August 31, 2015

Submitted per 14 CFR § 11.101 to: http://www.regulations.gov

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations

West Buil ding Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

- 0001

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

To Whom It May Concern:

As provide d by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (“ 14 CFR ”) part 11, 1 the undersigned associations (collectively, the “ Petitioners ” ) respectfully request the Federal Aviation Administration ( “ FAA ” ) to reconsider the July 1, 2015 denial of Petitioners’ petition for rulemaking (the “Petition”). 2 We again urge the agency to re instate a repair station’s ability to voluntarily surrender its certificate unilaterally and to do so by issuing

a direct and final rule to that effect

.

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

association are entities certificated by the FAA under Title 14 CFR part 145 . As such,

our members are directly and significantly impacted by the current rule. While repair stations are the only certificate holders directly impacted, disparate treatment creates uncertainty for all certificate holders.

Petitioners request the agency remove the words “and the FAA accepts it for

cancellation” from the current rule and restore 14 CFR § 145.55 to read as follows :

(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 S tates 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.

1 See 14 CFR §§ 11.61(a)

, 11.63(a)(2)

, 11.71

, 11.101

. 2 ARSA Petition for Rulemaking

, FAA Docket No. 2015

- 0042

- 0001 (Jan. 9, 2015).August 31, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations Page 2 of 6

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

Basis for Reconsideration

T his petition for reconsideration must be granted because the FAA “did no t correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.” 3 Specifically, the agency incorrect ly interpreted the Federal Aviation Act 4 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

. 5

Beyond misinterpretation , the FAA’s denial of the Petition failed to address those

statutes entirely.

Statutory Authority

The authority cited by the FAA in the preamble to the underlying rulemaking 6 allow s the agency to promulgate rules

— in the interest of safety

— f or inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft

, aircraft engine s, propellers, and appliances , and to “examine and rate” air agencies, including repair stations. The agency exceeded its authority by requiring the acceptance of a voluntarily surrender ed certificate

. T his requirement does

not further safety interests or relate to the FAA’s oversight of an air agency . Indeed,

once a business de termines it no longer wishes to operate as a repair station and

surrenders its certificate , it ceases to be an air agency , and thus the FAA’s authority to examine it is no longer rel evant

.

While Congre ss explicitly gave the FAA authority to issue, 7 modify, amend, and revoke 8

certificates, no statute give s the agency the authority to prohibit a certificate holder from voluntarily surrendering its certificate unless the FAA accepts the surrender . It is a canon of statutory construction that the express inclusion of specific items excludes all

others : if Congress intended the agency to have the power to reject a surrendered

certificate , it would have expressly included that authority

. 9

3 14 CFR § 11.101

4 49 U.S.C § 1301 et seq

. 5 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq

. 6 Repair Stations, 79 Fed. Reg. 46971 (Aug. 12, 2014) (citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 44701

, 44707 )

. 7 49 U.S.C. § 44702.

8 49 U.S.C. § 44709.

9 See, e.g. Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. , 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius as applied to statutory interpretation creates a presumption that when a statute designates certain persons, things, or manners of operation, all omi ssions should be understood as exclusions.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).August 31, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations Page 3 of 6

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

APA Deficiencies

The revisions to § 145.55 were arbitrary and capricious. 10 The APA requires that rulemaking activit y bear a rational connection to the facts before the agency. 11 The FAA states in the preamble to the rule, and in its denial of the Petition

, that the rationale for requiring affirmative agency accept ance of a surrendered certificate is to “establish a record of the repair station’s violation history

. ” 12

If the repair station no longer exists because the business that held the certificate does

not operate as a repair station , and it no longer exercises the privileges the certificate affords, a record of its regulatory violations is unnecessary

. As discussed above, the agency’s congressionally delegated authority allows it to promulg ate rules in the

interests of aviation safety. Yet the safety implications of a surrendered certificate

versus one that is revoked are the same

— the business may no longer “ repair, alter, and maintain aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances .” 13

The agency fails to articulate any appreciable reason that a record of a repair station’s violation history is necessary. Moreover, there is no safety benefit to requiring affirmative agency acceptance of every surrendered repair station certificate; it me rely

waste s already scarce FAA resources and creates an unnecessary administrative

burden.

Furthermore, the FAA has ample recourse to pursue the individuals ( i.e. , bad actors) who violated any regulations, or who are criminally liable for any wrongdoing. 14 Thus,

there is no justifiable reason that the agency needs to “accept” a surrendered certificate.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that there is n o equivalent requirement for the agency to accept voluntarily surrendered certificates from mechanic s , pilot s

, air carriers,

other air agencies

, design and production certificate holders, or individual operator s

. 15

10 See, e.g. Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

, 401 U.S 402, 416 (1971) (finding arbitrariness where the government has made a “clear error of judgmen t”); Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United

States

, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962) (holding the agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”); and Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S.

, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co

. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (finding arbitrariness where the agency “ offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” ).

11 Id.

12 FAA Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042, p. 2 (July 1, 201 5).

13 49 U.S.C. § 44707

. 14 See 14 C.F.R. part 13

. 15 See §§ 61.27

, 63.15

, 65.15

, 119.61

.August 31, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations Page 4 of 6

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

The agency’s denial of the Petition states “[t]he new surrender requirement codifies existing FAA policy” ; 16 however , this is inaccurate

. Requiring each repair station wishing to surrender its certificate to await affirmative acceptance is far more cumbersome than enabling investigati ve personnel to incorrectly and without authority refuse a voluntary

surrender based upon evidence that “the surrender is being attempted to avoid

certificate action.” 17

For the same reasons discussed above, the referenced policy also exceeds the FAA ’s statutory authority . B ad policy can not justify bad rulemaking: agency issuance of policy,

in the form of an int erpretive rule, is not required to undergo notice and comment, and

cannot

, and does not

, have the “force and effect of law.” 18 Thus

, the agency cannot

circumvent the APA ’s standards for legislative rulemaking by using an interpretive rule as its justificati on.

Conclusion

The underlying rulemaking exceeds the FAA’s statutory authority and violates the APA.

The FAA’s denial of the Petition misinterpreted those laws and therefore this petition for reconsideration should be granted.

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

16 FAA Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, FAA

- 2015

- 0042, p. 2 (July 1, 2015) (citing 79 Fed. Reg. 46973).

17 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 5, ¶ 10(b).

18 Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital , 514 U. S. 87, 99 (1995).August 31, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations Page 5 of 6

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

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

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.ccAugust 31, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations Page 6 of 6

RE: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0042

- 0001

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

cc: Timothy Shaver , Manager (Acting) , Aircraft Maintenance Division timothy.shaver @faa.gov

Patty Williams, Manager, Air Carrier Branch patricia.k.williams@faa.gov

John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service john.s.duncan@faa.gov