Own 10 years of Legal Briefs in ARSA's Legal Briefs Compendium.

What do we do when the Feds come knocking? How do the duty time limitations work? How and when should we self-disclose? Can we change our accepted manual? Our PMI says it's policy. Can we rely on it?

Find answers to these and hundreds of other questions in the Legal Briefs Compendium, from 1994-2004 issues of the hotline.

Click here to order the Legal Briefs Compendium

Find it fast

The Compendium is a PDF file for use with the free Adobe Reader or compatible software. That makes it easy to jump directly to the articles you need:

1. Use the Compendium's subject index to find articles by topic. Just click an entry to see each article.

2. Check the detailed summaries for each article. See all the summaries below!

3. Search the entire 253-page book in seconds. Type a word and get your search results in context of every article in which the word appears. (This feature is available in recent versions of the free Adobe Reader.)

Licensed to your physical location

Price: ARSA Members $395.00   Non-Members $995.00

Purchase the Compendium and make as many print or electronic copies as you need for use within your physical location. ARSA individually licenses the Compendium to each location.

Legal Briefs are educational tools

The articles do not constitute legal advice; such advice can only be rendered based on an attorney-client relationship and the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

The Compendium offers practical know-how to help you stay on the right side of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). See for yourself...the Compendium contains full texts of the articles summarized below.

Copyright Information

The Legal Briefs Compendium is the property of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association. Unauthorized reproduction and/or distribution of this material is an infringement of ARSA's copyright.

The material is licensed to the purchaser's physical location. A transmittal page containing the license accompanies each set of material.

Click here to order the Legal Briefs Compendium

All Article Summaries from the Legal Briefs Compendium 1994-2004

1994

January 1994
FAA Certificate Actions
When the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) have been violated, in its discretion, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the option, among other things, to revoke or suspend an individual’s or company’s certificate. Since certificate suspension or revocation prevents a company from operating its business and can irrevocably damage its reputation, at the preliminary stages of an enforcement action a certificate holder should contact aviation counsel.

February 1994
Civil Penalties
One of the tools in the FAA’s arsenal is the civil penalty, a monetary fine for violations of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). The FAA can assess civil penalties at its discretion, subject to a maximum dollar amount per violation. Even with this cap, however, multiple violations can aggregate to large fines that could debilitate small to medium size businesses. For this reason, certificate holders should maintain a comprehensive regulatory compliance program.

March 1994
Letters of Investigation
The Letter of Investigation (LOI) is sent by a local FAA office conducting an investigation. It states the particulars of the incident under investigation as well as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) allegedly violated. With appropriate help from regulatory counsel, responding to an LOI provides a certificate holder the opportunity to work with the local office to reach an informal settlement.

April 1994
What to Do When the Feds Come Knocking
Certificate holders are increasingly becoming targets of criminal investigation, subjecting them to the possibility of law enforcement officials executing search warrants on their business premises. All employees should be instructed on the proper and legal steps, described in this article, that should be taken when investigators arrive with a search warrant.

June 1994
Don’t Fumble the Ball!
Certificate holders must be aware of their rights and obligations when faced with the threat of an enforcement action. Depending on the situation, being too cooperative or too reticent can impede your ability to achieve a favorable resolution. In light of the complexity of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and the outside factors that influence FAA actions a certificate holder should seek at least some advice from aviation counsel.

July 1994
Before There Was Self Disclosure
The FAA’s self disclosure program reflects a shift away from maximizing penalties for violators and towards increased aviation safety through collaboration with regulated parties. The success of the program results from a more open dialogue between the industry and the FAA, whereby violations are voluntarily reported to the FAA and the FAA foregoes assessing civil penalties if proper remedial measures are taken.

(No August 1994 issue was published. September and September-October were published.)

September 1994
Before There Was Self Disclosure
The FAA’s self disclosure policy can be beneficial to regulated parties provided that they self disclose in the proper manner. Failure to follow the proper process, as described in this article, can result in an ineffective self disclosure, leaving the certificate holder open to an FAA enforcement action.

September-October 1994
Put It In Writing!
When dealing with the FAA a certificate holder should not rely on verbal assurances. Any agreement with the FAA, particularly in regard to regulatory enforcement, should be reduced to writing and, if possible, signed by both the certificate holder and the FAA representative.

November 1994
Interpretation of CFR 43.9
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require that maintenance providers include an accurate description of work performed in maintenance records.

When performing work according to a service bulletin that specifies use of an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) part, if a maintenance provider substitutes a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) part it must make a notation on the maintenance record to that effect.

December 1994
Section 145.2: The Claws that Catch
Repair stations that perform maintenance for a Part 121 air carrier must be familiar with those portions of Part 121 with which they are required to comply. This includes strict limitations on duty time for repair station personnel performing work on Part 121 aircraft. These limitations can result in compliance problems for the unwary repair station.

1995

January 1995
Section 145.2: The Claws that Catch
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require repair stations that perform work for Part 121 air carriers to maintain records in accordance with Part 121. Part 121 imposes more stringent recordkeeping requirements, some with which the repair station must comply and some with which the repair station can contract with the customer to determine the party responsible for compliance.

February 1995
In Accordance with the Carrier’s Manual
Repair stations must perform maintenance under Part 121 in accordance with their customer, the air carrier’s maintenance manual. Because the air carrier’s maintenance manual may contain repairs different from those specified by the manufacturer, it is imperative that a repair station obtain and maintain the applicable portions of its air carrier customers’ maintenance manuals.

March 1995
A Rose By Any Other Name
The term “overhaul” has a very specific meaning under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). Unless work performed fulfills all the requirements needed to characterize it as an “overhaul” a repair station must not include the term in any required maintenance records.Use of overhaul in an inappropriate context on required maintenance records can lead to certificate revocation and possible criminal prosecution.

April 1995
The Sum of the Parts
Complete and accurate maintenance records, while necessary to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), also benefit repair stations and their customers.

When using a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) part in a repair where the manufacturer’s maintenance manual specifies use of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part, if the maintenance manual is referenced in the maintenance records, it may be necessary to note the use of the PMA part.

May 1995
Filling the Black Holes
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) do not require that that an aircraft part’s condition be documented when it is removed from a product, or that all aircraft parts produced under a production or type certificate have a “birth certificate”, i.e., are marked or accompanied by documents certifying their approval status. Increasing part’s traceability, however, could prove beneficial to the aviation maintenance industry.

June 1995
Overhaul Revisited
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require specific procedures for work to be considered “overhaul”, including a requirement that the part be “tested.” In cases where no functional test or operational check is specified in the maintenance or overhaul manual, an inspection in accordance with the manual to determine a part’s airworthiness is sufficient to meet the CFRs’ overhaul requirement.

July/August 1995
When the Feds Knock
Federal investigations, including those regarding Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUPs) can have significant legal ramifications for a repair station. It is imperative that a repair station is aware of its rights and responsibilities with regard to an investigation, including the scope of material and records it is required to provide to the FAA and the Inspector General (IG) absent a subpoena.

October 1995
I Know I Have to Drug-Test, But Just Who ARE My Safety Sensitive Personnel?
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require that repair stations performing work for a Part 121 air carrier or Part 135 Operator test their “safety sensitive” employees for drugs and alcohol. This article helps identify which employees are safety sensitive personnel and explains why testing non-safety sensitive may not be in a repair station’s best interest.

November 1995
Medical Examinations, Drug Testing, and the ADA
Before a repair station expands its drug testing program beyond the safety sensitive personnel required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) or begins requiring medical examinations of all its employees, it should carefully consider the legal ramifications. An employer must be aware that federal law restricts the purpose and scope of medical examinations and some state’s laws restrict the use of random drug tests, except where federal law specifically requires it.

1996

January 1996
Drug Testing II: Segregate the Testing Pool
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) explicitly prohibit including a repair station’s non-safety sensitive employees as part of its FAA required drug testing program. Repair stations that choose to test non-safety sensitive employees must proceed with caution, since, among other things, the FAA requires the segregation of safety sensitive from the non-safety sensitive employees into different pools for purposes of random drug testing.

February 1996
How Much is Enough?
A repair station must consider the regulatory and commercial considerations in play when it performs work on a part that has not previously been maintained under the CFRs Part 43. While an overhaul of such a part would squarely bring it into compliance with Part 43, a repair station is not necessarily required under the CFRs to perform an overhaul in order to approve the part for return to service. However, this does not shield a repair station from negative business consequence when it provides an “underperformed” repair to its customers.

March 1996
Fabricating Parts for Maintenance
When a mechanic fabricates a part for an owner, and the part is associated with a repair performed by the mechanic, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) do not require the mechanic to obtain a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). The CFRs’ manufacturing rules do not apply in cases where the fabricated part is provided as part of a repair, i.e., the performance of a service, since the PMA rules cover only parts fabricated for sale and subsequent installation in a type certificated product.

April 1996
Approved by Whom?
There are several options available for the operator of a foreign-registered civil aircraft seeking to have work performed by a FAA certificated U.S. repair station using data approved by a foreign civil aviation authority (CAA).Determining the customer’s needs will help determine which option best suits the situation.

May 1996
Ask ARSA
Repair station employees must comply with the duty time limitations in Part 121 while performing work on parts or products for Part 121 air carriers, regardless of the scope or amount of time the work takes. This means that an employee that performs mixed work, both Part 121 work and other work, must still comply with the duty time limitations.

June 1996
Defining Overhaul
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) specify the steps necessary for work to qualify as an “overhaul.” In cases where one of these steps, disassembly, is impossible or impractical, for instance a single piece part incapable of non-destructive disassembly, the part can still be overhauled, according to Federal Aviation Administration legal interpretations.

July 1996
FOIA: Holding the Agency Accountable
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ensures accountability by requiring the federal government, including agencies like the FAA, to make documents available upon request. This article details the form and manner in which a member of the public should make a FOIA request of the FAA and the procedures to follow once a request is made.

August 1996
The Empire Strikes Back
Though the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally requires the government to make documents available upon request, there are exemptions from disclosure, some of which serve to protect proprietary, commercial or financial information that certificate holders may provide to the FAA. Persons providing documents to the FAA should protect these documents from FOIA request by clearly identifying under which FOIA exemptions these documents fall.

September 1996
Interacting with the FAA in an Enforcement Environment:
Brevity is the Soul of Wit, but Specificity May Add Years to Your Life
A certificate holder must be aware of the scope of records or documents it must provide to the FAA during an investigation or inspection. In addition, certificate holders have the right to be provided, in a specific and clear writing, any changes an FAA inspector requires as the result of an inspection.

Certificate holders who are aware of their rights and responsibilities can more capably comply with the actual requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).

November/December 1996
Service Bulletin Wonderland
While a manufacturer may refuse to provide an acceptable method for accomplishing maintenance, it does not mean that no method exists, and it does not preclude the FAA from accepting other methods for performing the maintenance. Keep in mind, however, that minor repairs must be performed using methods, practices or techniques acceptable to the FAA, and major repairs must be performed using acceptable methods and using data approved by the FAA.

1997

January 1997
One Person’s Scrap…
Though generally not required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), parts documentation helps support the installer’s duty to ascertain airworthiness. Absent documentation, when using a replacement part in a larger assembly a person performing the maintenance may have to perform inspections, tests or measurements to determine whether the part meets airworthiness requirements.

February 1997
145.2: Which Manuals?
A repair station performing work for a Part 121 air carrier must only maintain copies of those portions of the air carrier’s general maintenance manual (GMM) that apply to the work the repair station performs for the air carrier. FAA “Orders” (e.g. Order 8300.10) represent internal guidance for the FAA.

A certificate holder is only required to comply with an Order in so far as it reflects a requirement embodied in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).

March 1997
Beware the IPM Jabberwocky
Repair stations cannot rely on the assurances of FAA employees in determining what regulatory requirements and guidance to follow, particularly when such guidance has yet to be published. Reliance on unsubstantiated claims can result in compliance problems. Repair stations should, therefore, insist that any policy change be provided in writing before changing their operations to comply.

May 1997
Hazmat I: Wake Up Out There
Hazardous material (HAZMAT) is governed by rules concerning its handling, packaging, labeling and shipping. A repair station must be familiar with these regulations, must train their employees regarding the handling of HAZMAT and must be aware of what materials the regulations consider HAZMAT.

June 1997
Hazmat II: Packaging, Labeling and Shipping
To properly handle the transport of hazardous material (HAZMAT), a repair station must ascertain the legality of the HAZMAT shipment, prepare the necessary shipping papers, and label and mark the package in compliance with the regulations. A repair station is responsible for meeting all three requirements prior to shipping the HAZMAT.

July 1997
Hazmat III: Investigations
Alleged violations of the hazardous material (HAZMAT) regulations can result in FAA or Department of Transportation (DOT) investigations. This article provides an overview of how these investigations proceed. Because fines in HAZMAT cases can be considerable, persons or companies under investigation are encouraged to contact regulatory counsel upon receiving a Letter of Investigation (LOI).

August 1997
Airworthiness Directives Compliance
Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) make the owner/operator responsible for complying with an Airworthiness Directive (AD). However, various regulatory and commercial considerations can affect whether a repair station must, or should perform maintenance on a part or product in compliance with an AD.

September-October 1997
The Numerous Steps
Federal law provides regulated parties the right and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to regulations, but provides fewer safeguards when changes are made to internal agency policy. As a result, the FAA too often changes internal policy without sufficient public comment, resulting in policies that contradict the regulations or pre-existing internal policies. Public participation helps to ensure the quality of any policy changes.

November 1997
An Essential Link
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) establish an important safety and regulatory link between the design and production on one hand and the operation and maintenance on the other. Failure on the design and production sides to create or make available ICAs and failure of the FAA to enforce its own regulations make it difficult for the operation and maintenance sides to comply with the regulations.

December 1997
Establishing the Parameters
The FAA’s attempt to develop guidance on ICAs related to engines is an opportunity for a consistently applied interpretation of the ICA requirements. Industry must engage the FAA in dialogue on the issue.

1998

February 1998
A Parts Approval by Any Other Name
Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) and Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) are both used to establish that design and production of a replacement part has FAA approval. While the PMA specifies the products on which it is eligible for installation, a part with a TSOA must establish that it is eligible for installation, often through a product’s type certificate or supplemental type certificate.

March 1998
Instruction Continues
The FAA has clear regulatory authority to require Instructions for Continued Airworthiness from Type Certificate and Supplemental Type Certificate Holders. The FAA may also, however, have the authority to require Part Manufacturer Approval (PMA) holders and Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) holder to provide ICAs.

April 1998
Approved May Not Be Acceptable
FAA inspectors and industry representatives often fail to distinguish between approved technical data and acceptable methods, techniques and practices for performing maintenance. Technical data are the drawings and specifications that describe the design features of a product or part. Methods, techniques and practices are the “how to instructions” for performing all maintenance and alterations on those parts and products.

May 1998
Unapproved but Airworthy
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) prohibit a manufacturer from producing a part contrary to Part 21. An installer of an “unapproved part”, however, does not violate the CFRs if the part meets airworthiness standards. This means, if the unapproved part returns the article to its original or properly altered condition, the FAA has no basis for an enforcement action against the installer or the owner/operator.

June 1998
Approved or Acceptable
A repair station may use its “best shop practices,” rather then the practices recommended in the manufacturer’s maintenance manual. To use best shop practices, a repair station must carefully demonstrate that its methods would be acceptable to the FAA.

July 1998
The Force of Law
The FAA has broad authority to ensure aviation safety, including issuing airworthiness alerts or bulletins. These advisory documents can have a devastating effect on a certificate holder’s business. The FAA, therefore, should be sensitive to the issues of fundamental fairness when evaluating the need for and drafting airworthiness alerts.

August 1998
Parts Substitutions
Substituting a part different from that originally installed in an aircraft is permissible if the aircraft is returned to its original or properly altered condition. A repair station that makes such a substitution should be prepared to show the FAA that it has a reasonable basis for determining that the part substitution does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.

September 1998
Parts Substitution Revisited
Technical Standard Order Approval (TSOA) does not confer installation eligibility. When using a TSOA replacement or substitution part, the installer must be prepared to demonstrate that the part is acceptable or approved by the FAA.

October-November 1998
Methods, Techniques and Practices vs. Technical Data
Methods, techniques and practices are the “how-to instructions” for performing maintenance and alterations on a part or product. These are found in instructions for continued airworthiness, service bulletins, advisory circulars, process specifications, industry standard practices, etc. Technical data is the engineering data, or drawings and specifications that describe a product or parts design.

December 1998
Approved By vs. Acceptable To
Many FAA inspectors and industry representatives are unclear about the difference between the regulatory requirements for “approved by” and “acceptable to” the FAA Administrator. “Approved by” requires that the certificate holder obtain the FAA’s approval before proceeding. “Acceptable to” does not require prior FAA approval, but only that the FAA would approve, if asked.

1999

January 1999
Approved Means Approved
An authorized Designated Engineering Representatives (DER) may approve technical data for major repairs or alterations not related to critical or life limited parts. An appropriately rated repair station can then perform that repair or alteration and approve the article for return to service. In this, and any other situation, the FAA cannot rely on an Order to create an obligation not already embodied in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).

February-March 1999
The God of Airworthiness
A part may be eligible for installation even in the absence of a production approval, provided the installer has a reasonable basis to believe it is airworthy. This means that use of used and foreign parts is permissible if the maintenance provider can determine that the part conforms to airworthiness standards.

April 1999
Write the Right Record
If a maintenance provider fails to note on maintenance records that it used a part different from that identified in the manufacturer’s maintenance or overhaul manual, it could be subject to an enforcement action of intentional falsification of maintenance records. This is true even for situations where the substituted part has a Parts Manufacturer Approval.

May 1999
Calibration Requirements
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require that inspection and test equipment used as the basis for a “return to service” statement must be calibrated either using a standard derived from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a standard provided by the equipment manufacturer or a standard of the country of manufacture, provided it is approved by the FAA.

June 1999
The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
A domestic repair station may use calibration standards derived from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its inspection and test equipment. This means a repair station can send its equipment to outside laboratories that are NIST-accredited.

These laboratories can either calibrate the equipment for the repair station, or test the repair station’s own calibration equipment make certain it conforms to NIST standards. A repair station may also perform all calibration in-house, provided it has the necessary facilities.

July 1999
Calibration: The End Game
For administrative ease, a foreign repair stations may wish to use their countries calibration standards. This requires a showing that those standards are derived from standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Despite the existence of mutual recognition agreements between NIST and many foreign countries the process for demonstrating equivalence is complex.

August 1999
Make It a Regulation
The aviation industry has the right to rely on longstanding FAA policy and interpretations of the regulations. If the FAA chooses to change a longstanding regulatory interpretation, such a change is tantamount to a rule change, and the FAA must provide a notice and comment period prior to the change.

September 1999
Petition for Exemption
Petitions for exemptions must specify the regulations from which an exemption is sought and the aircraft or persons covered by the exemption. The petition must have information and arguments to support the assertions that the exemption is in the public interest and does not adversely affect aviation safety. A certificate holder who is granted an exemption must be aware that the exemption will expire.

October 1999
Tools and Equipment
A repair station must have the tools and equipment necessary to perform the maintenance functions appropriate to its rating.As a general principle, a repair station should have on it premises or at its disposal, the equipment and tools recommended in the manufacturer’s maintenance manual, or their equivalent. Equivalent equipment and tools are those that allow the repair station to consistently perform airworthy repairs.

November 1999
Part Marking
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) require that manufacturers mark products, critical components, Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) parts and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA) articles. The majority of components, assemblies and parts produced under a type and production certificate do not require marking.

December 1999
ID Plates & Other Markings
A repair station removing, changing or installing identification plates or markings in the course of maintenance must be aware of the regulatory requirements related to products, technical standard order authorizations (TSOAs) and parts. In addition, a repair station should be aware of criminal and commercial laws that affect parts and product marking.

2000

January 2000
Marking III
A repair station that receives a part whose markings are no longer legible may still use the part if it is determined airworthy. A repair station may also mark a part whose identification plate or marking is no longer legible, either using a method described in the manufacturer’s maintenance manual or through the repair station’s established procedure. A repair station should be certain that its mark properly identified the part and does not compromise the part’s airworthiness.

February 2000
Parts Marking IV
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) permit a maintenance provider to re-mark a life limited part that’s markings are no longer legible. Before a maintenance provider re-marks a life limited part, it must verify that the owner or operator has ensured that the part is in fact the one to which the part and serial numbers apply.

March 2000
The Battle of the Forms, Part One
Absent a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) and Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) where the U.S. and a foreign country agree to accept airworthiness certifications made in each country, a Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) Form One, by itself is insufficient to constitute a valid approval for return to service under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs).A JAA-certificated repair station must also be an FAA certificated repair station and reference CFR language on the JAA Form One for the return to service approval to be valid under the CFRs.

April 2000
Emergency Orders
Changes in federal law now permit the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to review the emergency determination relating Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) emergency revocation of a certificate. This allows for an expedited and potentially more balanced review of the emergency underlying an emergency revocation.

May 2000
The Bills on the Hill
Changes in federal law restrict the FAA from issuing a certificate to any person (including repair stations) convicted of a violation of federal law related to counterfeit or fraudulently represented aviation parts.Repair stations should be aware that they may have a regulatory and civil obligation to determine whether employees or owners of the repair station have been convicted of such crimes.

June 2000
Mandatory for Some
An owner/operator is only required to follow a “mandatory service bulletin” (MSB) when it is incorporated by reference into an Airworthiness Directive or the change in the MSB is required by airworthiness standards. The MSB may also be mandatory if the operator uses the manufacturer’s maintenance program or an approved aircraft inspection program. Absent one of these conditions, the regulations do not require the owner/operator or a maintenance provider to follow the MSB.

July 2000
Is Silence Golden?
A recent trend towards criminally prosecuting individuals for aviation accidents is resulting in reluctance of witnesses to provide critical safety and accident information to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). This trend could affect the NTSB’s ability to provide important safety recommendations in the wake of aviation incidents.

Despite this, members of the aviation industry should be aware of their rights, particularly with regard to self-incrimination, before speaking to investigators.

August 2000
Yellow Means Warning
A yellow “serviceable” tag or FAA Form 8130-3 does not automatically make an article eligible for installation on a type certificated product.

It is the responsibility of the person who approves a product or article for return to service to make certain that the work performed returned the product or article to an airworthy condition. (This column was republished in the February 2003 hotline.)

September 2000
Much Ado About Little
Regulated parties should be aware of the distinction between record keeping requirement based on the CFRs and policy that FAA enforces like regulation. Form 8130-3 Block 13 is regulation based. Form 8130-3 Block 12 is policy based.

October 2000
Recording Major Repairs
Recordkeeping requirements for major repairs differ depending on the entity performing the repair and the entity for whom the repair is being prepared. Regulated parties should be aware of all parts of the CFRs that might apply to the work they perform.

November 2000
Repair Station Records
FAA policy provides that absent manual or contract language to the contrary, a Part 121 air carrier is responsible for retaining records per Part 121. A repair station need only comply with Part 145 recordkeeping requirements.

December 2000
Hold the Phone
Regulated parties have a right to rely on longstanding FAA interpretations of regulations. Dramatic changes to these interpretations require a full notice and comment rulemaking. FAA attempts to change drug test policy for non-certificated subcontractors of air carriers without proper notice and comment.

2001

January 2001
Standing Up
While regulated parties often feel compelled to capitulate to FAA demands, even when not justified by regulation, if one is willing to expend the resources to fight it, there can be a positive result.

February 2001
Subcontracting Saga
FAA reliance on an appendix to list job functions and equipment requirements for a particular rating is inappropriate since such a list becomes outdated quickly. This problem is exemplified by difficulties repair stations with Class 3 ratings have encountered with FAA trying to restrict the practice of contracting and heat treating.

March 2001
The Complete Record
Form 8130-3 or the yellow tag does not constitute the complete maintenance records the regulations require. A repair station must identify all subcontractors it uses to perform any given maintenance, but it does not have to be recorded on Form 8130-3.

April 2001
Keep ‘Em Busy
Despite assertions to the contrary by some Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), a certified mechanic directly in charge of the maintenance functions of an instrument and propeller rated facility does not need to obtain a repairman certificate.

May-June 2001
IPM Requirements
A repair station should have a clear understanding of what information the regulations require for the IPM and what information is “suggested” by the FAA or its inspectors. This article delineates the two.

Failure to comply with information in the IPM can result in enforcement action against the repair station, even if the information is not required by the regulations.

July 2001
IPM – Accepted or Approved?
A repair station must keep its IPM current, meaning that the manual must reflect the actual practices of the repair station. If it does not, it is not current. A manual “approved” by the FAA cannot be changed without prior authorization from the FAA. A manual “accepted” by the FAA can be changed without the FAA’s prior consent.

August-September 2001
One Manual
A repair station can include its IPM as part of a larger manual that addresses requirements outside the CFRs, such as other CAA regulations or ISO 9000. A manual that addresses multiple requirements outside the CFRs should identify which of its sections comply with the requirements for an IPM.

October 2001
The One Manual System
The repair station manual and quality control manual can be combined and may also be used to comply with foreign CAA or third party quality system requirements. The RSM and QCM are accepted by the FAA, meaning they can be changed without prior approval. The Approved Training Program should be a separate manual/document since it requires FAA approval before any change can be made.

November 2001
Unintended Consequences
To subcontract to a non-certificated organization, a repair station must: 1.) Require the non-certificated subcontractor to have a quality control system equivalent to its own; 2.) Remain directly in charge of work; 3.) Perform inspections and/or tests to determine the non-certificated subcontractor performed the work properly; 4.) Have a contract with the subcontractor that states that the subcontractor will allow FAA inspection of its facilities; and 5.) Not approve an article for return to service if the subcontractor refuses to allow FAA inspections.

December 2001
Maintenance Function
Part 145 permits repair stations to contract out any maintenance within its ratings, whether to a certificated or non-certificated source.

Part 145 prohibits “overtagging,” or only providing approval for return to service for maintenance a subcontractor performed, but only for completed type certificated products (i.e. aircraft, engine or propeller).

2002

January 2002
Contracting Out
Some transactions are “clear cut” examples of parts brokerage and others of contracting out of maintenance. For situations that may not be as clear, a repair station should keep in mind that it is contracting out when the repair station receives a request to perform maintenance from a third party, then requests another source to perform some part of that maintenance while it performs some part of that maintenance itself, and the repair station approves the completed workscope for return to service. Using these guidelines can help a repair station navigate this complex area of the Code of Federal Regulations.

February 2002
Disposition of Life-Limited Parts
While regulations regarding disposition of life limited parts track closely the practices of the industry, repair stations should be aware of the recordkeeping requirements that do and do not apply to them.

March 2002
Parts Involved in “Accidents”
Commercial certification regarding a part’s involvement in an accident is of little value. A repair station should establish a part’s eligibility for installation based on its airworthiness, as determined by the work scope performed by the repair station that originally repaired the damaged part.

April 2002
Airworthiness Directives
Repair stations do not have a regulatory responsibility to comply with Airworthiness Directives (ADs). As a business consideration, they should, nonetheless, have a monitoring system to track the issuance of ADs for products on which they perform work. A repair station should always inquire to determine if its customers want the repair station to maintain the product in accordance with the AD. In a case where the customer instructs it not to comply with an AD, the repair station should record this instruction in the maintenance records.

May 2002
Certificate Revocation Under AIR-21
Under legislation reauthorizing the FAA, known as AIR-21, the FAA may not issue certificates to any person, or repair station owned by a person convicted of a counterfeit aircraft parts crime. The law also requires the revocation of existing certificates issued to persons convicted of such a crime, and restricts a repair stations right to employ a person convicted of such crimes.

August 2002
Contract Maintenance Liability
A repair station that contracts out maintenance to a non-certificated source is responsible under the regulations for all work performed. Federal Aviation Administration policy and inconsistent regulatory requirements make it unclear whether a repair station is responsible under the regulations for the acts or omissions of its certificated contractors.

September 2002
Fabrication During Maintenance
The FAA permits the fabrication of parts without a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), pursuant to a repair or alteration, if the part is used in that repair or alteration, it is produced in accordance with FAA-approved or acceptable design data and is produced under an acceptable quality control system.

October 2002
Backward Thinking
A limited specialized service rating is only required when a repair station only engages in that one specialized service and that service requires equipment and skills not ordinarily found in regular repair stations. While limited specialized service rated repair stations must list their process specifications on their operations specifications, repair stations that develop their own process specifications but are not engaged only in that service, do not need to have a limited specialized service rating, nor do they need to list their process specifications on their operations specifications.

November 30, 2002
ICAO Revisited
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) apportions international regulatory responsibility among an aircraft’s State of Design, State of Manufacture, State of Operator and State of Registry. The most fundamental rule of international aviation maintenance is that the State of Registry is the controlling regulatory authority for maintenance and alterations performed on the aircraft, engine or related components. It issues certificates of airworthiness and is responsible for continued airworthiness for aircraft bearing its registration mark.

December 31, 2002
Major International Difference in Repair Station Responsibilities
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and bilateral agreement requirements control the manner in which a repair station performs maintenance or alterations on a foreign-registered aircraft. It is important for repair stations that perform on foreign-registered aircraft (or related articles) to be aware of which National Aviation Authority’s regulations apply.

2003

January 31, 2003
International Import and Export Requirements
The import and export of new engines and propellers are subject to different rules than new parts, materials or appliances for installation in an aircraft registered in the import state. Differences in import and export regulations also exist depending upon the bilateral aviation safety agreements that exist between the importing and exporting countries. A repair station seeking to install an imported product or other article should be aware of these nuances.

February 28, 2003
Yellow Means Warning!
(This issue republished Legal Briefs from the August 2000 hotline.)

March 31, 2003
Food for Thought
A reasonable interpretation of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) could require any inspection associated with an Airworthiness Directive (AD) to be accompanied by an explicit disapproval for return to service if an uncorrected discrepancy is not addressed.This reading of the regulations serves a strong public policy interest in making certain that maintenance or alteration necessary to airworthiness are performed before a product or article is approved for return to service.

April 30, 2003
Rubber Stamp?
Changes in federal aviation law now allow the expedited appeal of an FAA emergency revocation or suspension of a certificate. The change, part of Congress’ 2000 legislation reauthorizing the FAA (known as AIR-21) provides a person the right to appeal a revocation or suspension to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) within two days. It also requires the NTSB to make its determination regarding the appeal within five days.

May 31, 2003
ICAs: An Essential Link
The Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) requirements that approved design holders prepare and make available and certificated repair stations obtain and maintain in current condition Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs) help to ensure aviation safety. Currently, because the FAA has failed to require approved design holders to make ICAs available to repair stations, an essential link in the regulatory chain is missing. The FAA must understand the entire regulatory regime related to ICAs, and produce guidance for FAA personnel and the general public to ensure that the intent and requirements of the regulations is realized.

June 30, 2003
Trucks, Planes and Automobiles
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued rules to require manufacturers of automobiles and light-duty trucks to make service information available to those who repair their products. Despite some differences, the aviation maintenance industry can look to the EPA regulatory regime as a model, if congressional intervention in the ICA debate becomes necessary.

July 31, 2003
Contracting under the New Part 145
New Part 145 allows a repair station to contract out maintenance functions the FAA approves, when the repair station does not have the tools, equipment or materials available, or when workload constraints or emergency situations warrant it. In a contracting situation, a repair station cannot issue an approval for return to service for a type certificated product on which a contracted source performed all the work. A repair station can only contract out to non-certificated sources if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions requires certain agreements between the repair station and the non-certificated source. The repair station must make certain that these required agreements are properly included in a contract or work order.

August 31, 2003
Contracting Out Revisited
The FAA has not defined “contracting out”, creating uncertainty about when a business arrangement requires the repair station to obtain FAA approval for the contract maintenance function. A standard to consider for determining whether a function is being “contracted out” is whether the repair station would be exercising the privileges of its certificate, but opts to have another source perform the maintenance because the repair station cannot, due to a lack of tools, equipment and materials or because of an inability to meet the customer’s deadlines. A sample letter to the FAA requesting approval of contract maintenance functions is included in this article.

September 30, 2003
Contract Maintenance: Episode V
This Legal Brief provides examples to help clarify what situations require FAA approval of the contracted maintenance functions and what situations do not represent contracting out under the Code of Federal Regulations. Repair stations are reminded to have all contracted maintenance functions approved by the FAA prior to sending contract work to a source.

October 31, 2003
Complaining Formally
A person filing a Part 13 complaint alleging a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must include certain essential elements to avoid dismissal of the complaint by the FAA. Even if a complaint is filed properly, Part 13 complaints are an imperfect vehicle for affecting change in this area, since it does not require the FAA to take any action or make any determination.

November 30, 2003
The Double Whammy
In addition to Coordinating Agency Supplier Evaluation (C.A.S.E.) audits, repair stations that provide substantial maintenance (i.e. heavy airframe maintenance, disassembly of engines or work on certain items of emergency equipment) must undergo annual FAA audits of specific maintenance program issues between the provider and carriers. Though repair stations that are not substantial maintenance providers are not subject to these audits, the air carrier must still make certain of a proper interface between its maintenance program and the repair stations operations.

December 31, 2003
Function at the Junction
Revised FAA guidance clarifies that approval is not required for maintenance functions performed by certificated sources included on the contract maintenance list or certificated or non-certificated sources performing maintenance for which the repair station is not rated. Despite a prohibition against overtagging of all articles in the guidance, the regulations only prohibit overtagging of complete type certificated products. When a regulation and guidance conflict, the regulation trumps, meaning that overtagging of components is still permissible.

2004

January 31, 2004
Drug and Alcohol Testing Redux
The FAA has issued final rules that embody major changes to its drug and alcohol testing program for Part 121 and 135 air carriers and their direct contractors. The new rule changes requirements related to pre-employment drug screening, the elimination of the periodic testing requirement for pilots, and the removal of the “moonlighting” provision. A proposal to require drug and alcohol screening for contractors at all tiers has been delayed pending a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

February 28, 2004
Drug and Alcohol Testing – Date of Hire
The new pre-employment screening requirements for the drug and alcohol testing programs under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), mean that a person cannot be hired to perform a safety sensitive function until receiving a negative result on a pre-employment drug test.A person can be hired as a trainee if there is a clear distinction between the trainee status and the safety sensitive employee status.

March 31, 2004
IRAN?
“Inspect and repair as necessary” (IRAN) is an ambiguous instruction that can open a repair station to legal action based on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), contracts and torts. It makes good commercial sense to require that customers provide a detailed description of the discrepancy to be repaired in an IRAN maintenance request or provide the repair station the contractual authority to perform a complete overhaul.

April 30, 2004
Customer Service Initiative
The Customer Service Initiative (CSI) is an attempt to ensure that the FAA enforces its regulations rather than the opinions of particular FAA inspectors or managers.Through the CSI, senior leadership in the Regulation and Certification organization encourage low and mid-level FAA managers to support Aviation Safety Inspectors while insisting that all actions or requests the inspectors make have a regulatory basis.

May 31, 2004
Customer Service Initiative II
The Customer Service Initiative (CSI) checklist is a necessary component to a certificate holder’s ability to avail itself of the benefits of the CSI. Reducing to writing the issues, facts and regulations related to a CSI request will help the certificate holder to communicate its position and better achieve a favorable outcome. This article provides a step-by-step guide to that checklist.

June 30, 2004
Drug and Alcohol Revisited
In evaluating the proposal to expand its drug and alcohol testing program, the FAA underestimated the economic impact of the rule change on the industry and overstated its safety benefits. The new drug and alcohol rule will not increase the safety of aviation maintenance, but rather represents “regulation for the sake of regulation.”

July 31, 2004
C.A.S.E.
The Coordinating Agency for Supplier Evaluation’s (C.A.S.E.) audits provide value to its participating air carriers as well their vendors and suppliers. To maintain that value, C.A.S.E. audit standards must remain grounded in the regulations and focus on issues that will enhance the relationship between air carriers and organizations that perform work on their behalf.

August 31, 2004
Regulatory Flexibility Act: What It Is, Why It Matters
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides small businesses some protection against federal regulations that increase their cost of doing business. The RFA requires federal agencies to consider the economic impact of their rulemakings on small entities, including an evaluation of alternatives that would lessen the impact of the proposal.

September 30, 2004
The New World of Contracting
A growing trend is air carriers contracting the performance of their maintenance to Part 145 repair stations. In recognition of this trend and the FAA’s Special Emphasis Surveillance Program, air carriers and their maintenance providers must evaluate the way they manage their relationship. This article provides a regulatory introduction into the contracting of air carrier maintenance.

October 31, 2004
The New World of Contracting: Clarifying Applicable Policies
To ensure regulatory compliance, maintenance organizations must follow the maintenance programs of their customers-air carriers. It is therefore important to understand what constitutes an air carrier’s maintenance programs.The FAA has recently recognized the importance of contracts between air carriers and maintenance providers in ensuring regulatory compliance. The FAA also emphasizes that the air carrier must provide its maintenance contractors with the information necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations.

November 30, 2004
The New World of Contracting: Internal Air Carrier Assessments
Air carriers must determine which provisions of its maintenance program and manual apply to work a maintenance provider performs. Once it has made this determination, the air carrier must make certain that the necessary information is flowed down to the maintenance provider.

December 30, 2004
The New World of Contracting: Internal Air Carrier Assessments and Air Carrier-Maintenance Provider Contracts
Each Part 121 air carrier should evaluate its maintenance organizations and its General Maintenance Manual (GMM) to determine what information regarding maintenance performed by contract should be flowed down to the repair station and the manner in which the operator will communicate its requirements to the repair station.

Air carriers and the repair stations with whom they contract should use the contract as a means to facilitate regulatory compliance. Though commercial considerations are the focus of most maintenance contracts, it is in both parties' interests to draft a contract that compliments the GMM and helps ensure that the specific air carrier requirements are followed.