January 9, 2015

Submitted per 14 CFR section 11.63(a)(1) to: http://www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590-0001

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)1 part 11,2 the undersigned 

respectfully petitions for an amendment to 14 CFR part 145. We urge the change be 

issued as a direct final rule.

The undersigned represent the aviation industry; many of the principal members of each 

are entities certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Title 14 CFR 

part 145. As such, their members are directly and significantly impacted by the current 

rule and this petition. While repair stations are the only certificate holders directly

impacted, disparate treatment creates uncertainty for all certificate holders.

Proposed Action and Purpose3

To petition the agency to remove the words “and the FAA accepts it for cancellation,” 

from sections 145.55(a) and (b); the phrase was unnecessarily added by a final rule 

effective November 10, 2014.

4

The repair stations’ ability to voluntarily surrender a certificate without positive action 

from the agency must be restored. The requirement that the agency accept the 

“surrender”5 of a certificate lacks necessity and reasonableness and is not needed to 

achieve the agency’s stated safety objective. Further, there is no nexus between it and 

the safety objective, a fact supported by the reality that the requirement for acceptance

is not applied to any other certificate holder; even those that must achieve the highest 

degree of safety, i.e., air carriers.6

As a result the requirement to await the agency’s acceptance of repair stations’ 

surrendered certificates—

1 All regulatory references are to 14 CFR unless otherwise indicated.

2 See §§ 11.61(a), 11.63(a)(2), and 11.71. 3 See § 11.71(a)(2). 4 See 79 Fed. Reg. 46971. 5 Commonly defined as “to give the control or use of (something) to someone else.” 6 See 49 U.S.C. § 44702(b)(1)(A). 

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 2 of 8

• Does not comport with DOT Order 2100.5,7 as it is unnecessarily overbroad and 

needlessly diverts scarce agency resources; 

• Is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);and 

• Exceeds the statutory grant of authority under the Federal Aviation Act.

Proposed Language for Amended Rule8

Restore § 145.55(a) and (b) to:

(a) A certificate or rating issued to a repair station located in the United States is 

effective from the date of issue until the repair station surrenders it or the FAA 

suspends or revokes it.

(b) A certificate or rating issued to a repair station located outside the United States is 

effective from the date of issue until the last day of the 12th month after the date of 

issue unless the repair station surrenders the certificate or the FAA suspends or 

revokes it. The FAA may renew the certificate or rating for 24 months if the repair 

station has operated in compliance with the applicable requirements of part 145 

within the preceding certificate duration period.

The Proposed Action is in the Public Interest9

The ability for a repair station to immediately surrender its certificate serves the public 

interest for both safety and economic reasons.

Any threat to air safety is automatically removed when a repair station certificate is 

voluntarily surrendered without any required action by the agency. Whenever a

certificate holder is no longer able or willing to meet the safety requirements set forth in 

part 145, it must be allowed to immediately cease operations in the most efficient and 

effective manner. Requiring an affirmative agency action creates an unnecessary delay 

in eliminating the safety threat. The immediate cessation of work on civil aviation articles 

is the agency’s foremost aim, particularly when individuals working for the repair station 

are in fact “bad actors.”

7 See “Policies and Procedures for Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations,” Department of 

Transportation, Order 2100.5. (Hereinafter “DOT Order 2100.5”). 8 See § 11.71(a)(3). 9 See § 11.71(a)(4).

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 3 of 8

Uncertainty in when, how and why the agency may accept or reject the voluntary 

cessation of work creates logistical, administrative, and financial burdens on the 

agency, the industry and the public. Namely:

• Logistically, the vast majority of repair station certificates are surrendered in the 

normal course of business with no associated misbehavior on the part of the repair 

station or any individuals. Adding a delay in the process punishes thousands of 

repair stations without any added safety benefit.10

• The unnecessary administrative burden on the FAA’s workforce requiring a positive 

action in a timely manner is contrary to efficiency and effectiveness.

• The business costs associated with awaiting uncertain and unnecessary agency 

action are potentially substantial. The sale of assets and cessation of a business 

entity is a delicate operation. When a business wishes to cease operations and/or

sell its assets, there must be certainty regarding the surrender (or amendment) of 

the repair station certificate. Financial institutions are extremely paranoid of potential 

government issues and would demand assurance that there was no pending 

investigation before monetary support would be forthcoming. That fact can only be 

confirmed or denied by the government, which it is reluctant to provide. Without 

certainty in the surrender process, the cost of business would increase.

The public interest in safety and economic efficiency justifies ARSA’s petition.

Information, Arguments,

11 Facts, and Circumstances12

Rulemaking justification insufficiency

The provision of the final rule removing repair stations’ ability to surrender a certificate 

stems from two National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations

suggesting that:

• FAA “[i]ssue a regulation [...] so the FAA can prevent individuals who have been 

associated with a previously revoked repair station from continuing to operate 

through a new repair station.”13 and

10 With the thousands of repair station certificates issued, amended, revoked and surrendered, the final 

rule was justified by only one example of “bad actors.” (See NTSB Safety Recommendations A-04-01 and 

A-04-02). By simple logic, the overwhelming majority of transactions do not warrant special treatment by 

the agency.

11 See § 11.71(a)(5). 12 See § 11.71(a)(6). 13 See NTSB recommendation A-04-01 (Feb. 9, 2004).

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 4 of 8

• In circumstances where allegations can provide grounds for revocation of an air 

carrier, operating, or repair station certificate, and the certificate is surrendered prior 

to the completion of the enforcement investigation, “the FAA should nonetheless 

complete the investigation to the extent necessary to document all available facts 

relating to the fitness of the involved individuals”

14 (Emphasis added).

FAA responded to the first recommendation by adding § 145.51(e) to the “Repair 

Stations” final rule.

15 This new section mimics the agency’s denial authority over air 

carriers and commercial operators.16

In response to the second recommendation, the FAA altered the language of § 145.55 

to include the phrase “and the FAA accepts it for cancellation.” Unlike any other 

certificate holder, this language removed the ability of a repair station to surrender its 

certificate without agency approval and affirmative action. This change ignores the 

longstanding practice urging surrender of certificates that are in the process of being 

revoked to prevent further potential unsafe practices.

No equivalent requirement for acceptance of surrender was implemented for mechanic, 

pilot, other air agency, air carrier or operator certificates.

17 In those cases, the FAA 

recognized that its ability to continue a safety investigation and issue a final order 

against “bad actors” was unaffected by the surrender of the certificate.

The requirement lacks a rational connection to the facts

While NTSB safety recommendations are required to be taken into consideration by the 

Secretary of Transportation,18 the FAA is bound to act under its congressionally 

delegated authority,

19 and must make decisions that are rationally related to the facts.20

14 See NTSB recommendation A-04-02 (Feb. 9, 2004). 15 See 79 Fed. Reg. 46971. 16 See § 119.39. 17 See §§ 61.27, 63.15, 65.15, and 119.61. 18 See 49 U.S.C. § 1135

19 While 49 U.S.C. §§ 44702 and 44709 give the Administrator the power to issue, amend, modify, 

suspend or revoke certificates. Congress provided no authority to deny a surrender. All authorized actions 

are subject to the standards of the statutes, and to due process protections; not so with the denial of a 

surrender. Denying surrender simply exceeds the statutory grant of authority. 20 Courts find agency actions arbitrary where the government has made a “clear error of judgment,” 

(Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)), where it did not “articulate any 

rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” (Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United 

States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)), and where it “offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter 

to the evidence before the agency.” (Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 

Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 5 of 8

The agency’s stated authority, and claimed justification for the rule is air safety.21 Thus 

the rule should bear a rational connection to furthering the interest of safety. Yet the 

requirement for affirmative agency acceptance of a surrendered certificate runs counter 

to that purpose. Where there are in fact “bad actors,” the agency’s aim is the immediate 

cessation of work on civil aviation articles.22 By requiring the agency to accept

surrender, the certificate remains effective longer, and work (or operations) may 

continue to potentially jeopardize safety.

FAA’s explanation in the preamble to the final rule that this new provision “will prevent a 

repair station under investigation from attempting to circumvent a possible enforcement 

action,”23 conflates the bad actors with the corporation. The language of § 145.51(e) 

specifically allows for denial of a repair station certificate where key positions will be 

filled with individuals who materially contributed to the circumstances where a repair 

station certificate is “revoked, or is in the process of being revoked.”24 (Emphasis 

added).

The lack of a certificate does not change the fact that it was “in the process of being 

revoked,” and that any individual bad actor can and should still face appropriate legal

action. The absence of a requirement that air carriers or any other certificate holders 

await the agency’s acceptance of a surrender highlights that very concept.

Most importantly, individuals are entirely separate from a repair station or an “applicant.”

That fact is reinforced by the amendment to part 13 allowing individual bad actors to 

participate in an informal conference with an FAA attorney prior to the FAA issuing an 

order against that person.

25

Thus, eliminating the voluntary surrender only for repair station certificate holders bears 

no rational connection to the aim of ensuring aviation safety through the investigation

and banishment of individual bad actors.

21 See Title 49, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, sections 44701 and 44707 (79 Fed. Reg. 

46971).

22 With notices of proposed certificate action the FAA provides an option to immediately surrender the 

document in lieu of pursuing an appeal; it is inconsistent with that option to refuse the same action at the 

advent of the legal enforcement process. (See, e.g. “Information with Respect to Notice of Proposed 

Certificate Action,” Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region, available at

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/operations/regional/ASO/links/view/nopca.p

df). 23 See 79 Fed. Reg. 46973. 24 See 79 Fed. Reg. 46984. 25 See 79 Fed. Reg. 46964.

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 6 of 8

Lack of necessity, clarity, and reasonableness

Further supporting the fact that the rule is not rationally related to the agency’s aims, it 

fails to satisfy the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) own rulemaking directives. 

The DOT order on regulatory policies and procedures26 commands that the FAA pursue 

several objectives when engaging in rulemaking, including consideration of the 

necessity and reasonableness of a proposed rule.

27

The requirement to await the agency’s acceptance of a repair station certificate is 

neither necessary28, nor reasonable29 by the standards set forth in the DOT order, nor 

does it provide the clarity to regulated parties required by due process. 30

The requirement that the agency affirmatively accept only a repair station’s certificate 

surrender clearly imposes an unfair, unequal and unnecessary burden on the industry 

and agency, and does not solve any articulated or articulable problem. The expressed 

problem of removing bad actors from the repair station industry is accomplished by the 

agency’s changes to section 145.51(e) and part 13.

The regulation is neither a feasible nor effective means for “producing the desired 

results.”31 Identifying bad actors and preventing them from controlling repair stations in 

the future should be accomplished in the most limited manner. In this case it should 

mirror the agency’s requirements for all other certificates.

Justification for direct final rule

Direct final rulemaking is recommended where the “unnecessary” prong of the APA 

good cause exemption32 is available.33

26 DOT Order 2100.5.

27 Id. at p. 4. 28 For necessity see DOT Order 2100.5, p. 4. 29 For reasonableness see Ibid. 30 The void for vagueness doctrine “addresses at least two connected but discrete due process concerns: 

first, that regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, 

precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or 

discriminatory way. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108–109 (1972).” (FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, Inc., slip. op., 567 U.S. __ (2012)). 31 DOT Order 2100.5, p. 4. 32 See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B). 33 See Recommendation 95-4, Procedures for Noncontroversial and Expedited Rulemaking, 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES (adopted June 15, 1995).

 
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 7 of 8

Here, good cause exists; reverting the regulatory language back to its previous form, 

allowing for voluntary surrender of repair station certificates, is both rational and 

uncontroversial, and is unlikely to receive adverse comment.

Conclusion

To prevent unnecessary actions and reactions, align its practices with DOT rulemaking 

directives, and comply with the APA, ARSA requests FAA accept this petition and issue 

a direct final rule removing the words “and the FAA accepts it for cancellation,” from

§ 145.55(a) and (b).

Prepared by:

Laura Vlieg

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Aeronautical Repair Station Association 

121 North Henry Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-2905

(703) 739-9543

laura.vlieg@arsa.org

Submitted by:

Marshall S. Filler

General Counsel

Aeronautical Repair Station Association

121 North Henry Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-2905

(703) 739-9543

marshall.filler@arsa.org

Ali Bahrami

Vice President, Civil Aviation

Aerospace Industries Association

1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Arlington, VA 22209-3928

(703) 358-1080

ali.bahrami@aia-aerospace.org 

Ric Peri

Vice President 

Government & Industry Affairs

Aircraft Electronics Association

601 Pennsylvania Ave

Suite 900, South Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20004-3647

(202) 589-1144

ricp@aea.net

Michele Dickstein

President

Aviation Suppliers Association

2233 Wisconsin Ave, NW Suite 503

Washington, DC 20007-4104

(202) 347-6896

michele@aviationsuppliers.org
January 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

RE: Petition for Rulemaking on 14 CFR section 145.55

Direct Final Rule

Page 8 of 8

Walter Desrosier

Vice President

Engineering & Maintenance

General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association

1400 K Street NW, Suite 801

Washington, DC 20005-2402

(202) 393-1500

wdesrosier@gama.aero

Harold L. Summers

Director of Flight Operations & 

Technical Services

Helicopter Association International

1920 Ballenger Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22314-2898

(703) 683-4646

harold.summers@rotor.org

Jason Dickstein

President

Modification and Replacement Parts 

Association

2233 Wisconsin Ave, NW Suite 503

Washington, DC 20007-4124

(202) 628-6777

jason@washingtonaviation.com 

George Paul

Director of Technical Services

National Air Carrier Association

1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Arlington, VA 22209-3928

(703) 358-8063

gpaul@naca.cc

John McGraw

Director, Regulatory Affairs

National Air Transportation Association

818 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20006-2733

(202) 774-1535

jmcgraw@nata.aero

Stacey Bechdolt

Sr. Director, Safety & Technical Affairs

Regulatory Counsel

Regional Airline Association

2025 M St NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036-3309

(202) 367-1170

bechdolt@raa.org

cc: Steve Douglas, Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division

steven.w.douglas@faa.gov

Patty Williams, Manager, Air Carrier Branch

patricia.k.williams@faa.gov