Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/13/2012-27433/air-carrier-contract-maintenance-requirements
Timestamp: 2015-05-25 03:12:39
Document Index: 265103866

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 121', 'art 135', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 135', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 121', '§ 121', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 121', 'art 135']

-67593 (10 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-27433 Related Topics
Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements 5 actions from November 13th, 2012 to January 2015
The proposed amendments would apply to certificate holders who conduct either domestic, flag, or supplemental operations under 14 CFR part 121, and who conduct either commuter operations or on-demand operations with aircraft type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more
under 14 CFR part 135, if they contract any of their maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration work to an outside source. The amendments would require that each certificate holder who contracts for such work must first have developed policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the accomplishment of that work. These must ensure that, if they are followed, the work will be performed in accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance program and maintenance manual. Each certificate holder would also be required to ensure that its system for the continuing analysis and surveillance of that work contains procedures for its oversight. All of these policies, procedures, methods, and instructions would have to be acceptable to the FAA and be included in the certificate holder's maintenance manual. In addition, each certificate holder who contracts any of its maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration work to an outside source would be required to provide to its local FAA Certificate Holding District Office a list that includes the name and address of each maintenance provider it uses and a description of the type of maintenance that would be performed.
The requirement that any person performing maintenance for an air carrier must follow the carrier's maintenance program is not new—FAA regulations have long required this. For example, § 121.363(b) authorizes a certificate holder to arrange with another person to perform its maintenance,
and the regulation makes clear that doing so does not relieve the carrier from remaining primarily responsible for the airworthiness of its aircraft. Further, § 121.367(a) requires specifically that maintenance performed by either a certificate holder, or by another person, must be performed in accordance with the certificate holder's manual. Similar provisions are found in §§ 135.413 and 135.425. Despite those general requirements, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG) had noted lapses in the means to ensure air carrier manuals are followed when contracted maintenance is performed. The deficiencies noted include a lack of guidance and training for the maintenance providers, and insufficient oversight of that maintenance. The IG reports recommended the FAA develop a means to identify these contract maintenance providers so the agency could better target its inspector resources in surveilling air carrier maintenance. In a separate rulemaking the FAA is proposing mandatory training programs for air carrier maintenance that would have to be approved by the FAA.
A 2003 Department of Transportation IG report
In 2005, the IG issued a second report on air carriers' use of outside maintenance providers
—this one reporting on the use of non-certificated repair facilities. The report discussed air carriers' use of both non-certificated facilities (i.e., maintenance facilities not certificated by the FAA as repair stations) and individual mechanics hired on a temporary basis. The report echoed a recommendation from the 2003 IG report by recommending that the FAA inventory air carrier vendor lists that include all maintenance providers working on air carrier aircraft and identify non-certificated repair facilities that perform critical or scheduled maintenance (Recommendation 1). The report also recommended that the FAA determine whether air carriers evaluate the background, experience, and qualifications of the temporary maintenance personnel used by the contractors to ensure the work they perform is completed in accordance with FAA and air carrier requirements (Recommendation 7).
In 2008, the IG issued a third related report on air carriers' outsourcing of maintenance.
The report noted a continuing trend of air carriers outsourcing more of their maintenance. The IG based this report on its review of nine major air carriers, which sent 71% of their heavy maintenance checks to repair stations in 2007—up from 34% in 2003.
The report pointed out the continuing need for better oversight of contract maintenance, both by the FAA and by air carriers, especially when the air carriers are contracting repairs of critical components. In addition, the report found that air carrier maintenance manuals have traditionally been geared toward in-house maintenance, and noted that repair stations may perform work for various air carriers, all with different in-house procedures. In this regard, the report concluded that the FAA should ensure that air carriers provide well-defined maintenance procedures and guidance for their outsourced repairs. The report specifically recommended that the FAA: “Encourage the industry best practice of using airworthiness agreements between air carriers and repair stations that more closely define maintenance procedures and responsibilities” (Recommendation 7).
As noted in the IG reports discussed above, air carrier use of contract maintenance providers continues to grow, averaging 64% of air carrier maintenance costs in 2007. The air carrier regulations have long stipulated that each certificate holder is primarily responsible for the airworthiness of its aircraft, even if maintenance is contracted to another person. (See§§ 121.363 and 135.413.) Air carriers cannot abrogate this responsibility. Consistent with this responsibility are the requirements that when persons other than the certificate holder (i.e., contract maintenance providers) perform maintenance for it, the maintenance must be performed in accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance manual.
The IG reports placed much emphasis on the need for improved FAA oversight of air carrier contract maintenance. In order for the FAA to improve this oversight, the IG, in 2003, recommended the agency develop a means to identify repair stations that perform maintenance for air carriers. The current regulations require only that air carriers put in their manuals a list of persons with whom they have arranged for the performance of maintenance and a general description of that work. (See§§ 121.369(a) and 135.427(a).) Although the FAA may review these manuals, no current rule requires air carriers to keep such a list up to date and to provide it to the FAA in an acceptable format. As explained below, the FAA has found that the lists maintained by air carriers in their manuals in some cases are not readily useful for oversight purposes.
In accordance with these statutory requirements, we are proposing to include in §§ 121.368(a) and 135.426(a) the definition of covered work set forth in the statute, and to provide definitions of supervision and control and directly in charge. The definition of directly in charge would be similar to the current definitions in §§ 121.378 and 135.435. As required by the statute, we are also proposing: In §§ 121.368(b) and 135.426(b), that each certificate holder must be directly in charge of all covered work it contracts to a maintenance provider; in §§ 121.368(c) and 135.426(c), that all covered work must be carried out in accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance manual; and in §§ 121.368(d) and 135.426(d), that no covered work may be performed by a maintenance provider unless that work is carried out under the supervision and control of the certificate holder. Although the statute mandates these amendments for part 121 air carriers, the FAA believes that, in the interest of providing an equivalent level of safety for commuter and on demand operations, the same requirements should apply to persons conducting operations under part 135 in aircraft configured with 10 or more passenger seats. Accordingly, we are proposing the changes mandated by the Act for both part 121 and part 135 (10 or more) certificate holders.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (96) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (96) 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 requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (96), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (103), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that the objective is to improve safety: therefore, it would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
1. For brevity throughout this preamble, we will refer to these aircraft as “10 or more.”
2. Throughout this preamble, unless otherwise indicated, when we refer to the generic term “maintenance,” the term is meant to include “maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations.”
3. Review of Air Carriers' Use of Aircraft Repair Stations, Report No. AV-2003-047 (July 8, 2003).
4. Air Carrier's Outsourcing Use of Non-Certificated Repair Facilities, Report No. AV-2006-031 (Dec. 15, 2005).
5. Scovel, Aviation Safety, FAA Oversight of Repair Stations, June 20, 2007, CC 2007-076 Senate Committee on Science, Transportation and Commerce, Subcommittee on Operations, Safety and Security.
6. Air Carrier's Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, Report No. AV-2008-090 (Sept. 30, 2008).
7. The report noted that, “overall, major air carriers outsourced an average of 64 percent of their maintenance expenses in 2007, compared to only 37 percent in 1996.” Report No. AV-2008-090 (Sept. 30, 2008) at p. 1.