for return to service. 

(a) A certificated repair station located 

inside the United States must ensure 

each person authorized to approve an 

article for return to service under the 

repair station certificate and operations 

specifications is appropriately 

certificated as a mechanic or repairman 

under part 65. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 145.163 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 145.163 Training requirements. 

(a) A certificated repair station must 

have and use an employee training 

program approved by the FAA that 

consists of initial and recurrent training. 

An applicant for a repair station 

certificate must submit a training 

program for approval by the FAA as 

required by § 145.51(a)(7). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 145.213 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 145.213 Inspection of maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except for individuals employed 

by a repair station located outside the 

United States, only an employee 

appropriately certificated as a mechanic 

or repairman under part 65 is 

authorized to sign off on final 

inspections and maintenance releases 

for the repair station. 

■ 12. Amend § 145.221 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 145.221 Service difficulty reports. 

(a) A certificated repair station must 

report to the FAA within 96 hours after 

it discovers any failure, malfunction, or 

defect of an article. The report must be 

in a format acceptable to the FAA. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44707 in 

Washington, DC, on July 14, 2014. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18938 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

[RIN 3084–AB03] 

Energy Labeling Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) amends 

its Energy Labeling Rule (‘‘Rule’’) by 

publishing new ranges of comparability 

for required labels on central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, and 

weatherized furnaces. 

DATES: The amendments announced in 

this document will become effective on 

January 1, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division 

of Enforcement, Federal Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC 20580 

(202–326–2889). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission issued the Energy 

Labeling Rule in 1979, 44 FR 66466 

(Nov. 19, 1979) pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(‘‘EPCA’’).1 The Rule covers several 

categories of major household 

appliances, including central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. It requires 

manufacturers of covered appliances to 

disclose specific energy consumption or 

efficiency information (derived from 

DOE test procedures) at the point-ofsale. In addition, each label must 

include a ‘‘range of comparability’’ 

indicating the highest and lowest energy 

consumption or efficiencies for 

comparable models. The Commission 

updates these ranges periodically. 

II. Range Updates for Central Air 

Conditioners, Heat Pumps, and 

Weatherized Furnaces 

The Commission is updating the 

Rule’s ranges of comparability, based on 

current data, for central air conditioners, 

heat pumps, and weatherized furnaces, 

effective January 1, 2015. In a February 

6, 2013 Federal Register Notice (78 FR 

8362), the Commission issued new 

EnergyGuide label requirements to help 

consumers, distributors, contractors, 

and installers easily determine whether 

a specific furnace or central air 

conditioner meets applicable DOE 

regional efficiency standards. Among 

other things, these amendments revised 

labels for central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, and weatherized furnaces that 

will be required on January 1, 2015. In 

the 2013 Notice, the Commission did 

not publish updated comparability 

ranges for those products because 

energy data available at that time would 

likely become obsolete before the 

January 1, 2015 date. However, the 

Commission explained it would publish 

new ranges for central air conditioners, 

heat pumps, and weatherized furnaces, 

when more current data became 

available before 2015.2 That date serves 

as the effective date for the new FTC 

labels and the new comparability ranges 

for these products. 

In addition to publishing the new 

ranges, the Commission is updating the 

prototype and sample labels in the Rule 

to reflect these range changes. As 

discussed in a Federal Register Notice 

published this year, the Commission 

plans to address updates for other 

heating products, including boilers and 

non-weatherized furnaces, separately.3

III. Administrative Procedure Act 

The amendments published in this 

Notice involve routine, technical and 

minor, or conforming changes to the 

labeling requirements in the Rule. These 

technical amendments merely provide a 

routine change to the range and cost 

information required on EnergyGuide 

labels. Accordingly, the Commission 

finds for good cause that public 

comment for these technical, procedural 

amendments is impractical and 

unnecessary (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)(B) and 

(d)). 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603– 

604) are not applicable to this 

proceeding because the amendments do 

not impose any new obligations on 

entities regulated by the Energy 

Labeling Rule. These technical 

amendments merely provide a routine 

change to the range information 

required on EnergyGuide labels. Thus, 

the amendments will not have a 

‘‘significant economic impact on a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES