70254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 145 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26408] 

RIN 2120–AI53 

Repair Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

the regulations for repair stations by 

revising the system of ratings and 

requiring repair stations to establish a 

quality program. The FAA also proposes 

additional changes critical to 

maintaining safety. These include 

requiring a repair station to maintain a 

capability list, designating a chief 

inspector, and having permanent 

housing for its facilities, equipment, 

materials, and personnel. In addition, 

this proposal also specifies those 

instances when the FAA may deny a 

repair station certificate. The proposal 

looks at the particular cases where a 

previously held certificate has been 

revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes to 

clarify recent revisions to the repair 

station regulations. This action is 

necessary to reflect changes in aviation 

technology and repair station business 

practices. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before March 1, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2006–26408 using any of the following 

methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George W. Bean, General Aviation and 

Repair Station Branch, AFS–340, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3109; facsimile (202) 267–5115, email George.W.Bean@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

take part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. We 

also invite comments about the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

about this proposed rulemaking. The 

docket is available for public inspection 

before and after the comment closing 

date. If you wish to review the docket 

in person, go to the address in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Before acting on this proposal, we 

will consider all comments we receive 

by the closing date for comments. We 

will consider comments filed late if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal because of the comments we 

receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and place a note in the docket 

that we have received it. If we receive 

a request to examine or copy this 

information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s 

Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ 

arm/index.cfm; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70255 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding 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. It may also prescribe 

equipment and facilities for, and the 

timing and manner of, inspecting, 

servicing, and overhauling. Under 

section 44707, the FAA may examine 

and rate repair stations. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

section 44701 since it establishes new 

regulations for a repair station to 

establish a quality program, requires a 

repair station to maintain a capability 

list, designate a chief inspector, and 

have permanent housing for all its 

facilities, equipment, materials, and 

personnel. This regulation is within the 

scope of section 44707 since it revises 

the system of ratings for repair stations 

and specifies those instances when the 

FAA may deny the issuance of a repair 

station certificate, especially when a 

previously held certificate has been 

revoked. 

Background 

In 1975, industry participants in the 

FAA’s First Biennial Operations Review 

recommended that the agency revise 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) part 145, Repair Stations. The 

FAA subsequently adopted minor 

amendments to part 145; however, the 

FAA did not make any major revisions 

until November 22, 1988 (Amendment 

No. 145–21, 53 FR 47376). In that 

amendment, the FAA expanded the 

scope of work that U.S.-certificated 

repair stations located outside the 

United States may perform. It also 

allowed certain repair stations to 

contract maintenance functions to 

noncertificated entities under specific 

conditions. 

The FAA held four public meetings in 

1989 as part of a regulatory review of 14 

CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive 

Maintenance, Rebuilding, and 

Alteration, 14 CFR part 65, Certification: 

Airmen Other than Flight 

Crewmembers, subpart E, Repairmen, 

and 14 CFR part 145. These meetings 

provided a forum for the public to 

comment on possible revisions to the 

rules governing repair stations. More 

than 500 representatives of repair 

stations, airlines, unions, 

manufacturers, foreign governments, 

industry organizations, and individuals 

attended the meetings. 

The goal of the meetings was to gather 

enough factual information from the 

public to decide whether the FAA 

should revise the repair station 

regulations, and if so, to determine what 

revisions the FAA should make. To 

prepare for the meetings, the FAA 

identified several areas of the repair 

station rules that might need revision. 

These areas were: 

• Organization and format; 

• Ratings and classes; 

• Operations and inspection 

procedures; 

• Manufacturers’ maintenance 

facilities; 

• Contracting of maintenance by 

repair stations; 

• Repair station privileges; 

• Facility, housing, and equipment 

requirements; 

• Recordkeeping and report 

requirements; and 

• Management, inspection personnel, 

and repairmen qualifications. 

Participants discussed these issues at 

the FAA public meetings and sent 

written comments to Docket No. 25965, 

which the FAA set up for the regulatory 

review. Responses from participants at 

the meetings and comments received in 

the docket showed a need to revise and 

update repair station regulations. 

After considering the comments and 

data collected, the FAA issued Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking No. 99–09, ‘‘Part 

145 Review: Repair Stations’’ (64 FR 

33142, June 21, 1999). On July 30, 2001, 

the FAA issued ‘‘Repair Stations; Final 

rule with request for comments and 

direct final rule with request for 

comments’’ (66 FR 41088, August 6, 

2001). The FAA requested comments on 

removing appendix A from part 145, 

which the FAA had not proposed 

originally, and on the paperwork 

burden. In that final rule, the FAA: 

• Reorganized and clarified certain 

subparts and sections of part 145; 

• Removed limited ratings for 

manufacturers’ maintenance facilities; 

• Changed repair station housing and 

equipment requirements; 

• Included rules for exchanging 

equipment among satellite repair 

stations and for leasing equipment; 

• Required repair stations to develop 

a repair station manual that prescribes 

its operating procedures; 

• Required repair stations to develop 

a quality control manual that is similar 

to the previously required inspection 

procedures manual; 

• Provided for the operation of 

satellite repair stations; 

• Expanded the scope of contract 

maintenance; and 

• Required repair stations to develop 

a training program. 

Although the FAA proposed a new 

system of ratings and classes in Notice 

No. 99–09, the FAA kept the existing 

system in the final rule. 

The FAA received a significant 

number of comments opposing the 

proposal. Commenters agreed the repair 

station industry needs new ratings, 

however, they opposed the FAA’s 

proposed system of ratings and classes. 

Therefore, the FAA decided to seek 

advice and recommendations from the 

affected aviation community before 

developing new rules for ratings and 

classes. 

Also, the final rule did not include a 

quality assurance program, as proposed 

originally. Again, the FAA decided to 

seek advice and recommendations from 

the affected aviation community before 

developing new rules for quality 

assurance. The FAA also elected to use 

an established Federal advisory 

committee to gather information 

regarding ratings and quality assurance. 

On October 15, 2001, FAA tasked the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) to address ratings 

and quality assurance for repair stations. 

(66, FR 53281, October 19, 2001) The 

FAA asked ARAC to recommend a 

system of ratings for repair stations that 

would mitigate problems associated 

with the existing system and allow for 

growth of the aviation industry. Also, 

the FAA tasked ARAC to recommend a 

quality assurance program that would 

reflect industry requirements and 

account for the varying scope of repair 

station operations. Specifically, under 

the ratings task, the FAA tasked ARAC 

to: 

• Review the existing system of 

ratings and classes contained in the 

current part 145 and in any other 

documents issued by the FAA 

pertaining to aeronautical repair 

stations. 

• Review comments submitted to the 

FAA in response to the public meetings 

held in 1989 and the system of ratings 

proposed in June 1999 in Notice No. 99–

09. 

• Review challenges reported by 

Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) under 

the existing system of ratings. 

• Identify the challenges that 

aeronautical repair stations encounter 

under the existing system of ratings and 

classes, including those pertaining to: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

—Current business practices that are not 

regulated that may require some form 

of control; 

—Provisions in the current regulation 

that prevent repair stations from 

performing desired business practices; 

and 

—Enforcement problems associated 

with the current regulations. 

• Draft a Technical Report that: 

—Presents a review of the existing 

system of ratings and classes; 

—Identifies various choices for rating 

systems; 

—Identifies the advantages and 

disadvantages of each option; 

—Provides economic information for 

each of the alternative rating systems; 

and 

—Recommends a preferred system of 

ratings. 

Under the quality assurance task, the 

FAA tasked ARAC to: 

• Review the discussion about quality 

assurance in the June 1999 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 99–

09). 

• Review comments relating to 

quality assurance submitted to the FAA 

in response to the public meetings held 

in 1989 and the quality assurance 

program requirements proposed in 

Notice No. 99–09. 

• Review current industry practices 

relating to quality assurance issues to: 

—Identify quality assurance systems 

currently used by some repair 

stations; and 

—Analyze the elements of the systems 

used by the aviation industry. 

• Develop a Technical Report that: 

—Presents a review of regulatory 

requirements that comprise a quality 

assurance program; 

—Identifies various options for 

regulating quality assurance 

programs; 

—Identifies the advantages and 

disadvantages of each option; 

—Provides information on the economic 

impacts of applying a quality 

assurance system to various segments 

of the repair station industry; and 

—Recommends a preferred quality 

assurance program or system. 

ARAC sent its technical reports and 

recommendations to the FAA on August 

13, 2002. The technical reports and 

recommendations contain details about 

each of the various options. Information 

on ARAC is available on the ARAC Web 

site: http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac. 

Action 

In this rulemaking action, the FAA 

proposes a new rating system for repair 

stations and proposes requirements for 

a quality system. The FAA bases this 

proposed rule on the public meetings 

held in 1989, comments to Docket No. 

25965, comments to Notice No. 99–09, 

and recommendations from ARAC. The 

FAA also proposes additional changes 

critical to maintaining safety. These 

include: requiring a repair station to 

maintain a capability list; designating a 

chief inspector; and having permanent 

housing for all its facilities, equipment, 

materials, and personnel. In addition, 

the proposal also specifies those 

instances when the FAA may deny a 

repair station certificate. The proposal 

looks at the particular cases where a 

previously held certificate has been 

revoked. Lastly, the FAA proposes 

several minor amendments to the July 

30, 2001 final rule. These amendments 

are necessary to clarify the rule. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

Subpart B—Certification 

Section 145.51 Application for 

Certificate 

The FAA proposes to add a provision 

to the application procedures that 

would require an applicant for a repair 

station certificate to provide the FAA 

with a letter explaining how the 

applicant intends to comply with the 

requirements of part 145. Under longstanding FAA policy and practice, 

repair station certificate applicants have 

provided this letter that the FAA refers 

to as a ‘‘Letter of Compliance.’’ Since 

the letter is an essential part of the 

application process, the FAA finds it 

appropriate to include a requirement to 

provide the letter in the regulations for 

application for a repair station 

certificate. 

The FAA proposes an editorial change 

to current § 145.51(a)(2) (proposed 

§ 145.51(a)(3)) to make the wording 

consistent with proposed § 145.211(d). 

It would refer to a ‘‘quality system 

manual’’ rather than a ‘‘quality control 

manual.’’

The FAA proposes adding the words 

‘‘manufacturer’’ and ‘‘category’’ to 

proposed § 145.51(a)(4) to ensure 

consistency with the capability list 

requirements found in § 145.215. 

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, tools, and test apparatus 

when necessary. The applicant, of 

course, retains the option to have the 

equipment, tools, and test apparatus in 

place during the certification process. 

The requirement remains in § 145.109(a) 

that those items be on the premises and 

under the repair station’s control 

whenever the work is being performed. 

Additionally, the FAA notes that the 

text of existing § 145.109(a) contains a 

requirement to have ‘‘tools,’’ in addition 

to equipment and materials, whereas 

existing § 145.51(b) does not refer to 

tools. Section 145.109(a) currently 

requires a repair station to ‘‘have the 

equipment, tools, and materials 

necessary to perform the maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations. 

* * * ’’ [and that] The equipment, tools, 

and materials must be located on the 

premises and under the repair station’s 

control when the work is being done.’’

The FAA did not include the term 

‘‘tools’’ in § 145.51(b) because of 

possible uncertainty as to what tools 

should be required for an applicant to 

have on site or under contract at the 

time of certification. We did not believe 

that an applicant, in order to obtain a 

repair station certificate, should be 

required to have on site at the time of 

initial certification or rating approval all 

the particular hand tools, etc., that an 

individual repairman or mechanic 

might possess. The term ‘‘equipment’’ in 

§ 145.51(b) was meant to include items 

the FAA would consider to be ‘‘tools’’


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70257 

of the repair station. For example, a 

repair station’s equipment might 

include items such as machines, jigs, 

fixtures, basic shop tools and associated 

tooling, necessary for the repair station 

to perform the work for which it is 

rated, as reflected on its proposed 

operations specifications and capability 

list. 

We propose to clarify the scope of the 

kinds of items a repair station must have 

for initially obtaining certification by 

adding both tools and test apparatus to 

the list of items a repair station must 

have either on site or under contract. 

While the term equipment could be 

interpreted to include many examples of 

each, i.e., basic shop tools and test 

equipment, adding the term ‘‘tools’’ to 

the regulation would ensure that an 

applicant for a repair station certificate 

also includes on site, or in the contract, 

certain tools necessary for the rating 

sought that individual mechanics or 

repairmen might not possess. For 

example, this might include tools that 

are of a specialized nature for the rating 

or other tools that might be too large or 

expensive, or of a limited specialized 

nature. For the same reasons, and for 

consistency with the requirements in 14 

CFR § 43.13(a), we propose to add ‘‘test 

apparatus’’ to the list of items a repair 

station must have in place for 

inspection or under contract at the time 

of initial certification or rating approval. 

The FAA also proposes to remove the 

modifier ‘‘technical’’ from the term 

‘‘data’’ for consistency with the other 

sections of the rule that use the term 

‘‘data.’’

The FAA proposes to add a new 

paragraph (e) to § 145.51 to detail 

conditions under which a person may 

not apply for a repair station certificate. 

Unless otherwise authorized by the 

FAA, the following persons could not 

apply for a repair station certificate (nor 

would the FAA accept such an 

application) for one year from the date 

a previously revoked certificate was 

surrendered pursuant to the FAA’s 

order of revocation: 

• Any person who held a repair 

stations certificate that was revoked; 

and 

• Any person who had a substantial 

ownership interest or substantial control 

over the operations of a repair station 

that has had its certificate revoked and 

who materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing the revocation. 

The proposed rule would specify that 

the one-year period would begin to run 

on the date the certificate is surrendered 

to the FAA pursuant to the order of 

revocation. This proposed paragraph 

parallels § 61.13(d)(2), which pertains to 

pilots being able to reapply for a 

certificate following revocation. Under 

the proposed text, a person whose 

certificate has been revoked needs prior 

authorization only if the person wishes 

to apply before the one-year term is up. 

The FAA revokes repair station 

certificates only for serious infractions 

of the regulations. The FAA believes 

that imposing a waiting period would 

serve as an additional deterrent against 

serious violations of the repair station 

regulations, thereby enhancing safety in 

the repair station industry. 

Section 145.53 Issuance of certificate 

Section 145.53 identifies who is 

entitled to a repair station certificate 

and appropriate ratings. Specifically, 

the section states that a person who 

meets the requirements of part 145 is 

entitled to a repair station certificate 

and appropriate ratings. Section 

145.53(b) states, ‘‘if the person is located 

in a country with which the United 

States has a bilateral aviation safety 

agreement, the FAA may find that the 

person meets the requirements of this 

part based on certification from the civil 

aviation authority of that country.’’ The 

FAA proposes to amend § 145.53(b) to 

state that the FAA may also base such 

finding on certification from an 

authority acceptable to the FAA. 

This change permits the 

Administrator to base such a finding on 

a recommendation from a civil aviation 

authority that may not necessarily be 

the civil aviation authority of the 

country in which the repair station is 

located. Recent changes in Europe, for 

example, have led to the European 

Union forming the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA). This new agency 

will carry out certain civil aviation 

safety functions for the European 

Community. The FAA must consider 

that over a period of time the United 

States may enter into aircraft 

maintenance agreements under which 

the FAA may base its actions on a 

certification made by a civil aviation 

authority other than a national aviation 

authority. Therefore, the proposal 

would revise the current regulation to 

allow for these different types of 

agreements. The FAA has determined 

that the change has no additional 

technical or economic impact on the 

regulation. 

Also, the FAA proposes to add a new 

paragraph to § 145.53 identifying 

reasons the FAA may use to deny the 

issuance of a repair station certificate. 

The FAA proposes to deny a person a 

repair station certificate if: 

• The applicant does not meet the 

eligibility requirements for the 

certificate sought, or does not complete 

the certification process. 

• The applicant previously held a 

repair station certificate that was 

revoked. 

• The applicant intends to fill or fills 

a key management position, (for 

example, accountable manager or chief 

inspector), with an individual who 

exercised control over or who held the 

same or a similar position with a repair 

station whose certificate was revoked, or 

was in the process of being revoked. 

That individual must have materially 

contributed to the circumstances 

causing the revocation or revocation 

process. 

• The applicant held a key 

management position with a repair 

station certificate holder whose 

certificate was revoked, or was in the 

process of being revoked. The applicant 

must have materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing the revocation or 

causing the revocation process. 

• An individual who will have 

control over or substantial ownership 

interest in the applicant had the same or 

similar control or interest in a repair 

station whose certificate was revoked, or 

is in the process of being revoked. That 

individual must have materially 

contributed to the circumstances 

causing revocation or causing the 

revocation process. 

The last four criteria for denial are 

necessary because the FAA is aware of 

recent instances where persons whose 

repair station certificates were revoked 

continued to operate by obtaining new 

repair station certificates shortly after 

the revocation process. In a similar 

situation, a key management official 

with decision-making authority (chief 

inspector) from a repair station that lost 

its certificate for serious maintenancerelated safety violations applied for and 

received a new repair station certificate. 

That individual also became the chief 

inspector at the newly certificated repair 

station. While under the chief 

inspector’s direction, employees of the 

newly certificated station performed 

improper maintenance on a number of 

propellers, one of which came apart in 

flight causing a fatal accident. 

As a result of this incident, the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), in a Safety Recommendation 

dated February 9, 2004 (A–04–01 and 

A–04–02), expressed concern that the 

FAA did not have a mechanism for 

preventing individuals who were 

associated with a previously revoked 

repair station, such as the owner 

described above, from continuing to 

operate through a new repair station. 

The NTSB made a number of 

observations. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

The FAA has such a mechanism in 

place for air carriers and other 

commercial operators. 

14 CFR § 119.39(b) allows the FAA to 

deny an application for a Part 121 or 

135 air carrier or operating certificate. 

This can occur if the applicant 

previously held a certificate that was 

revoked or if a person who exercised 

control over (or held a key management 

position in) a previously revoked 

operator will be exercising control over 

(or hold a key management position in) 

the new operator. 

The Part 119 rule allows the FAA to 

deny certification to an applicant who is 

substantially owned by (or 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 the revocation. 

The NTSB, pointing out the safety 

concerns offered by the FAA when it 

issued the above-described rules for air 

carriers and commercial operators, 

believed the same reasoning should 

apply equally to Part 145 certificate 

holders. The FAA agrees. The proposed 

language is consistent with other 

revocations that the FAA imposes. The 

changes that we propose are based to a 

large extent on the language contained 

in § 119.39(b). In 1978, when the 

predecessor regulation to § 119.39(b) 

was published, the FAA stated: 

Noncompliance data is a significant factor 

to consider with an application for an ATCO 

[air taxi/commercial operator] operating 

certificate. Similar information has been 

helpful in evaluating air carrier applicants 

and the persons they propose for 

management positions. The FAA revokes an 

operating certificate only for a very serious 

infraction of the regulations. If a person 

contributes materially to that infraction, the 

fact should be considered as a factor in 

evaluating the new application. This does not 

mean the approval of the application or 

employment position will be automatically 

withheld, but that each situation will be 

carefully evaluated on its merits. (43 FR 

46762, Oct. 10, 1978) 

Section 145.59 Ratings 

The FAA proposes to revise the 

ratings and classes that may be issued 

to certificated repair stations. A 

comparison of the proposed ratings with 

the current ratings follows. 

Current Rating Proposed Rating 

Airframe Rating Aircraft Rating 

Class 1: Composite construction of small aircraft ....................................

Class 2: Composite construction of large aircraft 

Class 3: All-metal construction of small aircraft 

Class 4: All-metal construction of large aircraft 

The Aircraft rating, which the FAA did not divide into classes, would replace the Airframe rating and its associated classes. The FAA proposes to expand the current Airframe rating to include all articles except those for which a Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics rating is required. 

Powerplant Rating Powerplant Rating 

Class 1: Reciprocating engines of 400 horsepower or less .................... Class 1: Reciprocating engines. 

Class 2: Reciprocating engines of more than 400 horsepower ............... Class 2: Turbine engines. 

Class 3: Turbine engines .......................................................................... Class 3: Auxiliary power units (APU). 

Propeller Rating Propeller Rating 

Class 1: All fixed-pitch and ground-adjustable propellers of wood, 

metal, or composite construction.

Class 2: All other propellers, by make. 

This proposed Propeller rating no longer includes classes. This rating 

would not include the main and auxiliary rotors (airframe articles) or 

rotating airfoils of aircraft engines (powerplant articles). This rating 

would allow a repair station to remove and replace articles attached 

to the propeller and to remove and reinstall the propeller. Also, the 

rating would allow a repair station to remove, replace, install, and 

test the propeller. 

Radio Rating Avionics Rating 

Class 1: Communication equipment .........................................................

Class 2: Navigational equipment. 

Class 3: Radar equipment. 

The Avionics rating would combine the Radio, Instrument, and parts of 

the Accessory ratings into a single rating. The proposed Avionics rating would group together items that operate electrically or electronically and that require a unique set of skills not associated with other 

ratings. In addition, this rating would allow repair stations to perform 

maintenance on in-flight entertainment units or other electronic units, 

as specified in their operations specifications. 

Instrument Rating 

Class 1: Mechanical. ................................................................................

Class 2: Electrical. 

Class 3: Gyroscopic. 

Class 4: Electronic. 

Accessory Rating Component Rating 

Class 1: Mechanical accessories that depend on friction, hydraulics, 

mechanical linkage, or pneumatic pressure for operation.

Class 2: Electrical accessories that depend on electrical energy for 

their operation. 

Class 3: Electronic accessories that depend on an electron tube, transistor, or similar device. 

The Component rating would allow a repair station to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on individual component parts that are not installed on or in aircraft, powerplant, propeller, or avionics equipment. The Component rating would include 

any item that is not a complete aircraft, powerplant, propeller, or avionics article. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70259 

Current Rating Proposed Rating 

Limited Rating (§ 145.61) Limitations to a Rating (§ 145.61) 

For airframes; engines; propellers; instruments; radio equipment; accessories; landing gear; components; floats; nondestructive inspection, testing, and processing; emergency equipment; rotor blades by 

make and model; aircraft fabric work; and other purposes.

In response to industry and ARAC recommendations, the FAA would 

no longer issue limited ratings. Instead, the FAA would issue limitations to the rating of a certificated repair station governing maintenance or alterations on a particular type of aircraft, powerplant, propeller, avionics, or component part thereof for which part 43 applies. 

Limited Rating for Specialized Service (§ 145.61) Specialized Service Rating (§ 145.63) 

For example, landing gear components; nondestructive inspection, testing, and processing; emergency equipment; aircraft fabric work; and 

any other specialized service the FAA finds appropriate for this rating.

The proposed Specialized Service rating is substantially the same as 

the existing Limited Specialized Service rating. The FAA would issue 

the Specialized Service rating to a repair station that performs only 

specific processes associated with the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations of an aviation article. 

Aircraft Rating 

Currently, the FAA may issue a repair 

station an Airframe rating with any of 

four class ratings: Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

These classes are based on aircraft 

weight (large or small as defined in 14 

CFR § 1.1) and construction (composite 

or all-metal). The FAA finds that issuing 

ratings for aircraft based on their 

construction is no longer appropriate 

because modern aircraft are no longer 

built of either all composite material or 

all metal. Further, the FAA finds that 

classifying aircraft by weight is no 

longer appropriate. The FAA proposes 

to remove the Airframe rating and its 

associated class ratings and establish an 

Aircraft rating without classes. 

In its technical report, ARAC noted 

that in 1962, most aircraft had a dope 

and fabric or wood construction. The 

aviation industry commonly referred to 

aircraft made from a combination of 

wood, fabric, and metal materials as 

aircraft with a ‘‘composite’’

construction. ARAC noted that a better 

description of the term ‘‘composite’’

may have been ‘‘not-all metal.’’ The 

term ‘‘composite material’’ also refers to 

carbon-carbon compounds and 

advanced polymers. 

Many modern aircraft have an 

airframe made of both metal and 

composite materials. The airframe is 

metal while certain portions, such as 

control surfaces and fairings, are 

composite materials. This causes 

confusion among FAA inspectors and 

the aviation industry over how much of 

an airframe must be of composite or 

metal construction for various class 

ratings within the Airframe category. 

Since defining ‘‘composite’’ is 

difficult and the current classes are no 

longer suitable for the repair station 

industry, the FAA has tentatively 

determined that a better approach is to 

adopt general ratings. ARAC found that 

a repair station rating based solely on 

the type or variety of material in aircraft 

construction is unduly restrictive. These 

factors no longer determine the scope of 

work repair stations are able to perform 

under the Airframe rating. ARAC found 

that airframe maintenance capabilities 

do not depend on the materials used in 

aircraft construction. 

Further, ARAC found that 

classification of ratings by weight is no 

longer appropriate. Historically, the 

FAA and the aviation industry used the 

weight classification of small and large 

aircraft to distinguish aircraft used in 

commercial air carrier service from 

general aviation aircraft. Commercial 

operations normally used aircraft over 

12,500 pounds while general aviation 

typically used smaller aircraft. This 

distinction also reflected the relative 

complexity of the aircraft. Today, 

however, aircraft weight does not reflect 

the complexity or intended use of an 

aircraft. 

The Aircraft rating, which is not 

divided into classes, would replace the 

Airframe rating and its associated 

classes. Under the Aircraft rating, a 

repair station could perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on the complete aircraft, 

except those articles for which a 

Powerplant, Propeller, or Avionics 

rating is required. Replacing the current 

Airframe rating with an Aircraft rating 

would allow for inclusion of future 

technological advancements in aircraft 

construction. The Aircraft rating would 

allow the repair station to work on the 

aircraft electrical distribution system 

external to avionics units. In addition, a 

repair station could remove, replace, 

install, and test any powerplant, 

propeller, or avionics equipment to 

perform its rated work on the complete 

aircraft and approve it for return to 

service if the repair station has the 

capabilities. 

At the time of application, the FAA 

would require an applicant for an 

Aircraft rating to identify the 

manufacturer, type, make, model, or 

series of aircraft on which the repair 

station intends to perform maintenance, 

preventive maintenance and alterations. 

The repair station must list the aircraft 

on its capability list, which would be 

required by § 145.215. The FAA would 

require the repair station to demonstrate 

that it has on its premises and under its 

control the necessary housing, facilities, 

equipment, tools, test apparatus, trained 

personnel, and data to perform the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on the aircraft listed. 

After the FAA certificates a repair 

station, the repair station could add 

additional capabilities as needed. The 

repair station could change its 

capability list after performing a selfevaluation that is part of the repair 

station’s quality system. This internal 

review would ensure that the FAA 

could evaluate the work being 

performed under the rating and confirm 

that a repair station has the capabilities 

to perform the specified maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and 

alterations. 

It is not the FAA’s intent to allow a 

repair station to change its ratings 

simply by performing the selfevaluation. The self-evaluation is used 

to add capabilities to its capability list 

that are within the scope of its rating. 

Aircraft-rated repair stations would be 

required to list the type, make, model, 

or series of aircraft on its capability list. 

The Aircraft rating, along with the types 

of aircraft the repair station may 

maintain, constitutes its rating. An 

Aircraft-rated repair station could not 

add different aircraft types to its 

capability list by performing the selfevaluation. For example, if its 

operations specifications authorize the 

repair station to maintain B–737 aircraft 

types, and it was currently maintaining 

only B–737–100–500 models, it could 

perform the self-evaluation to add other 

B–737 models to its capability list, but 

it could not add B–757 aircraft. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

The word ‘‘aircraft type’’ when used 

in the text associated with an Aircraft 

rating is defined in 14 CFR part 1 and 

means those aircraft that are similar in 

design. Examples include: DC–7 and 

DC–7C; 1049G and 1049H; and F27 and 

F27F. 

Powerplant Rating 

The current Powerplant rating has 

three classes: Class 1: Reciprocating 

engines of 400 horsepower or less, Class 

2: Reciprocating engines of more than 

400 horsepower, and Class 3: Turbine 

engines. 

When the FAA established the current 

Powerplant ratings, reciprocating radial 

engines that produced more than 400 

horsepower powered nearly all large 

aircraft. In its report, ARAC noted that 

these engines differed substantially from 

the horizontally opposed reciprocating 

engines with less than 400 horsepower 

that manufacturers used to power 

general aviation aircraft. Distinguishing 

powerplant classes by horsepower was 

helpful considering the engines in use at 

that time. Today, however, it is possible 

for small horizontally opposed 

reciprocating engines to produce more 

than 400 horsepower. Further, most 

modern transport category aircraft have 

turbine engines, and manufacturers no 

longer produce high horsepower radial 

engines. ARAC determined, therefore, 

that separate classes for reciprocating 

engines are no longer useful. 

When the FAA established the current 

Powerplant rating, manufacturers were 

just beginning to use turbine engines on 

civil aircraft. Therefore, the FAA found 

it appropriate to establish a class for 

turbine engines. 

Unlike the other ratings, the FAA 

would retain classes for the Powerplant 

rating. The Powerplant rating still has 

natural and permanent divisions 

between reciprocating, turbine, and 

APU engines. Engines do not cross the 

boundaries between these classes. This 

would not be true for the other ratings, 

especially the Aircraft rating. 

Under the proposed rating system, a 

repair station holding a new Powerplant 

rating may perform maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

of the powerplant and all components 

necessary for the powerplant to work 

properly. The proposed Powerplant 

rating includes aircraft engines, as 

defined in 14 CFR 1.1, and auxiliary 

power units. 

An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) refers 

to any gas turbine-powered unit 

delivering rotating shaft power or 

compressed air, or both, that is not 

intended for the propelling of an 

aircraft. APUs often drive aircraft 

generators and air-conditioning packs. 

In some cases APUs also can be used as 

an additional source of energy to start 

the primary aircraft engines. The design 

configurations of some aircraft rely on 

an APU for provisional back-up 

electrical power in flight in the event of 

a failure of the primary power sources. 

The APU has been included in the 

Powerplant rating due to its similarity to 

an aircraft turbine engine. 

The proposed rating, therefore, would 

still have 3 classes. However, the classes 

would be organized as follows: 

Class 1: Reciprocating engines, 

combining current Classes 1 and 2; 

Class 2: Turbine engines, 

encompassing current Class 3; and 

Class 3: Auxiliary power units (APU). 

This rating, like the Aircraft rating, 

would allow repair stations to remove 

and replace propellers and powerplant 

components, as needed, and to perform 

powerplant maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations. 

Powerplant-rated repair stations also 

could remove and replace nacelles and 

fairings because most engine work 

cannot be performed unless the repair 

station removes these items. However, 

this rating would not allow the repair 

station to remove or replace engines. To 

perform this function, the repair station 

would, at a minimum, have to hold an 

Aircraft rating with a limitation to 

remove and replace engines. Also, this 

rating would not allow a repair station 

to perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on the 

aircraft or propeller. 

An application for the Powerplant 

rating must include a list of the make, 

model, or series of all powerplant 

articles that the repair station intends to 

maintain. The repair station must list 

these articles on its capability list. The 

repair station may add different makes 

and models of engines within its class 

rating to its capability list by following 

the self-evaluation procedures of the 

repair station’s quality system. The FAA 

does not intend that a repair station 

alter its rating by adding powerplants 

outside the scope of the powerplant 

class the repair station is rated to 

maintain. This means a Class 1-rated 

repair station cannot add a Class 2 

powerplant simply by performing a selfevaluation. This would be considered a 

change of rating, and must be handled 

through the certification process. 

Propeller Rating 

Under the current regulations, a repair 

station holding a Class 1 Propeller rating 

may perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on all 

fixed-pitch and ground-adjustable 

propellers of wood, metal, or composite 

construction. A repair station holding a 

Class 2 Propeller rating may perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on all other propellers 

by make. 

In its report, ARAC noted that this 

distinction is based on the different 

levels of complexity between a propeller 

with no moving parts and a propeller 

with a mechanical system that controls 

the pitch of the propeller while 

operating. ARAC also noted that aircraft 

with small reciprocating engines 

generally have fixed pitch propellers, 

while aircraft with high horsepower 

engines have variable pitch propellers. 

ARAC found that, although varying 

levels of complexity exist for propellers, 

most repair stations performing 

maintenance on propellers hold both 

class ratings. Therefore, ARAC 

recommended that the FAA eliminate 

class ratings that distinguish the types 

of propellers. 

The proposed Propeller rating would 

allow a repair station to perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on propellers. This 

rating does not include the main and 

auxiliary rotors (airframe articles) or 

rotating airfoils of aircraft engines 

(powerplant articles). This rating would 

allow a repair station to remove and 

replace control components attached to 

the propeller. Also, the rating would 

allow a repair station to remove, 

replace, install, and test the propeller. 

However, it would not allow a repair 

station to perform installations that 

would constitute a major alteration to an 

aircraft or aircraft engine. 

An applicant for a Propeller rating 

must list the make, model, or series of 

propellers to be included on its 

capability list. The repair station could 

add makes or models of propellers to its 

capability list by following the selfevaluation procedures of the repair 

station’s quality system. Although a 

repair station holding a Propeller rating 

could remove and install the propeller 

on an aircraft engine, it could not 

perform any maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations on the 

aircraft, aircraft engine, or airframe. For 

example, a repair station that intends to 

install propellers of a different make 

and model using a supplemental type 

certificate (STC) would be required to 

hold a Propeller rating and would need 

an Aircraft rating, with the necessary 

limitation. 

Avionics and Component Ratings 

The proposed Avionics and 

Component ratings present different 

challenges to the rating system because 

of the sheer volume of articles that can 

be addressed by the ratings, the variety 

of these articles, and the number of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70261 

manufacturers of similar articles. 

Providing only the make, model, or 

series of these articles may not provide 

the necessary information to determine 

what requirements the repair station 

must meet in order to be eligible for a 

rating. As a result, the FAA must 

include a requirement for the name of 

the manufacturer of the articles to be 

included in the capability list. Also, the 

FAA proposes a requirement that the 

capability list for a repair station 

certificated to maintain avionics or 

component articles be separated by 

categories to make it easier for both the 

repair station’s customers and the FAA 

to ascertain the capabilities of the repair 

station. 

The inclusion of the manufacturer on 

the capability list is necessary because, 

unlike the aircraft or powerplant 

manufacturers, there are several 

manufacturers who produce similar 

articles, such as radios, integrated 

electronic units, pumps, and actuators. 

Because the rule requires repair stations 

to use the data, tools, and equipment 

recommended by the manufacturer, 

these items will differ between 

manufacturers even though the articles 

may be similar in design. Also, since 

repair stations will be performing selfevaluations to add items to their 

capability lists, not identifying the 

different items required for articles 

produced by different manufacturers 

could make it difficult for a repair 

station to determine if it has the 

capability to maintain articles from 

various manufacturers. 

Identifying the manufacturer would 

assist the FAA in separating the 

capability list into categories. The 

category headings can be broad to 

encompass several similar articles, but 

should be detailed enough so that a 

cursory review can determine the types 

of articles maintained by the repair 

station. Examples of categories may 

include: radios, instruments, integrated 

modules, hydraulic pumps, fuel pumps, 

hydraulic actuators, brakes, integrated 

entertainment systems, cargo loading 

units/pallets, or cargo floor tracks and 

locks. Under these categories, the repair 

station would list each article by 

manufacturer, make, model, or series. 

Avionics Rating 

The Avionics rating would combine 

the current Radio, Instrument, and parts 

of the Accessory ratings into a single 

rating. This rating would include all 

articles used for aircraft communication, 

navigation, and operation that operate 

electrically or electronically. 

The proposed Avionics rating groups 

together items that operate electrically 

or electronically and that require a 

unique set of skills not associated with 

other ratings. In addition, this rating 

would allow repair stations to perform 

work on in-flight entertainment units or 

other electronic units. The current 

rating and classification system does not 

have a rating or class that clearly 

includes in-flight entertainment 

electronics. In its report, ARAC stated 

that although the aviation industry 

typically does not consider these 

devices as avionics equipment, the FAA 

should include them with other 

electronic devices that require similar 

skills to maintain. 

The current Radio rating consists of 

three classes: Class 1: Communication 

equipment, Class 2: Navigation 

equipment, and Class 3: Radar 

equipment. In its report, ARAC 

indicated that technological advances in 

avionics have led to much controversy 

over this categorization of equipment. 

ARAC noted that modern avionics 

equipment typically integrates 

communication and navigation 

functions into a single avionics 

appliance. Radar and radio equipment 

that operate using pulse technology also 

serve communication and navigation 

functions. Therefore, repair stations 

performing work on avionics equipment 

often hold a Radio rating with all three 

of the classes. 

The current Instrument rating consists 

of four classes: Class 1: Mechanical, 

Class 2: Electrical, Class 3: Gyroscopic, 

and Class 4: Electronic. The FAA 

established these classes based on the 

technology available at the time. 

However, ARAC notes that today, most 

instruments operate using a 

combination of these principles. 

Therefore, class distinctions are no 

longer appropriate. 

The current Accessory rating has 

three classes. Class 1: Mechanical 

includes accessories that depend on 

friction, hydraulics, mechanical linkage, 

or pneumatic pressure for operation. 

Class 2: Electrical includes accessories 

that depend on electrical energy for 

their operation and generators. Class 3: 

Electronic includes accessories that 

depend on the use of an electron tube, 

transistor, or similar devices. Similar to 

the Instrument rating, the classes for the 

Accessory rating identify the article’s 

principle of operation. Many articles 

maintained under this rating use a 

combination of principles, thus 

requiring repair stations to hold all the 

class ratings for an Accessory rating. 

The proposed Avionics rating would 

allow a repair station with the required 

capabilities to remove and reinstall 

access panels, brackets, or clamps in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions on aircraft, powerplants, or 

propellers, as needed, to gain access to 

avionics equipment or instruments. The 

repair station also could remove, 

replace, install, and test the avionics 

equipment on an aircraft, provided the 

repair station does not alter the aircraft. 

An Avionics-rated repair station would 

not be authorized to remove articles that 

it was not rated to reinstall. To perform 

a major or minor alteration to an 

aircraft, powerplant, or propeller, a 

repair station would be required to hold 

the appropriate additional ratings. 

As with the Aircraft, Powerplant, and 

Propeller ratings, a repair station with 

an Avionics rating would have to 

identify on its capability list the articles 

that it intends to maintain. Unlike the 

other ratings, in addition to identifying 

the article by make or model and series, 

the Avionics-rated repair station must 

also include the manufacturer and the 

category of the article, such as 

communication, navigation, pulsed 

(radar), mechanical, electric, gyroscopic, 

or electronic. 

Component Rating 

The Component rating would allow a 

repair station to perform maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

on individual uninstalled component 

parts that are included on or in aircraft, 

powerplant, propeller, or avionics 

equipment. The Component rating 

would include any item that is not a 

complete aircraft, powerplant, propeller, 

or avionics article. However, a 

Component-rated repair station must 

have a limitation to an Aircraft, 

Powerplant, or Propeller rating to 

remove and install articles. A repair 

station with an Aircraft, Powerplant, 

Propeller, or Avionics rating would not 

need a Component rating to work on 

items associated with its respective 

rating and capabilities. For example, an 

Aircraft or Powerplant-rated repair 

station would not need a Component 

rating to perform work on an airfoil 

surface, engine case, or other parts of 

the aircraft or powerplant, as applicable. 

The capability list for this rating must 

provide enough detail to ensure that a 

repair station has the appropriate 

housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test 

apparatus, training, personnel, and data 

at certification and when the work is 

being performed. The FAA agrees with 

ARAC’s recommendation that a repair 

station list the general part 

nomenclature of an item, and that it is 

unnecessary to list articles by part 

number. The capability list would have 

to identify each component by 

manufacturer, make, model, or other 

nomenclature as designated by the 

manufacturer. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70262 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Section 145.61 Limitations to Ratings 

In response to industry and ARAC 

recommendations, the FAA would no 

longer issue limited ratings. Instead, the 

FAA would issue limitations to the 

rating of a certificated repair station 

governing maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations on a 

particular type of aircraft, powerplant, 

propeller, avionics unit, or component 

part thereof. Currently, the rule allows 

for limited ratings based on the repair 

station performing maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

on particular makes or models of 

aircraft, powerplants, or propellers. 

However, as the repair industry has 

become more specialized, the concept of 

limited ratings had to be stretched to 

apply to repair stations performing only 

certain maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alteration functions on 

one or several makes/models of articles. 

Eliminating limited ratings would allow 

more flexibility in determining what 

rating an applicant or a repair station 

should obtain. For example, if a repair 

station intends to perform only a 

specific maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alteration function, 

such as interior configuration work or 

aircraft painting, the FAA would issue 

the repair station an Aircraft rating and 

list that function as a limitation on the 

repair station’s operations 

specifications. The repair station’s 

operations specifications would specify 

the rating to which the limitation 

applies and the limitation to that rating 

in sufficient detail to describe the 

maintenance capabilities of the repair 

station. 

Section 145.63 Specialized Service 

Rating 

Currently, the FAA issues limited 

ratings to repair stations to perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations to airframes, engines, 

propellers, instruments, radio 

equipment, accessories, landing gear 

components, emergency equipment, 

rotor blades, and floats, and to perform 

specialized services. 

The proposed Specialized Service 

rating is substantially the same as the 

existing Limited Specialized Service 

rating. The Specialized Service rating 

would allow a repair station to perform 

a specific process associated with the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alteration of an article; this work 

might not constitute a complete repair 

sufficient to approve an article for 

return to service. The repair station’s 

operations specifications would contain 

the specification used in performing 

that specialized service. The 

specification could be a military-, 

industry-, or applicant-developed 

specification that was approved by the 

FAA. Examples of specialized services 

would include, but not be limited to, 

non-destructive testing or inspection, 

welding, heat treating, plating, and 

plasma spraying. 

There are three situations in which 

the FAA would issue a Specialized 

Service rating. The FAA would issue 

this rating to a repair station that: 

• Performs only a specific process; 

• Has in-house capabilities to perform 

the specific process but the work being 

requested is not within the scope of its 

rating; or 

• Performs a function not found in 

the manufacturer’s data. 

If specialized service tasks are 

contained within a repair station’s data 

for existing ratings, the repair station 

would not require an additional rating 

to perform that service. For example, if 

an Aircraft-rated repair station wants to 

perform plating on a propeller part, it 

would need a Specialized Service rating 

to perform the operation on the 

propeller part. If, however, a 

Powerplant-rated repair station has the 

in-house capability to perform x-ray 

inspections, it would not need to have 

a Specialized Service rating to perform 

that same maintenance for another 

repair station on powerplant articles for 

which it is already rated. 

The Specialized Service rating would 

require the repair station to have the 

housing, facilities, equipment, tools, test 

apparatus, trained personnel, and data 

to perform the process on an aviation 

article. The process specification on the 

operations specifications would set 

forth the minimum standards for 

performing the generic process 

(specialized service). For example, the 

process specification would include an 

explanation of the housing, facilities, 

equipment, tools, test apparatus, trained 

personnel, and data necessary to 

perform the overall process. The 

applicable manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual, air carrier manual, or other data 

acceptable to or approved by the FAA 

would define the specific parameters 

associated with performing the process 

on the particular aviation article. 

Section 145.101 General 

The current section states that a 

certificated repair station must provide 

housing, facilities, equipment, 

materials, and data that meets the 

applicable requirements for the issuance 

of the certificate and rating the repair 

station holds. The FAA proposes to 

revise this section specifically to require 

repair stations to provide tools and test 

apparatus as already required in 

§ 145.109 of this part. 

Section 145.103 Housing and Facilities 

Paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

requires each certificated repair station 

to provide housing for the facilities, 

equipment, materials, and personnel 

consistent with its ratings. The FAA 

proposes to revise this section to require 

‘‘permanent’’ housing. It has long been 

FAA policy that repair stations, unlike 

other certificate holders, have a 

permanent fixed location from which to 

operate. The proposed rule would not 

prohibit these certificate holders from 

having mobile capabilities. It would, 

however, reinforce the need for repair 

stations to provide adequate assurance 

that work is performed in the best of 

environments and to the best of 

standards. This means protection of 

workers from unfavorable weather 

conditions so that their performance 

and the airworthiness of the articles 

they are maintaining is not adversely 

affected by those weather conditions. 

Repair stations would be required to 

provide suitable housing to protect the 

articles being maintained from 

contamination, foreign object debris, or 

conditions that may promote corrosion 

or other deteriorating conditions. 

Further, the FAA is proposing to add 

new paragraph (d) to allow a repair 

station to use multiple fixed locations in 

performing maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations under its 

repair station certificate if the locations 

are within close proximity to the 

principal base of operations. These 

locations should be able to be reached 

in a reasonable amount of travel time so 

that FAA inspectors could provide the 

same level of surveillance at each fixed 

location. Such fixed locations should be 

located within the same geographic 

boundary of the FAA office with 

oversight responsibility for the repair 

station. Any fixed location outside of 

the geographic boundary of the FAA 

office with oversight responsibilities 

must either be certificated as a satellite 

repair station and meet the requirements 

of § 145.107, or it must obtain its own 

repair station certificate under the 

provisions of § 145.51 and § 145.53. 

Repair stations would be required to 

obtain a certificate for each fixed 

location outside of such boundaries as 

a satellite or stand-alone repair station. 

Section 145.107 Satellite Repair 

Stations 

The FAA proposes to change 

paragraph (a) of this section to clarify 

the requirements for a satellite repair 

station. The FAA also proposes to 

remove the restriction that a satellite 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70263 

repair station may not hold a rating not 

held by the certificated repair station 

with managerial control. The FAA 

would not impose additional 

restrictions on satellite repair stations 

that do not apply to other repair 

stations. 

Additionally, the FAA proposes to 

add a new paragraph stating that a 

satellite repair station may use the same 

repair station and quality system 

manuals as the repair station with 

managerial control. If a satellite repair 

station intends to use these manuals, it 

would have to identify any specific 

processes or procedures unique to the 

satellite repair station in appendices or 

sections of the manuals. 

Finally, the FAA proposes to change 

paragraph (b) to state that inspection 

personnel may be away from the 

premises, but must be readily available. 

This language eliminates the need to 

specify that personnel be available by 

telephone, radio, or other electronic 

means. They would have to be readily 

available regardless of the means of 

communication. 

Section 145.109 Equipment, Tools, 

Test Apparatus, Materials, and Data 

Requirements 

The FAA proposes to amend this 

section to add the word ‘‘tools’’ to the 

heading to make it consistent with the 

requirement currently in the text of the 

section and to meet the agency’s intent. 

The text of existing § 145.109(a) requires 

that each repair station have on the 

premises and under its control the 

equipment, tools, and materials 

necessary to perform the requisite work 

when it is being performed. The 

requirement in this section to have on 

site the equipment and tools ‘‘necessary 

to perform the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations * * *’’ may 

in some instances be more 

comprehensive than the requirement in 

§ 145.51(b) for those items at the time of 

initial certification or rating approval. 

As explained previously in this 

preamble, an applicant for a repair 

station certificate does not have to have 

on site or under contract at the time of 

initial certification or rating approval all 

of the individual hand tools that its 

employees may possess and need when 

they are performing the work of the 

repair station. 

We propose to add test apparatus to 

the list of items that a repair station 

must have on the premises and under its 

control when it is performing work for 

the reasons previously stated in the 

§ 145.51(b) discussion. This would 

remove potential uncertainty 

surrounding whether a necessary piece 

of test apparatus was considered to be 

‘‘equipment’’ or ‘‘tools’’ or neither. In 

addition, including test apparatus 

would be consistent with the 

requirements in 14 CFR § 43.13(a). 

Accordingly, we are revising the section 

heading to include test apparatus. 

Finally, we also propose to amend the 

text of § 145.109(a) for clarification and 

ease of understanding. 

Section 145.151 Personnel 

Requirements 

The FAA proposes to add the 

requirement that repair stations 

designate a chief inspector. Although 

this position was not previously 

required, prior to the 2001 amendments, 

former § 145.43 required each repair 

station to have and maintain a roster 

listing, among other personnel, its 

‘‘inspection personnel, including the 

names of the chief inspector.’’ Many 

repair stations already have or have 

previously had a chief inspector as part 

of their staff. The FAA has received 

numerous requests to add the chief 

inspector requirement to this rule. This 

position is considered a critical function 

and is necessary to ensure the 

airworthiness of the articles a repair 

station maintains. There needs to be a 

technical person with the responsibility 

for regulatory compliance as well as the 

quality control duties. This person may 

be required to make critical decisions or 

countermand an errant finding from a 

quality control inspector. The quality of 

a product is directly related to the safety 

of the product. Part 121 of 14 CFR 

requires air carriers to have a chief 

inspector. This rulemaking will help to 

harmonize parts 121 and 145. 

Section 145.155 Inspection Personnel 

Requirements 

The FAA proposes to amend this 

section to set forth the experience 

requirements for the chief inspector 

position. Specifically, the FAA proposes 

to require the chief inspector of a repair 

station located within the United States 

be certificated under part 65. The FAA 

also proposes to add experience 

requirements for the chief inspector. 

Any person designated as a chief 

inspector for a repair station located 

either within or outside the United 

States must have at least 3 years of 

experience using the various types of 

inspection equipment and techniques 

appropriate for any article to be 

inspected. This includes the procedures, 

practices, inspection methods, materials 

tools, machine tools, and equipment 

generally used in the maintenance and 

alteration of articles for which the repair 

station is rated. 

Currently, before mechanics can 

obtain an inspection authorization, they 

must exercise the privileges of their 

certificate for a minimum of 3 years to 

demonstrate the competency needed to 

make judgment calls necessary to sign 

off on certain aircraft inspections. The 

FAA believes a chief inspector should 

meet similar criteria since the types of 

decisions that a mechanic with an 

inspection authorization and a chief 

inspector make are frequently similar 

and often just as critical. 

The FAA proposes changes to 

§ 145.155(a)(2) to ensure consistency 

with proposed § 145.155(d) by 

specifying that an inspector must be 

proficient in the use of ‘‘inspection 

equipment and techniques’’ rather than 

the more restrictive ‘‘inspection 

equipment and visual inspection aids.’’

Section 145.161 Records of 

Management, Supervisory, and 

Inspection Personnel 

The FAA proposes to amend this 

section to reflect proposed changes to 

§ 145.151 that require repair stations to 

designate a chief inspector. The 

proposed amendment would require 

that repair stations include the name of 

the chief inspector in the roster of 

inspection personnel required in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

In addition, the FAA proposes to 

remove the requirement to include the 

total years of experience in the 

summaries of employment required in 

current paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this 

section. Current paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) 

and (iv) already require past relevant 

employment experience as well as the 

scope of present employment. The 

current separate requirement to 

maintain a record of total years of 

experience of an individual is therefore 

redundant. Additionally, proposed 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii) includes a 

requirement to list past relevant 

employment with ‘‘position, and type of 

maintenance performed.’’ It was 

necessary to include the word 

‘‘position’’ since some management 

personnel may not have performed 

maintenance. 

Section 145.203 Work Performed at 

Another Location 

After redesignating the introductory 

text of the section, the FAA proposes 

adding a new paragraph that would 

require a repair station to obtain 

approval in writing prior to conducting 

any maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations outside of 

its domicile country. The current rule 

authorizing work to be performed at 

another location does not include 

specific provisions for a repair station to 

perform work under its certificate at a 

location outside the geographic borders 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70264 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

of the country where the repair station 

is located or domiciled. The proposal 

would require the repair station to 

obtain authorization to perform the 

work from the country in which the 

work is to be performed. It would also 

require the repair station to submit 

evidence of that authorization and a 

description of the procedures to be used 

to the FAA. 

FAA policy currently allows an 

Aircraft-rated repair station located 

outside the United States that is also an 

operator holding an FAA Letter of 

Authorization per 14 CFR § 129.14, to 

qualify for geographic authorization 

under its Aircraft rating. This 

authorization ensures that U.S.- 

registered aircraft are maintained in 

accordance with a program approved by 

the FAA. The proposal would 

standardize the practice used to permit 

repair stations to perform work outside 

the country in which they are 

domiciled. 

Section 145.205 Maintenance, 

Preventive Maintenance, and 

Alterations Performed for Certificate 

Holders Operating Under Parts 121, 125, 

or 135, or for Foreign Air Carriers or 

Foreign Persons Operating U.S.- 

Registered Aircraft in Common Carriage 

Under Part 129 

The FAA proposes to clarify the 

requirements of the current section. 

Specifically, the FAA would add a 

requirement clarifying that certificated 

repair stations performing maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

for an air carrier or commercial operator 

conducting operations under parts 121 

or 135, a certificate holder conducting 

operations under part 125, or a foreign 

air carrier or foreign person operating 

U.S.-registered aircraft under part 129 

must comply with the applicable parts 

of this chapter. The FAA would also 

add the wording, ‘‘appropriately rated,’’

to § 145.205(d) to ensure that a repair 

station would not perform line 

maintenance on articles that are outside 

the scope of its repair station certificate 

and ratings. 

Section 145.211 Quality System 

The FAA proposes to expand the 

quality control system requirements in 

existing § 145.211 to include elements 

of a more complete quality system for 

repair stations. While the FAA would 

keep the existing quality control 

elements, this proposal would add 

requirements for additional 

management oversight and follow-up. 

The FAA would also add a requirement 

for a repair station to establish an 

internal evaluation program. The FAA 

believes that if repair stations conduct 

periodic internal evaluations of their 

processes and procedures, they could 

discover problem areas and take 

corrective actions before improper 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations are performed. Aviation 

safety would be enhanced accordingly. 

Existing § 145.211 requires a final 

inspection of maintained articles. 

However, if the underlying benchmark 

processes or procedures against which 

the articles are being evaluated are 

flawed, defective articles can be and 

sometimes are approved for return to 

service. Such defective articles installed 

on aircraft have resulted in accidents 

involving damage to or loss of aircraft, 

and personal injuries and loss of life. At 

a minimum, these errors are costly and 

require the parts to be reworked or 

scrapped. 

Under the proposed quality system 

requirements, a repair station would 

conduct internal evaluations of its 

operations and establish a management 

review and follow-up system. These two 

elements represent a significant part of 

the expansion the FAA would require of 

the existing quality control system. 

The addition of an internal evaluation 

requirement would help ensure that 

repair stations’ manuals comply with 

FAA regulations and that their 

operations conform to their manuals. In 

addition, a meaningful internal 

evaluation should identify deficiencies 

and generate an action plan to correct 

the deficiencies. Internal evaluations 

would also provide the information 

required by management to answer the 

following questions: 

• Are our ongoing evaluations 

identifying and eliminating problems? 

• Are our processes effective? 

Management review and follow-up 

evaluations would determine the 

effectiveness of the internal evaluations. 

Management review and follow-up 

enhance the internal evaluation by—

• Analyzing the action plans to 

ensure compliance with regulations and 

good repair station practices; 

• Conducting reviews to determine 

the extent to which the action plans are 

correcting problems identified by ongoing internal evaluations; 

• Reviewing the over-all results of the 

internal evaluations to see if the ongoing evaluations are identifying and 

correcting deficiencies before the 

deficiencies result in product returns. 

Below are two examples of FAA 

programs and procedures designed to 

identify and address problems that can 

occur. The illustrations are intended to 

show how a quality system with active 

management oversight and follow-up 

could prevent or limit the severity of 

these problems brought about in 

maintenance systems. 

The FAA’s system of Airworthiness 

Directives (ADs) is the source of 

examples of defects that could lead to 

unsafe conditions. An AD is issued for 

a particular product when the FAA 

finds that an unsafe condition exists in 

that product and that the same unsafe 

condition is likely to exist or develop in 

other products of the same type design. 

Most ADs are issued to correct a design 

or a maintenance/inspection program 

deficiency. Sometimes, however, they 

are issued to correct an improper repair 

of a product if the improper repair was 

performed, or was likely to have been 

performed, on multiple units of the 

same product. An AD describes the 

unsafe condition and prescribes the 

actions required to correct it. Each AD 

specifies the models of the affected 

product to which it applies. ADs are 

legally enforceable rules. As such they 

are published in the Federal Register as 

amendments to 14 CFR 39.13. Below is 

an example of a corrective action taken 

through the FAA’s AD program. 

In 1998, the FAA issued an AD 

directed at specific reciprocating 

engines with crankshafts that had been 

repaired by a particular repair station. 

The FAA’s data indicated that deficient 

process controls existed at the repair 

station during a particular time period 

causing the improper repairs. The 

improper repairs resulted in heat check 

cracking of the nitrided bearing surfaces 

that led to crankshaft failure due to 

cracking. The AD required inspections 

for potentially affected engines to 

determine applicability, an additional 

inspection and dimensional check of the 

crankshaft journals of the affected 

engines, and, if necessary, rework or 

removal from service of the affected 

crankshafts and replacement with 

serviceable parts. These actions were 

necessary to prevent crankshaft failure 

due to cracking that, in turn, could lead 

to inflight engine failure and a possible 

forced landing. 

The FAA estimated the total cost of 

complying with the AD to be over $3 

million. The FAA estimated that 10,000 

engines would require at least the 

removal of the spinner, at a total cost of 

$600,000, to determine whether an 

unsafe condition existed. The remainder 

of the cost was for the necessary rework 

on the estimated 291 engines that had 

been returned to service with defective 

crankshafts repaired by the repair 

station. 

The FAA found that deficient process 

controls existed at the repair station. If 

a quality system had been in place, the 

internal evaluation could have revealed 

the deficient process controls. The 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70265 

improper repair process could have 

been corrected immediately. The cost 

savings to U.S. operators would have 

been significant, and the FAA also 

could have avoided the costs associated 

with processing the AD. 

Sometimes, as in the examples above, 

parts maintained by a repair station are 

approved for return to service after 

passing a final inspection even though 

they are not airworthy. This could be 

due either to a hidden defect or to a 

faulty inspection procedure. It is 

important to prevent these types of 

situations from developing. Early 

detection and prevention can be 

accomplished with a quality system in 

place at each repair station. Important 

additions to the quality system, as 

proposed in this notice, would include 

requirements that a repair station 

conduct periodic internal evaluations of 

its operations. This internal evaluation 

would ensure that the repair station’s 

manuals and procedures comply with 

applicable regulatory requirements. It 

would also ensure that procedures are 

in place for conducting follow-up 

evaluations to ensure that corrective 

actions bring any deficiencies into 

compliance. The quality system 

requirement would include: 

• A reporting system to record and 

maintain completed evaluations and 

corrective and preventive action plans, 

• A schedule for conducting annual 

quality system evaluations, 

• Corrective action procedures to 

ensure any deficiencies are corrected, 

• Procedures for conducting followup evaluations to ensure corrective 

action(s) bring any deficiencies into 

compliance, 

• Procedures for qualifying, training, 

and authorizing persons to perform 

internal evaluations, and 

• Procedures for revising the internal 

evaluation system as necessary. 

The internal evaluation would 

identify where additional quality 

standards are needed and validate the 

adequacy of existing standards and 

procedures. It also would help ensure 

that the procedures are being followed 

and achieve the desired results. 

Management review and follow-up 

would help ensure that all findings and 

discrepancies found during the internal 

evaluations are corrected in a timely 

manner and that they are effectively 

prevented from recurring. With the 

proposed comprehensive quality 

system, a repair station could 

demonstrate that it is achieving quality 

performance that means fewer errors, 

fewer delays, and improved 

productivity. 

The FAA notes that a repair station 

could divide the internal evaluation into 

sections, provided the entire repair 

station operation is evaluated within the 

applicable interval. For example, if a 

repair station’s quality system requires 

an internal evaluation of its operations 

once every year, the repair station could 

evaluate different divisions of its 

operations separately, provided it 

evaluates its entire operation within the 

1-year timeframe. 

Quality systems with internal 

evaluations and management follow-up, 

such as the FAA is proposing here, have 

benefited manufacturers and service 

organizations that have adopted them. 

While initial costs are associated with 

adopting a quality system, organizations 

have realized long-term benefits. Such 

benefits have been in the form of 

reduced errors and delays that resulted 

in increased productivity. Requiring 

repair stations to adopt the additional 

quality system elements would increase 

their productivity, reduce errors and 

delays, and ultimately reduce the 

number of aircraft accidents and 

incidents. 

As with other regulatory requirements 

in this part, the expanded quality 

system could be tailored to meet the 

needs of individual repair stations. If a 

large complex repair station requires a 

comprehensive quality system including 

full-time auditors and an auditing 

schedule, the proposed requirements 

provide the flexibility for such 

individually-developed systems. If, 

however, a small repair station with few 

ratings or limited capabilities requires 

only internal management review of its 

procedures to verify compliance with 

the regulations, it will have the 

flexibility to do so. Whether an internal 

evaluation is done by a professional 

team or by a repair station manager, the 

goals are the same: to—

• Ensure the repair station’s 

procedures and data comply with 

applicable regulatory requirements, 

• Ensure the procedures are still 

effective and appropriate for the work 

performed, 

• Ensure the procedures are being 

followed, and 

• Verify that the desired level of 

quality is achieved. 

The FAA would further complement 

the proposed quality system by 

including a requirement that all repair 

stations maintain a suspected 

unapproved parts (SUP) program 

acceptable to the FAA. The FAA has a 

program to track SUP. Within the SUP 

program’s parts reporting database, the 

FAA tracks parts that have been 

approved for return to service but that 

were subsequently found not to have 

been maintained in accordance with the 

current manufacturer’s instructions or 

other data approved by the FAA. In a 

search of the SUP program database, the 

FAA found that from October 1998 to 

May 2004, there were 238 cases 

involving repair stations and suspect 

parts. Of those cases, 219 involved parts 

that had not been maintained in 

accordance with the current 

manufacturer’s instructions or other 

data approved by the FAA. Had these 

parts not been found and replaced by 

correctly maintained parts, those 219 

cases of unapproved parts potentially 

could have resulted in accidents or 

incidents. It is likely that the more 

comprehensive quality system proposed 

here could have resulted in finding and 

correcting the underlying deficiencies 

before the parts were approved for 

return to service. Currently there is no 

rule requiring repair stations to 

participate in FAA’s SUP program. 

The FAA’s existing SUP program was 

established in 1993 to coordinate the 

agency’s efforts to minimize safety risks 

posed by the entry of ‘‘unapproved’’

aircraft parts into the U.S. aviation 

inventory and their installation on 

aircraft. The program, established by 

FAA Order 8120.10: (Suspected 

Unapproved Part Program, September 

23, 1993), provides for the reporting and 

investigating of suspected unapproved 

parts. The SUP office was created in 

1995. FAA published guidance for this 

program in AC 21–29, Detecting and 

Reporting Suspected Unapproved Parts. 

As a result, most repair stations already 

maintain a SUP program. FAA proposes 

to formalize this current practice by 

incorporating it into the rule. 

As a matter of practice, the proposed 

additional quality elements are already 

being done by some repair stations. 

Most repair stations have incorporated a 

SUP program in accordance with 

current guidance for part 145 repair 

stations. Repair stations already 

implementing these features would 

incur no new costs. The FAA proposes 

to formalize a number of existing 

practices by making them part of the 

rule. 

Section 145.215 Capability List 

Under the current rule, a certificated 

repair station with a Limited rating may 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on an 

article if the article is listed on its 

current capability list acceptable to the 

FAA or on the repair station’s 

operations specifications. Under the 

provisions of the current rule, use of a 

capability list is optional since repair 

stations can also maintain their 

capabilities on their operations 

specifications. However, the FAA finds 

that a mandatory capability list is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

necessary to maintain safety under the 

system of ratings proposed in this 

notice. The capability list would now be 

referenced on the operations 

specifications under the applicable 

rating. 

The proposed rating system would 

not provide a separation between 

articles, such as large vs. small aircraft, 

or communication vs. navigation 

equipment. In addition, the proposed 

rating system would be more general, 

and new technologies could be 

encompassed under the rating system 

without requiring an amendment to the 

rule. It is imperative to maintain a 

document that identifies the actual 

capabilities of a repair station. To 

accomplish this, all FAA-certificated 

repair stations would be required to 

maintain a capability list. The FAA 

further proposes that capability list 

revisions be available to the FAA within 

30 business days of the revision. 

Further, FAA proposes to redesignate 

paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d) and (e) 

respectively and insert a new paragraph 

(c) to require the capability list for 

Avionics- and Component-rated repair 

stations be organized by category of 

article and identify the manufacturer. 

The inclusion of the manufacturer on 

these capability lists is necessary 

because, unlike the aircraft or 

powerplant manufacturers, there are 

several manufacturers who produce 

similar articles, such as radios, 

integrated electronic units, pumps, and 

actuators. Because the rule requires 

repair stations to use the data, tools, test 

apparatus, and equipment 

recommended by the manufacturer, it is 

easy for these items to differ among 

manufacturers even though the articles 

may be similar in design. Also, since 

repair stations will be performing selfevaluations to add items to their 

capability lists, not identifying the 

different data, tools, test apparatus, and 

equipment among manufacturers could 

make it difficult for a repair station to 

determine if it indeed has the capability 

to maintain articles from various 

manufacturers. 

The FAA would also amend current 

requirements for a repair station to 

perform a self-evaluation by prohibiting 

a repair station with an Aircraft or 

Powerplant rating from performing a 

self evaluation to add a different type of 

aircraft or powerplant to their ratings, 

respectively. The FAA did not intend 

for a repair station to make such a 

change to its ratings through the self 

evaluation process. 

Section 145.217 Contract Maintenance 

The FAA proposes revisions to this 

section to provide clarification of 

contract maintenance. The proposal 

would revise the current rule by 

removing the requirement in current 

paragraph (a)(1) that maintenance 

functions contracted to all outside 

sources be approved by the FAA. Only 

a maintenance function contracted to an 

outside source not certificated under 

part 145 would have to be approved. A 

repair station contracting a maintenance 

function to a repair station certificated 

under part 145 would not have to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

of paragraph (b). 

Section 145.223 FAA Inspections 

Section 145.223 would be revised to 

prohibit a repair station from 

contracting for the performance of a 

maintenance function on an article with 

a non-FAA-certificated maintenance 

provider under the terms of an aviation 

safety agreement unless the contract 

specified that the FAA has the right to 

inspect and observe the performance of 

work. If the article is subject to the 

airworthiness regulations of another 

civil aviation authority the contract 

must specify that the FAA may inspect 

and observe the work on behalf of that 

civil aviation authority. A repair station 

would be prohibited from approving the 

article for return to service after the 

performance of the work unless these 

provisions were met. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information by a Federal agency unless 

the collection displays a valid OMB 

control number. This proposed rule 

contains a ‘‘collection of information’’

as that term is defined by OMB at 5 CFR 

part 1320. As a result, the FAA proposes 

to review the currently approved 

collection of information (OMB Control 

Number: 2120–0682). 

Agency: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

Title: Part 145—Repair Stations. 

Type of Request: Revision of 

Currently Approved Collection of 

Information. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0682. 

Form Number: This collection of 

information will not use any standard 

forms. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Clearance: At present Control Number 

2120–0682 is scheduled to expire on 

February 28, 2009. The FAA does not 

anticipate asking for an extension of this 

collection. 

Summary of the Collection Information 

In the ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’

section of the August 6, 2001 Repair 

Station Final Rule (66 FR 41112), the 

FAA discussed the consequences of its 

proposed collection of information. 

Comments were invited on this 

proposal. As a result of this proposed 

rule, the FAA would amend its 

description of information in the 2001 

final rule as follows. The final rule 

estimated the burden hours for a repair 

station’s quality control manual and 

capability list requirements. The 

paperwork burden in the proposed rule 

was anticipated in the hours estimated 

in the 2001 final rule. This proposed 

rule would require repair stations to 

develop an internal evaluation program 

and a reporting system to record and 

maintain completed evaluations and 

corrective action plans. The FAA 

estimates that a small repair station 

would require 300 man-hours initially 

to establish a quality system. A large 

repair station would require 3 manyears initially. We estimate that the 

burden for developing the quality 

evaluation and reporting program would 

be less than that required to develop the 

entire quality system. Most of the 

paperwork involved is already part of 

the overall quality system. Furthermore, 

there is not requirement that any of the 

quality system reports be submitted to 

the FAA. The reporting and retention of 

evaluation and corrective action plans 

may be recorded and maintained 

electronically or in a format chosen by 

the individual repair station. 

The FAA estimates that the 

administrative burden to repair stations 

to prepare a capability list would 

require 4 hours of maintenance 

management time plus 4 hours of 

administrative support personnel time 

for small repair stations and 

corresponding times of 8 hours for large 

repair stations. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Economic Assessment 

Proposed changes to Federal 

regulations must undergo several 

economic analyses. First, Executive 

Order 12866 directs each Federal agency 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70267 

to 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 requires agencies 

to analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. §§ 2531–2533) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act also requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, use them as the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 

Law 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.) 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this rule (1) would 

create a safer flying environment and is 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f)(4) of Executive 

Order 12866 and is ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures; (2) will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; (3) 

will not affect international trade; and 

(4) does not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

These analyses, available in the docket, 

are summarized below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of This 

Rulemaking 

The estimated quantifiable net cost of 

this proposed rule for the period 2004–

2013 is $144.8 million ($108.8 million, 

discounted) over 10 years. The cost to 

a small repair station that currently does 

not have a quality system is estimated 

at $34,500 ($25,600 discounted) over 10 

years. The cost to the approximately 

half of the small repair stations that 

already have quality systems would be 

minimal. 

This proposal would require repair 

stations to conduct periodic internal 

evaluations that could discover problem 

areas and to take corrective actions 

before improper maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

are done. Such actions would result in 

both quantifiable and non-quantifiable 

benefits. If the rule prevents all the 

accidents or incidents that may be 

associated with repair station failure to 

take corrective actions, the potential 

benefits of the rule (based on the related 

accident or incident history) could be as 

much as $164.7 million ($119.3 million, 

discounted) over 10 years. However, the 

FAA does not claim adoption of the 

proposed rule would result in the 

elimination of all repair station related 

accidents or incidents. 

Who Is Potentially Affected by This 

Rulemaking 

All certificated repair stations would 

have to develop and follow a quality 

system and capability list. The FAA 

would issue new certificates to all repair 

stations to implement the proposed new 

rating system. 

Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

Discount rate—7% 

Period of analysis—2004–2013 

Monetary values expressed in 2003 

dollars 

Value of: 

fatality avoided—$3 million 

serious injury avoided—$580,700 

minor injury avoided—$42,900 

Source: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Aviation 

Policy, Plans, and Management 

Analysis Bulletin dated February 

2002 (APO–02–1) 

Labor rates: 

TABLE 1.—PERSONNEL COST ESTIMATES

[2003 dollars] 

Item Small repair 

station Average Large repair station 

Value of 1 hour of FAA administrative support personnel time (GS–5, Step 5).1 ...................... $19.01 

Value of 1 hour of FAA administrative support personnel time (GS–7, Step 5)1 ....................... 23.55 

Value of 1 hour of FAA inspector personnel time (GS–13, Step 5)1 .......................................... 49.67 

Value of 1 hour of FAA inspector personnel time (GS–14, Step 5)1 .......................................... 58.69 

Value of 1 hour of Repair Station General Manager time 2 ........................................................ $38.96 58.50 90.27 

Value of 1 hour of Repair Station 1st Line Supervisor time 2 ..................................................... 25.56 33.25 42.22 

Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Mechanic and Service Technicians time 2 ............................ 20.25 24.95 30.59 

Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Office Manager time 2 ............................................................ 16.20 21.07 27.50 

Value of 1 hour of Repair Station Accounting Clerk time 2 ......................................................... 15.12 18.93 23.69 

1 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2003 General Schedule Locality Rates of Pay for Washington-Baltimore hourly rate multiplied by 

1.3245 for benefits. Benefit value from Table 4–5 U.S. DOT, FAA Office of Policy and Plans, Economic Analysis of Investment and Regulatory 

Decision—A Guide (FAA–APO–98–4: January 1996). 2 U.S. Dept. of Labor 2001 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates—SIC 372—Aircraft and Parts median 

hourly rate multiplied by 1.2345 for benefits and by 1.0239 for inflation. ‘‘Small’’ and ‘‘Large’’ calculated by multiplying the 25th and 75th percentiles for total occupational title to average SIC 372 salary for that occupation. Benefit value from Table 4–5 FAA–APO–98–4. 

Aircraft Values: 

Aircraft type Cost 

Population weighted replacement cost for Part 91, 133, 

and 137 aircraft ................. $582,030 

Population weighted restoration cost for Part 91, 133, 

and 137 aircraft ................. 148,295 

Aircraft type Cost 

Population weighted replacement cost for Part 135 aircraft ................................... 741,475 

Population weighted restoration cost for Part 135 aircraft ................................... 159,445 

Aircraft type Cost 

Population weighted restoration cost for Scheduled 

Part 121 aircraft ................ 2,453,000 

Note: Cost is based on FAA, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, Economic Values for 

Evaluation of FAA Investment and Regulatory 

Programs (FAA–APO–98–8: June 1998) 

pages E–4, E–5 adjusted to 2003 cost using 

the PPI change of 11.5%. 

Other References: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

ARAC for Air Carrier and General 

Aviation Maintenance: ‘‘A Report 

on requiring a Quality Assurance 

System in Part 145 of title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations’’ May 2002 

ARAC for Air Carrier and General 

Aviation Maintenance: A Report on 

proposed rule changes to Sections 

145.31 and 145.33 of title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations’’ May 2002 

Alternatives We Considered 

New rating systems and a quality 

assurance program had been proposed 

in NPRM No. 99–09. The 2001 Final 

Rule did not include either proposal 

since the FAA received a significant 

number of comments opposing the 

proposals. FAA tasked ARAC to address 

these two issues. ARAC, after reviewing 

various alternatives, sent its technical 

reports and recommendations to FAA. 

The FAA is making this proposal based 

on recommendations from ARAC, and 

comments received from the public. 

Benefits of This Rulemaking 

The additional management oversight 

and follow-up required by this proposed 

rule has potential benefits. These 

potential benefits include fostering an 

operating environment of constant 

awareness of potential sources of failure 

in repair processes and correction of 

deficient process controls. This 

awareness and corrective action could 

preclude in-flight failures and the 

possibility of accidents. 

An analysis of National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

data from July 1997 through June 2003 

indicated there were 1,762 accidents 

coded by the NTSB in the ‘‘narrative’’ or 

‘‘probable cause’’ sections containing 

the word ‘‘maintenance.’’ The FAA 

determined that of these 1,762 

accidents, there were 58 over the sixyear period that can be interpreted to 

mean a repair station accomplished the 

maintenance that may have caused or 

contributed to the accident. These 58 

accidents resulted in a total of 19 

fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and 27 

minor injuries. 43 aircraft sustained 

substantial damage and 15 aircraft were 

destroyed. The average was used to 

estimate the potential values. In total, 

the FAA calculates the potential value 

of preventing all accidents that can be 

interpreted to mean a repair station 

accomplished the maintenance could be 

as high as $146.3 million, or $102.8 

million discounted, over 10 years. 

Preventing Airworthiness Directives 

(ADs) that are issued to correct 

improper maintenance done on aircraft 

parts is another area where a quality 

system would be of benefit. Some ADs 

are issued to correct an improper repair 

of a product if the improper repair was 

performed, or was likely to have been 

performed, on multiple units of the 

same product. The FAA reviewed four 

AD cases attributable to repair station 

related quality problems that may have 

been prevented by a quality system. The 

total estimated cost to U.S. operators of 

these ADs is $18.4 million or $16.5 

million, discounted. More importantly, 

if a quality system had been in place, 

internal evaluations could have revealed 

the deficient process controls. The 

improper repair process could have 

been corrected immediately and 

prevented possible in-flight mechanical 

failures and the resulting consequences. 

The potential discounted quantitative 

benefits of the rule could be as high as 

$119.3 million, if the rule were 100 

percent effective in eliminating 

accidents that can be interpreted to 

mean a repair station accomplished the 

maintenance (at $102.8 million) and 

preventing AD cases attributable to 

repair station related quality problems 

(estimated to cost U.S. operators $16.5 

million). However, it is unreasonable to 

assume the rule would eliminate all 

accidents or incidents that may be 

associated with repair station activity. 

Also, the FAA cannot determine at this 

time what portion of those accidents or 

incidents would be eliminated as a 

result of this rulemaking. Therefore, the 

FAA cannot quantify the benefits of this 

rulemaking. 

There would also be unquantified 

benefits. The proposed rating system 

and capability list would allow repair 

stations to incorporate future 

technological advancements in the 

aviation industry on its capability list as 

provided by § 145.215. Additionally, it 

would provide the FAA with the tools 

necessary for uniform interpretation and 

enforcement of the requirements. 

Experience in other industries has 

shown that the establishment of a 

quality system could lead to cost 

savings and reductions in errors and 

customer complaints. 

Costs of This Rulemaking 

From 2004 to 2013, the total cost of 

the proposed rule would be 

approximately $145.0 million before 

cost-savings of $0.2 million giving a net 

cost of $144.8 million ($108.8 million, 

discounted). The repair station industry 

would incur net costs of $136.6 million 

($101.2 million, discounted) and the 

FAA would incur costs of $8.2 million 

($7.6 million, discounted). The costs 

associated with the quality assurance 

program account for over 90 percent of 

the total costs of the proposed rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

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 Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

In many cases, the Small Business 

Administration suggests that ‘‘small’’

represents the impacted entities based 

on annual revenue. For this proposed 

rule, a small entity is defined as ‘‘Other 

Support Activities for Air 

Transportation’’ (North American 

Industrial Classification System 488190) 

with revenues of $6 million or less. 

Revenue data compiled by Dun and 

Bradstreet indicates that some 2,354- 

repair stations have revenues of $6 

million or less and that the average 

revenue per small entity is $1,272,500. 

The initial cost per small repair station 

to implement the quality system is 

estimated at $8,700 and this cost would 

not be incurred by approximately half of 

the small repair stations that already 

have voluntarily implemented quality 

systems. However, these repair stations 

would incur some additional minimal 

costs to comply with the proposed 

requirement. In addition, a small repair 

station would incur administrative costs 

of $490 to comply with the rating 

system and the capability list 

requirements. The $490 consists of $325 

for rating system costs, and $165 to 

prepare a capability list. The total initial 

cost for a small repair station without a 

quality system is $9,200 ($8,700 + $490) 

or approximately seven-tenths of one 

percent of the average small repair 

station’s annual revenue. The annual 

cost for a small repair station to 

maintain the quality system is estimated 

at $2,900. The FAA does not find the 

costs associated with this proposal to be 

a significant burden. 

The FAA certifies that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The FAA seeks 

public comments regarding this finding 

and requests that all comments be 

accompanied with detailed supporting 

data. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70269 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. 

The proposed rule is not expected to 

affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms 

doing business overseas or for foreign 

firms doing business in the United 

States. Furthermore, the proposed rule 

is consistent with the terms of several 

trade agreements to which the United 

States is a signatory, such as the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 

et seq.), incorporating the Agreement on 

Trade in Civil Aircraft (31 U.S.T. 619) 

and the Agreement on Technical 

Barriers to Trade (Standards) (19 U.S.C. 

2531), as well as the General Agreement 

on Trade in Services (19 U.S.C. 3511). 

The proposed revision to part 145 is 

also consistent with 49 U.S.C. 40415, 

formerly 1102(a) of the Federal Aviation 

Act of 1958, as amended, which 

requires the FAA to exercise and 

perform its powers and duties 

consistently with any obligation 

assumed by the United States in any 

agreement that may be in force between 

the United States and any foreign 

country or countries. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act 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 (adjusted 

annually for inflation) 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 inflationadjusted valued of $120.7 million in 

lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II of the Act, therefore, do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 3132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national 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. 

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 proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(d) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Energy Impact 

The energy impact of the notice has 

been assessed in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. 

We have determined that the proposed 

rule is not a major regulatory action 

under the provisions of the EPCA. 

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 

proposes to amend Part 145 of Chapter 

I of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 145 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. 

2. Revise § 145.51(a) and (b) and add 

new paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 145.51 Application for certificate. 

(a) An application for a repair station 

certificate and rating must be made in 

a format acceptable to the FAA and 

include the following: 

(1) A Letter of Compliance detailing 

how the applicant will comply with this 

chapter; 

(2) A repair station manual acceptable 

to the FAA as required by § 145.207; 

(3) A quality system manual 

acceptable to the FAA as required by 

§ 145.211(d); 

(4) A list by manufacturer, type, make, 

model, or category, as appropriate, of 

each article for which the application is 

made; 

(5) An organizational chart of the 

repair station and the names and titles 

of managing and supervisory personnel; 

(6) A description of the housing and 

facilities, including the physical 

address, in accordance with § 145.103; 

(7) A list of the maintenance 

functions, for approval by the FAA, to 

be performed for the repair station 

under contract by another person in 

accordance with § 145.217; and 

(8) A training program for approval by 

the FAA in accordance with § 145.163. 

(b) The equipment, tools, test 

apparatus, personnel, data, 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, tools, and test apparatus 

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, tools, 

and test apparatus available to the repair 

station at any time it is necessary when 

the relevant work is being performed. 

* * * * * 

(e) Unless otherwise authorized by the 

FAA, neither the holder of a repair 

station certificate that has been revoked, 

nor any person who had a substantial 

ownership interest or substantial control 

over the operations of a repair station 

that has had its certificate revoked and 

who materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing the revocation, 

may apply for a repair station certificate 

until one year after the date the 

certificate is surrendered to the FAA 

pursuant to the order of revocation. 

3. Revise § 145.53 to read as follows: 

§ 145.53 Issuance of certificate. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, a person who meets 

the requirements 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. 

(b) If the person is located in a 

country with which the United States 

has a bilateral aviation safety agreement, 

the FAA may find that the person meets 

the requirements of this part based on 

a certification from the civil aviation 

authority of that country or an authority 

acceptable to the FAA. This certification 

must be made in accordance with 

implementation procedures signed by 

the Administrator or the Administrator’s 

designee. 

(c) An application for a repair station 

certificate may be denied if the FAA 

finds that: 

(1) The applicant does not meet the 

eligibility requirements for the 

certificate sought, or does not complete 

the certification process; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The applicant previously held a 

repair station certificate that was 

revoked; 

(3) The applicant intends to fill or fills 

a key management position, including 

the position of accountable manager or 

chief inspector, with an individual who 

exercised control over or who held the 

same or a similar position with a repair 

station whose certificate was revoked, or 

was in the process of being revoked, and 

that individual materially contributed to 

the circumstances causing the 

revocation or causing the revocation 

process; 

(4) The applicant held a key 

management position, including the 

position of accountable manager or chief 

inspector, with a repair station whose 

certificate was revoked, or was in the 

process of being revoked, and the 

applicant materially contributed to the 

circumstances causing the revocation or 

causing the revocation process; or 

(5) An individual who will have 

control over or substantial ownership 

interest in the applicant had the same or 

similar control or interest in a repair 

station whose certificate was revoked, or 

was in the process of being revoked, and 

that individual materially contributed to 

the circumstances causing revocation or 

causing the revocation process. 

4. Revise § 145.59 to read as follows: 

§ 145.59 Ratings. 

The following ratings are issued 

under this subpart: 

(a) Aircraft rating. (1) A certificated 

repair station with an Aircraft rating 

listed on its operations specifications 

may perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on 

complete aircraft that are listed on the 

repair station’s capability list required 

by § 145.215. 

(2) A certificated repair station with 

an Aircraft rating may not perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on those articles for 

which a Powerplant, Propeller, or 

Avionics rating is required, unless the 

repair station possesses the appropriate 

rating. 

(3) A certificated repair station with 

an Aircraft rating is not required to 

obtain a separate Component rating to 

maintain articles associated with its 

rating and capabilities. 

(b) Powerplant rating. (1) A 

certificated repair station with a 

Powerplant rating listed on its 

operations specifications may perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on a powerplant listed 

on the repair station’s capability list 

required by § 145.215 under the 

following class ratings: 

(i) Class 1: Reciprocating engines. 

(ii) Class 2: Turbine engines. 

(iii) Class 3: Auxiliary Power Units 

(APU). 

(2) A certificated repair station with a 

Powerplant rating may not perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on those articles 

associated with another rating, unless 

the repair station possesses the 

appropriate rating. 

(3) A certificated repair station with a 

Powerplant rating is not required to 

obtain a separate Component rating to 

maintain articles associated with its 

rating and capabilities. 

(c) Propeller rating. (1) A certificated 

repair station with a Propeller rating 

listed on its operations specifications 

may perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on 

propellers that are listed on the repair 

station’s capability list required by 

§ 145.215, including individual 

component parts that are installed on or 

in those propellers. 

(2) A certificated repair station with a 

Propeller rating may not perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on those articles 

associated with another rating, unless 

the repair station possesses the 

appropriate rating. 

(3) A certificated repair station with a 

Propeller rating is not required to obtain 

a separate Component rating to maintain 

articles associated with its rating and 

capabilities. 

(d) Avionics rating. (1) A certificated 

repair station with an Avionics rating 

listed on its operations specifications 

may perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on aircraft 

electrical and electronic systems and 

components, instruments, radios, 

integrated modular systems, in-flight 

entertainment units, or other electrical 

and electronic articles that are listed on 

the repair station’s capability list 

required by § 145.215. 

(2) A certificated repair station with 

an Avionics rating may remove and 

reinstall access panels, brackets, or 

clamps in accordance with the 

applicable maintenance instructions on 

aircraft, powerplants, or propellers, as 

needed, to gain access to those articles 

authorized in § 145.59 (d)(1). 

(3) A certificated repair station with 

an Avionics rating may remove, replace, 

install, and test the avionics equipment 

on an aircraft. 

(4) A certificated repair station with 

an Avionics rating must have a 

limitation in accordance with § 145.61 

to an Aircraft, Powerplant, or Propeller 

rating to perform a major or minor 

alteration. 

(e) Component rating. (1) A 

certificated repair station with a 

Component rating listed on its 

operations specifications may perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations on articles listed on the 

repair station’s capability list required 

by § 145.215 that are not installed on an 

aircraft, powerplant, propeller, or 

avionics article. 

(2) A certificated repair station with a 

Component rating must have a 

limitation in accordance with § 145.61 

to an Aircraft, Powerplant, or Propeller 

rating to remove or install articles on 

those products. 

5. Revise § 145.61 to read as follows: 

§ 145.61 Limitations to ratings. 

(a) The FAA may issue limitations to 

the ratings of a certificated repair station 

that maintains or alters only a particular 

type of aircraft, powerplant, propeller, 

avionics, component, or part thereof, 

that is listed on the repair station’s 

capability list required by § 145.215. A 

limitation to a rating may be issued for 

a: 

(1) Specific make and model aircraft, 

powerplant, or propeller. 

(2) Constituent part of any part. 

(3) Specific maintenance function or 

process. 

(b) The repair station’s operations 

specifications must identify the rating in 

§ 145.59 to which the limitation applies 

and the limitation to that rating must 

describe the maintenance capabilities of 

the repair station in sufficient detail. 

6. Add § 145.63 to read as follows: 

§ 145.63 Specialized Service ratings. 

(a) The FAA may issue a Specialized 

Service rating to a certificated repair 

station that: 

(1) Performs a specialized 

maintenance function that requires 

equipment and skills not ordinarily 

performed under another repair station 

rating; 

(2) Performs a maintenance function 

on articles not covered by its rating; or 

(3) Performs a maintenance function 

that is not described in the 

manufacturer’s data. 

(b) A specialized maintenance 

function must be performed in 

accordance with an FAA-approved 

process specification. 

(c) The repair station’s operations 

specifications must contain the 

specification used to perform the 

specialized service. The specification 

may be: 

(1) A current industry or military 

specification approved by the FAA. 

(2) A specification developed by the 

applicant and approved by the FAA. 

(d) A certificated repair station may, 

under its Specialized Service rating, 

perform only the specialized services 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70271 

that are listed on the repair station’s 

capability list required by § 145.215. 

7. Revise § 145.101 to read as follows: 

§ 145.101 General. 

A certificated repair station must 

provide housing, facilities, equipment, 

tools, materials, and data that meet the 

applicable requirements for the issuance 

of the certificate and any rating the 

repair station holds. 

8. Revise § 145.103(a)(1), (b), and (c) 

and add new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.103 Housing and facilities 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Permanent housing for the 

facilities, equipment, materials, and 

personnel consistent with its ratings. 

* * * * * 

(b) A certificated repair station with 

an Aircraft rating must provide suitable 

permanent housing to enclose the 

largest type and model of aircraft listed 

on its capability list. 

(c) A certificated repair station may 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations on articles 

outside of its permanent housing if it 

provides suitable facilities that are 

acceptable to the FAA and meet the 

requirements of § 145.103(a) and part 43 

of this chapter. 

(d) A certificated repair station may 

apply to use additional fixed locations 

within close proximity to the 

certificated repair station and to each 

other to perform the maintenance, 

preventative maintenance, alterations, 

for which it is rated. 

(1) The repair station’s request must 

be approved by the FAA before 

exercising the privileges of its certificate 

and ratings at each additional fixed 

location. 

(2) Any fixed location outside of the 

geographic boundary of the FAA office 

with oversight responsibility for the 

repair station must either be certificated 

as a satellite repair station and meet the 

requirements of § 145.107, or must 

obtain its own repair station certificate 

under the provisions of § 145.51 and 

§ 145.53. 

9. Revise § 145.107(a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 145.107 Satellite repair stations. 

(a) A certificated repair station under 

the managerial control of another 

certificated repair station may operate as 

a satellite repair station with its own 

certificate issued by the FAA. A satellite 

repair station: 

(1) Must meet the requirements for 

each rating it holds; 

(2) Must submit a repair station 

manual acceptable to the FAA; 

(3) Must submit a quality system 

manual acceptable to the FAA; and 

(4) May submit the same repair station 

and quality system manuals as the 

repair station that exercises managerial 

control over the satellite repair station. 

The manuals must identify any specific 

processes or procedures unique to the 

satellite repair station in appendices or 

additional sections. 

(b) Unless the FAA indicates 

otherwise, personnel and equipment 

from the certificated repair station with 

managerial control and each satellite 

repair station may be shared. However, 

inspection personnel must be 

designated for each satellite repair 

station and be available at the satellite 

repair station any time a determination 

of airworthiness or an approval for 

return to service is made. In other 

circumstances, inspection personnel 

may be away from the premises but 

must be readily available. 

* * * * * 

10. Revise § 145.109, section heading, 

paragraph (a), and paragraph (d) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 145.109 Equipment, tools, test 

apparatus, materials, and data 

requirements. 

(a) Except as otherwise prescribed by 

the FAA, when a repair station is 

performing work under its repair station 

certificate and operations specifications, 

the repair station must have on the 

premises and under its control the 

equipment, tools, test apparatus, and 

materials necessary to perform the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations in accordance with part 

43. 

* * * * * 

(d) A certificated repair station must 

maintain, in a format acceptable to the 

FAA, the documents and data required 

for the performance of maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

under its repair station certificate and 

operations specifications in accordance 

with part 43. The following documents 

and data must be current, available, and 

accessible when the relevant work is 

accomplished: 

* * * * * 

11. Revise § 145.151 to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.151 Personnel requirements. 

Each certificated repair station must: 

(a) Designate a repair station 

employee as the accountable manager; 

(b) Designate a repair station 

employee as the chief inspector; 

(c) Provide qualified personnel to 

plan, supervise, perform, and approve 

for return to service the maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations 

performed under the repair station 

certificate and operations specifications; 

(d) Ensure it has a sufficient number 

of employees with the training, 

knowledge, and experience in the 

performance of maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations authorized 

by the repair station certificate and 

operations specifications to ensure all 

maintenance is performed in accordance 

with part 43; and 

(e) Determine the abilities of its 

noncertified employees performing 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations based on training, 

knowledge, experience, or practical 

tests. 

12. Revise § 145.155 (a)(2) and add 

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.155 Inspection personnel 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) Proficient in using the various 

types of inspection equipment and 

techniques appropriate for the article 

being inspected. 

* * * * * 

(c) The chief inspector of a repair 

station located within the United States 

must be certificated under part 65. 

(d) Personnel designated as chief 

inspectors for certificated repair stations 

within and outside the United States 

must have at least three years 

experience using the various types of 

inspection equipment and techniques 

appropriate for the article being 

inspected. 

13. Revise § 145.161(a)(2) and (a)(4)(i), 

(ii), (iii), and (iv) and remove paragraph 

(a)(4)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 145.161 Records of management, 

supervisory, and inspection personnel. 

(a) * * * 

(2) A roster with the names of all 

inspection personnel, including the 

chief inspector; 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Present title. 

(ii) Past relevant employment with 

names of employers, periods of 

employment, positions, and types of 

maintenance performed. 

(iii) Scope of present employment. 

(iv) The type of mechanic or 

repairman certificate held and the 

ratings on that certificate, if applicable. 

* * * * * 

14. Amend § 145.203 by redesignating 

the introductory text as paragraph (a), 

redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) respectively, 

and adding new paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
70272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

§ 145.203 Work performed at another 

location. 

* * * * * 

(b) A certificated repair station may 

not perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations outside its 

domicile country unless: 

(1) The repair station obtains 

authorization from the country where 

the work is to be performed; 

(2) The repair station submits a 

request to the FAA accompanied by: 

(i) A description of the procedures 

that will be used to ensure that repair 

station personnel adhere to the 

procedures identified in its manual; 

(ii) Evidence of authorization to 

perform the work from the country 

where that work is to be performed. 

(3) The performance of that work has 

been approved in writing by the FAA 

prior to its commencement. 

15. Revise § 145.205(a), (b), (c), and 

(d) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 145.205 Maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations performed for 

certificate holders operating under parts 

121, 125, or 135, or for foreign air carriers 

or foreign persons operating U.S.- 

registered aircraft in common carriage 

under part 129. 

(a) A certificated repair station that 

performs maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations for an air 

carrier or commercial operator that has 

a continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program under part 121 or part 135 

must comply with the applicable parts 

of this chapter and follow the air carrier 

or commercial operator’s program and 

applicable sections of its maintenance 

manual. 

(b) A certificated repair station that 

performs inspections for a certificate 

holder conducting operations under part 

125 must comply with the applicable 

parts of this chapter and follow the 

operator’s FAA-approved inspection 

program. 

(c) A certificated repair station that 

performs maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations for a foreign 

air carrier or foreign person operating a 

U.S.-registered aircraft under part 129 

must comply with the applicable parts 

of this chapter and follow the operator’s 

FAA-approved maintenance program. 

(d) Notwithstanding the housing 

requirement of § 145.103(b), the FAA 

may grant approval for an appropriatelyrated repair station to perform line 

maintenance for an air carrier or 

commercial operator conducting 

operations under part 121 or part 135, 

or a foreign air carrier or foreign person 

operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in 

common carriage under part 129, on any 

aircraft operated by that air carrier, 

commercial operator, or person, 

provided: 

* * * * * 

16. Revise § 145.211 to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.211 Quality system. 

(a) A certificated repair station must 

establish and maintain a quality system 

acceptable to the FAA that ensures—

(1) The maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations performed 

by the repair station and its contractors 

result in articles that are airworthy with 

respect to the work performed—

(2) The repair station’s procedures are 

complied with and are appropriate for 

the ratings it holds and the complexity 

and scope of the maintenance 

accomplished; and 

(3) The repair station remains in 

compliance with the applicable 

regulations of this chapter. 

(b) The quality system must include 

the following elements: 

(1) An inspection system and 

procedures for’

(i) Inspecting incoming raw materials 

and articles to ensure acceptable 

quality; 

(ii) Performing preliminary inspection 

of all articles that are maintained; 

(iii) Inspecting all articles that have 

been involved in an accident or incident 

for hidden damage before maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alteration is 

performed; and 

(iv) Performing final inspection and 

approval for return to service of 

maintained articles. 

(2) An internal evaluation program to 

ensure the repair station’s manuals and 

procedures comply with the 

requirements of this part. 

(3) A reporting system to record and 

maintain completed evaluations and 

corrective action plans. 

(4) A schedule for conducting annual 

quality system evaluations. 

(5) A corrective action procedure to 

ensure any deficiencies are corrected. 

(6) Procedures for conducting followup evaluations to ensure corrective 

action(s) bring any deficiencies into 

compliance. 

(7) Procedures for qualifying, training, 

and authorizing persons to perform 

quality system internal evaluations. 

(8) Procedures for revising the repair 

station’s internal evaluation system as 

its ratings or capabilities change and for 

notifying the FAA certificate holding 

district office of revisions to its quality 

system. 

(9) Procedures for establishing and 

maintaining proficiency of inspection 

personnel. 

(10) Procedures for establishing and 

maintaining current data for 

maintaining articles. 

(11) Procedures for establishing and 

maintaining a suspected unapproved 

parts program. 

(12) Procedures for qualifying and 

surveilling noncertificated persons who 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alterations for the 

repair station. 

(13) Procedures for calibrating 

measuring and test equipment used in 

maintaining articles, including the 

intervals at which the equipment will be 

calibrated. 

(c) A certificated repair station must 

make its quality system evaluations and 

its corrective action plans available for 

inspection by the FAA. 

(d) A certificated repair station must 

prepare and keep current a quality 

system manual in a format acceptable to 

the FAA that includes the following: 

(1) A description of the elements 

defined in § 145.211(b). 

(2) References, where applicable, to 

the manufacturer’s or other applicable 

inspection standards for a particular 

article, including reference to any data 

specified in those standards. 

(3) A sample of the inspection and 

maintenance forms and instructions for 

completing such forms or a reference to 

a separate forms manual. 

(4) Procedures for revising the quality 

system manual required under this 

section. 

(5) Procedures for notifying its 

certificate holding district office of 

revisions to its quality system manual. 

(e) Repair station personnel must 

follow the quality system manual when 

performing maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations under the 

repair station certificate and operations 

specifications. 

17. Revise § 145.215 to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.215 Capability list. 

(a) Each certificated repair station 

must establish and maintain a capability 

list acceptable to the FAA that includes 

all the articles for which it is rated to 

perform maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations. 

(b) The capability list for each 

certificated repair station must identify 

each article by manufacturer and the 

type, make, model, category, or other 

nomenclature designated by the article’s 

manufacturer and be available in a 

format acceptable to the FAA. 

(c) The capability list for a certificated 

repair station with an Avionics or 

Component rating must also be 

organized by category of article. 

(d) An article may be listed on the 

capability list only if the article is 

within the scope of the ratings of the 

repair station’s certificate, and only after 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 70273 

the repair station has performed a selfevaluation in accordance with the 

procedures described in its repair 

station manual. 

(1) The repair station must perform 

this self-evaluation to determine that the 

repair station has the housing, facilities, 

equipment, tools, test apparatus, 

material, data, processes, and trained 

personnel in place to perform the work 

on the article in accordance with part 

145. 

(i) A repair station with an aircraft 

rating may not perform a self-evaluation 

to add a different type of aircraft to its 

Aircraft rating. 

(ii) A repair station with a Powerplant 

rating may not perform a self-evaluation 

to add a different class powerplant to its 

Powerplant rating. 

(2) The repair station must retain the 

documentation of the self-evaluation 

and ensure that completed selfevaluations are available to the FAA. 

(e) Within 30 business days of listing 

an additional article on its capability 

list, the repair station must provide its 

FAA certificate holding district office 

with a copy of the revised capability list 

in accordance with the procedures 

described in its repair station manual. 

18. Revise § 145.217(a) and (b) and 

add new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 145.217 Contract maintenance. 

(a) A certificated repair station may 

contract a maintenance function 

pertaining to an article to an outside 

source provided the repair station 

maintains and makes available to its 

certificate holding district office, in a 

format acceptable to the FAA: 

(1) The maintenance functions 

contracted to each outside facility; and 

(2) The name of each outside facility 

to which the repair station contracts 

maintenance functions and the type of 

certificate and ratings, if any, held by 

each facility. 

(b) A certificated repair station may 

contract a maintenance function 

pertaining to an article to a person not 

certificated under part 145 provided: 

(1) The FAA approves the 

maintenance function; 

(2) The noncertificated person follows 

a quality system equivalent to the 

system followed by the certificated 

repair station; 

(3) The certificated repair station 

remains directly in charge of the 

maintenance performed by the 

noncertificated person; and 

(4) The certificated repair station 

verifies, by test and/or inspection, that 

the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, and alterations have been 

performed satisfactorily by the 

noncertificated person and that the 

article is airworthy before approving it 

for return to service. 

* * * * * 

(d) A certificated repair station may 

not contract any maintenance functions 

for which it is not rated to a 

noncertificated person. 

19. Amend § 145.223 by revising 

paragraph (c) and adding new paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 145.223 FAA inspections. 

* * * * * 

(c) A certificated repair station may 

not contract for the performance of a 

maintenance function on an article with 

a noncertificated person when the 

maintenance function is to be performed 

under the terms of an aviation safety 

agreement and the article is subject to 

the airworthiness regulation of another 

civil aviation authority unless the 

contract with the noncertificated person 

specifies that the FAA may inspect and 

observe the performance of the work on 

behalf of that civil aviation authority. 

(d) A certificated repair station may 

not approve any article for return to 

service on which a maintenance 

function was performed by a 

noncertificated person if the 

noncertificated person does not permit 

the FAA to inspect and observe the 

performance of the work as described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

Issued in Washington, DC on November 27, 

2006. 

James Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–9479 Filed 11–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2