The aircraft maintenance professional's source for technological advancements, maintenance alerts, news, articles, events, and careers
Issue link: http://amt.epubxp.com/i/122613
ARSA OUTLOOK Set the Record Straight: ARSA comments on proposed contract maintenance rule T By Craig L. Fabian Craig L. Fabian is a senior associate for Obadal, Filler, MacLeod, & Klein, where he represents aviation clients on a variety of issues. he Federal Aviation ensuing FAA NPRM. However, those predicAdministration's (FAA's) recent tions would have been wrong. The NPRM went notice of proposed rulemaking well beyond the scope of section 319, and provi(NPRM) regarding air carrier consions that were in bounds misconstrued the tract maintenance requirements plain language of the legislation. came as no surprise. After all, it stems from In its comments to the NPRM, ARSA prothe FAA Modernization & Reform Act of 2012 vided a detailed account of the missteps in the (commonly referred to as the FAA's 2012 "reauFAA's proposal. To name just a few, the NPRM thorization"), which took more than six years to fails to distinguish between types of maintecome to fruition. nance providers and the type As the leading trade group of work being performed; it for the aviation maintenance does not limit the work covThe NPRM went industry, the Aeronautical ered to "aircraft" only; it does well beyond the Repair Station Association not recognize and incorporate scope of section (ARSA) kept a close eye on existing rules and terminoldevelopments as Congress ogy; and it includes "Part 135" 319, and provisions worked toward reauthorizaair carriers despite section 319 that were in bounds tion. During that time, the covering only "Part 121" air misconstrued the Association's legislative team carriers. Put simply, the NPRM recommended improvements, missed its mark — and kept plain language of the and some of which were adoptgoing. legislation. ed in the final law. The resultIn addition to general ing provision, section 319 (titled comments, ARSA redrafted "maintenance providers"), is a contract maintenance rule not perfect, but the intent is understood. meeting the spirit and content of section 319 for Like the NPRM, the basis for section 319 was the FAA's consideration (included in appendix no surprise. Its origin lies in the Air Midwest C of ARSA's comments). The Association hopes (US Airways Express) crash that occurred on its proposal receives a favorable response. Jan. 8, 2003 in Charlotte, NC. The National Otherwise, the industry will be left to deal with Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited the unintended consequences of a muddled and improper maintenance by a facility that did not confusing set of duplicative requirements. AMT hold an FAA repair station certificate as a main cause of the accident. Subsequent reports from Craig L. Fabian worked for Obadal, Filler, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office MacLeod & Klein from 2006 – 2007 and rejoined the of the Inspector General (OIG) focused on "nonfirm in 2009 after serving as Director of Technical certificated" maintenance providers that operOperations for the Air Transport Association (ATA). ate with a staff of contract mechanics working He was previously an attorney in the aerospace under their individual FAA mechanic certifipractice of another Washington, D.C., law firm. cates. To say that this practice became unfavorBefore practicing law, he spent nearly 15 years in the able after the NTSB and DOT OIG reports is aviation maintenance industry; first as an aircraft perhaps an understatement. mechanic and avionics technician for Northwest With the purpose behind its creation and the Airlines, then as a maintenance control supervisor content of section 319 well-known, one could for US Airways. More information is available at have predicted the resulting regulations in the www.arsa.org. www.AMTSociety.org • www.AviationPros.com • Aircraft Maintenance Technology April 2013 35