Rewrite of 14 CFR Part 21

[AV8R2]

The FAA has proposed a rewrite on Part 21 that will affect everyone; not just manufacturers. It looks like they are trying to eliminate 21.303(b)(2)-owner produced parts. The "new" rule on PMA parts is lengthy, paperwork bound and will just plain eliminate the PMA Holders that only produce one or two little parts. They want everyone to have a Production Certificate, Quality System, etc. (My current system, now 11 yrs old, will no longer be any good; I will have to do a complete rewrite.)

The end of the comment period is January '07. Not much time. We need to deluge them with comments so they have to respond. We can make it hell for them if we get everyone on board.

None of this is good and has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It is aimed at eliminating small parts manufacturers in favor of big manufacturers and part of their "harmonization" with the EU; if that makes any sense at all. This nonsense can put me out of business if it continues!

Try this link to the FAA website: http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=416626&docketid=25877
Click on the pdf files.

 

[sj]

Burl,

Have you brought this to the attention of the AOPA and espeically EAA and other groups that are trying to continue to support the aging aircraft fleet?

Maybe you can call them and get it on their radar, that would be a big help.

sj

 

[Steve Pierce]

I am going to comment for sure. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Looks like another way to cut their workload to me.

 

[cafi19]

faa

The followins is the "document abstract" copy and pasted. My question is that is says in the first line "changes to its certification procedures". That sounds to me like it is for "certified aircraft and certified aircraft parts". No?? I have not yet read the full document. Just initial thought.

cafi

The FAA is proposing changes to its certification procedures and identification requirements for aeronautical products and parts. The proposed changes address standardizing requirements for production approval holders; requiring production approval holders to issue airworthiness approvals for aircraft engines, propellers, and other aviation parts; requiring manufacturers to mark all parts and components; and revising export airworthiness approval requirements to facilitate global manufacturing. The intent of these proposed changes is to promote safety by ensuring that aircraft, and parts designed specifically for use in aircraft, wherever manufactured, meet applicable standards. This action is also necessary to update our regulations to reflect the current global aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturing environment. DATES: Comments must be received by January 3, 2007.

 

[jnorris]

The FAA has proposed a rewrite on Part 21 that will affect everyone; not just manufacturers. It looks like they are trying to eliminate 21.303(b)(2)-owner produced parts.

They didn't eliminate it. They just moved it. In the proposed rule, the language pertaining to owner-produced parts is no longer in 21.303. It is found in 21.9, titled "Replacement and Modification Parts". The language is still there in exactly the same form. Just in a different spot.

Joe

 

[sj]

Joe,

Just so we are clear, does this there is nothing to be concerned about with these changes?

sj

 

[AV8R2]

21.303(b)(2) moved to 21.9

The rewording in 21.9 is so ambiguous that it can be stretched to include just about anything that can be installed on an aircraft will need a Production Certificate and all that is required along with it. Read the NPRM, it's in there.

This is not to be taken lightly. Even if you have just one part that you have a PMA for it will require a Production Certificate, a "Quality System", Statement of part and material conformity on each part in addition to the part no. Just the "FAA-PMA" stamp and part no. will no longer be good.

Bart Miller, owner of the Artic Tern and who was recently killed in an accident in the shop, was in the process of getting a Production Certificate.....for 7 YEARS and he still hadn't completed it. He did finally get a prototype Tern to Oshkosh this year. All the time that he was getting the Production Certificate he could not sell any of the previously approved parts that he got in the purchase. He could not get a PMA yet. He spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars over that time and still didn't have anything to sell to recoup any of his costs.

A Production Certificate is expensive to acquire, expensive to impliment and expensive to manage. Can you imagine having to do all that for a single item PMA like the Firmen Pod? If this is not stopped that is exactly what will happen.

Don't take this lightly just because you don't have a PMA yourself. It could cause PMA Holders to quit and small shops to go out of business. Then where would you be when you need that special part, no data, etc. The owner produced part must still comply with the type design, certifiy its materials and be approved. You just can't build it and install it.

This affects all of us, like it or not.

Burl

 

[Christina Young]

Has anyone called the AOPA legislative / regulatory hotline on this?

Also, why would anyone want to "harmonize" with the oppressive EU system which tries to squash all entrepreneurial activity to favor entrenched, slow-moving dinosaurs? They should want to "harmonize" with us! It simply makes no sense.

 

[Christina Young]

Burl,
Here is a link to AOPA's position on this:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/certification.html

Do they adequately address your concern here?

 

[behindpropellers]

This is HUGE! Have a wrecked cub in storage that you plan on rebuilding??????? that is listed as "destroyed" with the NTSB? This says you cannot rebuild it.

Tim

 

[sj]

Burl et al,

To help facilitate getting the right kind of comments from this group, maybe you could post the kinds of concerns we should address and the most effective way to address them for laypeople like myself. I'd be happy to join in the commenting, but want to make sure my comments would help and not hinder the process.

I find it interesting that there was not update from AOPA on this issue, since the article Christina posted was from mid-2005. I guess this has been putting along for some time. I will be interested to hear what is discovered when someone contacts AOPA or EAA about this (somebody with a greater understanding of it than I have).

sj

 

[Christina Young]

Another strategy that has some promise in stopping this is to get the Small Business Administration aware of the damage this will cause to small businesses. They have stopped regulations harmful to small businesses by various government agencies in the past.

See this link:

http://www.sba.gov/services/lawsandregulations/index.html

and this:

http://www.sba.gov/services/lawsandregulations/ombudsman/index.html

Burl, I urge you and others who are small businesses involved in aircraft parts manufacturing to contact the SBA and tell them of the damage your business will suffer if this is not stopped! It would be good to get them on your side!

The other concerning thing is that it does not appear that the FAA has any data to show why this change is needed. It simply says "to enhance safety... etc". Is there a problem with safety because of small parts manufacturers now? Is there a safety issue because of aircraft that have been rebuilt???

Show me the data!!!

We need to force the FAA to prove that the benefits outweight the costs! I have a hard time believing that they do!

 

[Christina Young]

Burl,
I searched through this document:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/416626.pdf

and starting at page 25 the FAA lists the estimated compliance costs for both large businesses and small businesses. Are they in line with your estimates of the impact to your business?

Also - for people in Alaska - on page 29 of the same document the FAA requests comments on how this proposed regulation change would affect you specifically!

 

[Christina Young]

Have a wrecked cub in storage that you plan on rebuilding???????[/size] that is listed as "destroyed" with the NTSB? This says you cannot rebuild it.

Tim, can you point to where in the proposed rulemaking document it says that? What page is it on? I searched the document for "NTSB" and it came back with zero hits.

 

[Christina Young]

Tim, can you point to where in the proposed rulemaking document it says that? What page is it on? I searched the document for "NTSB" and it came back with zero hits.

FYI, the AOPA has a nice analysis of this on their site even if it isn't explicit in the FAA's doc. This is indeed a serious issue. I'm going to call the AOPA to see what's the latest status when I get a chance.

 

[behindpropellers]

I read it off of the AOPA website. I will read through it when I have some time.

Tim