August 31, 2015

Submitted per 14 CFR § 11.101 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 Reconsideration

Docket No. FAA-2015-0042-0001

To Whom It May Concern:

As provided 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 reinstate 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 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.

 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

This petition for reconsideration must be granted because the FAA “did not correctly 

interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.”3 Specifically, the agency incorrectly 

interpreted the Federal Aviation Act4 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 rulemaking6 allows the 

agency to promulgate rules—in the interest of safety—for inspecting, servicing, and 

overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, 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 surrendered certificate. This requirement does 

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

once a business determines 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 relevant.

While Congress explicitly gave the FAA authority to issue,7 modify, amend, and revoke8

certificates, no statute gives 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 omissions 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 activity 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 acceptance 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 promulgate 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 merely

wastes 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 no equivalent requirement for the 

agency to accept voluntarily surrendered certificates from mechanics, pilots, air carriers, 

other air agencies, design and production certificate holders, or individual operators.

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 judgment”); 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, 2015). 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 investigative 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. Bad policy cannot justify bad rulemaking: agency issuance of policy, 

in the form of an interpretive 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 justification.

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.cc
August 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