DAR-56 Advice: Apply Under Your Current AC 00-56 Revision Number (even if you are still under “00-56A”)

We have received word that many ASA members are expeditiously pursuing DAR-56 credentials.  This is the temporary program that delegates limited 8130-3 privileges to individuals working in AC 00-56 environments.  It is great to hear that so many individuals in AC 00-56 companies are pursuing these credentials.

In a recent call with the ASA members, they pointed out that a significant portion of the AC 00-56 community is still accredited under AC 00-56A (not “B”).  The cancellation clause of AC 00-56B explains that a distributor can maintain its accreditation under the “A” revision until it runs out and is renewed under the normal renewal schedules:

“Distributors already in the database of accredited distributors under AC 00-56A may maintain their accreditation under the AC 00-56A standard until their accreditation expires, is superseded upon renewal, or is cancelled or removed by the distributor’s accreditation organization.”

So some accredited distributors could retain the “A” accreditation as late as August 2018 (90 days after the publication of the “B” revision + three years, when their accreditation expires).  The community continues to roll from “A” into “B” between now and 2018.

The cancellation clause of the “B” revision incorporates-by-reference and grandfathers the then-existing “A” revision accreditees.  Therefore, it seems logical that we should read the language of the DAR-56 memo to include the remaining accredited distributors who are still under the “A” revision.  There was nothing added by the “B” revision that would be necessary to the structure of the DAR function code 56 program – the “A” revision provided the structure necessary to manage the DAR FC 56 functions.

The problem, of course, is that the sample letter requires confirmation that “The organization listed in the letter is an Accredited Distributor in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 00-56B.” This appears, on its face, to possibly exclude those companies that are still accredited under the “A” revision.

We asked the FAA how they want applicants who are still under the “A” revision to handle this?  They responded by explaining that it is acceptable for applicants to state “The organization listed in the letter is an Accredited Distributor in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 00-56A.”  The response came from Scott Geddie, who leads the branch that is processing DAR-56 applications (so he can speak authoritatively on how the FAA will process DAR-56 applications).  Here is the text of the FAA’s response:


It was certainly not our intent to restrict those that are currently accredited under the “A” revision given the revision “B” guidance that says:  “Distributors already in the database of accredited distributors under AC 00-56A may maintain their accreditation under the AC 00-56A standard until their accreditation expires, is superseded upon renewal, or is cancelled or removed by the distributor’s accreditation organization.”

I believe the best course of action is for the Limited DAR-F applications and their corresponding letters of endorsement to reference the applicable revision of AC 00-56 that they are currently under.  My office will process emailed applications that include the reference to the “A” revision of the AC.

Scott Geddie
Manager, AIR-160, Delegation and Organizational Procedures Branch
Ph: (405)954-6897

Do you have questions about the DAR-56 program? Let us know your questions – we will work with the FAA to try and get answers that can benefit the entire distribution community.

Obtain 8130-3 Tags For Your Inventory – Limited Time Only!

Have you ever wished that there was an easy way to obtain 8130-3 tags for the obviously airworthy articles in your inventory?  Now, you can become a DAR and issue your own 8130-3 tags!  ASA has worked with the FAA to develop a limited program that will allow employees of accredited distributors to obtain DAR privileges to tag certain items in existing inventory.
The program creates a new function code 56 (because of the association with AC 00-56).  This is a limited function code for employees of accredited distributors that permits issue of 8130-3 tags for parts with certain types of clear evidence of production under FAA production approval.  The program can be found in this attached file.
This program is necessary because of the new emphasis on 8130-3 tags created by the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG).  Many FAA inspectors have required repair stations in the US to adopt receiving requirements that only permit receipt of aircraft parts with 8130-3, EASA Form One or TCCA Form One.  Parts with traditional manufacturer’s certificates of conformity (for example) are excluded from the MAG guidance!  This temporary ability to obtain 8130-3 tags permits some existing inventories of good parts to be tagged in order to meet the new standards created by the Maintenance Annex Guidance

What Can be Tagged?

A DAR with Function Code 56 privileges will be able to issue an 8130-3 tags for parts manufactured by an FAA production approval holder (PAH) if the part and its documentation meets one of the criteria below:
1. Certificate of Conformity/Statement of Conformity from the PAH.  The part number and serial number, if applicable, must match any marking on the part.
2. Certificate of Conformity/Statement of Conformity or shipping document from a PAH supplier and verification of that supplier’s direct ship authorization.
3. Part markings made under 14 C.F.R. § 45.15 that include the PAH’s name or identifier (including PMA markings, TSOA markings and critical part markings).  If the PAH name or other identification is not included in the part marking, then you will need a Certificate of Conformity/Statement of Conformity as described in paragraphs (1) or (2) above.


An applicant for the DAR-56 program must meet all five of the minimum qualifications:
1. AGE: Be at least 23 years of age.
2. EMPLOYMENT: Be employed by an accredited distributor at the location(s) from which the 8130-3 will be issued.  The FAA has not clarified whether this needs to be full-time or part-time nor have they excluded contract employment.  In the absence of clarification, applicants should assume that all categories of employment are acceptable.
3. INDEPENDENCE: Be assigned to a position in the business with sufficient authority to allow the DAR to administer the delegated function effectively without undue pressure or influence from others.
4. EXPERIENCE: Have a minimum of 12 months actual working experience for the accredited distributor under the distributor’s quality system, specifically:
a. Experience in either receiving inspection and/or quality assurance processes; and,
b. Experience reviewing documentation which can be used to verify that the article is traceable to the PAH, such as a FAA Form 8130-3 and Certificate of
Conformity/Statement of Conformity from a PAH.
5. TRAINING: Must have successfully completed FAA course: Issuance of 8130-3 for Domestic and Export Approvals of Engines, Propellers, & Articles Only.

Application Process

Scan and submit the following three documents by email to 9-AIRI60-LimitedDARF@faa.gov:
1. FAA training certificate of completion from the required class [FAA course: Issuance of 8130-3 for Domestic and Export Approvals of Engines, Propellers, & Articles Only]
2. FAA Form 8110-14, Statement of Qualifications (should be signed by the individual employee).
3. A letter of endorsement signed by a management representative from the accredited distributor location where that individual employee is requesting to exercise the authorization.
  • Where the accredited distributor has more than one accredited location, the applicant may apply to exercise privileges at each accreditation location
    under a single management endorsement letter.  The Memo includes a sample letter and explains what must be in the letter.

The applicant is expected to retain the original application materials in his/her records.  FAA Headquarters will review the application.  When an applicant is selected, the FAA will email the applicant a Certificate of Authority.


There are many categories of airworthy parts without 8130-3 tags that will not be covered by this DAR-56 program.  This is not a solution to all of the problems caused by the implementation of the Maintenance Annex Guidance.  many ASA members will still need to rely on traditional DARs.
The DAR-56 program is limited in time.  All Limited DAR-56 appointments under this program will be terminated on September 30, 2017.  We have discussed with the FAA that there will be a continuing need for the program, because some FAA-PAH manufacturers continue to produce parts without 8130-3 tags.  ASA intends to petition for an extension of the program if it appears that the program remains necessary, but ASA members should not plan on the FAA granting that petition (they have already told us that they will reject such a petition).


The FAA intends that this DAR-56 program be used to tag existing inventory in order to make it saleable under the new documentation standards of the MAG.  The FAA has stated that they intend to issue privileges to all eligible applicants, in order to facilitate this process (note that this does not give you a legal right to the privileges – the FAA retains the discretion to limit or terminate the program at its discretion).
Many of our members have a substantial existing inventory that is eligible to be tagged under this program.  We have spoken with members who have said that some inventories could take YEARS in order to tag the entire inventory.  We advise accredited members to seek DAR-56 privileges for EACH eligible employee, in order to maximize your potential for issuing 8130-3 tags.  Accredited members should also apply as early as possible.
Once employees have received their certificate of authority, they should start to review existing inventory and issue tags for eligible parts immediately, in order to maximize the documentation of the inventory.
We also advise unaccredited ASA members to seek AC 00-56 accreditation in order to be eligible for the DAR-56 program.  ASA can discuss the process with you and can accommodate members who need AC 00-56 audits in order to participate in the program.

As the MAG 6 Implementation Date Looms, Repair Stations Adopt MAG 6 Documentation Limits

We have received multiple copies of an email from AAR from a number of ASA members. It is obvious that the letter has just gone out today (based on the number of ASA members forwarding it to us).

The AAR letter concerns “expectations around MAG 6.”  It confirms that AAR’s understanding is that they need FAA 8130-3 or EASA Form One with anything that is not a standard part.  The letter permits no deviations.

AAR is a leading company in the aviation repair station industry so their interpretation of the MAG 6 provisions is quite important.

The FAA issued FAA Notice 8900.380 to temporarily reopen the safety valve that was closed by MAG 6.  It specifically authorizes dual-certificated repair stations in the United States to accept parts without 8130-3/Form One and to inspect the parts to ensure airworthy condition (and then use them).

ASA has expressed concern to the FAA that efforts like FAA Notice 8900.380 could be ineffective because (1) repair stations already submitted their changes months ago at the behest of their PMIs and they may be unable to once again change their systems, and (2) many industry participants view the MAG as operating at a “higher level” than the Notice and therefore discounted the Notice’s effect (right or wrong – this is still a popular industry perception).

There are parts that are necessary to safe operation of aircraft, but that will not have 8130-3 tags, despite the fact that they are susceptible to airworthiness determination under normal FAA Part 43 standards.  Remember – it only takes one small part to interfere with an entire maintenance function.  I fear that firm documentation positions like those expressed by AAR could lead to one of two possible resolutions:

  • Air carriers will have to ground aircraft because the airworthy part does not have an 8130-3 tag (or Form One), and therefore can’t be accepted and installed by the repair station; or,
  • Repair stations will circumvent their own written systems in order to bring in parts without 8130-3 tags, despite language in the system requiring such a tag.

Neither of these options is desirable.  I am afraid that the (B) option will be the one that occurs most in the real world.  I fear that this will occur because the parts are thought to be good and the maintenance needs to be performed.  I am afraid of this occurrence because once companies start circumventing their written systems, those written systems start to lose their integrity.  At a time when the industry and FAA are examining greater reliance on Safety Management Systems, anything that undermines the safety culture of following the company’s written system is detrimental to the future of aviation safety.

Distributors who are supporting dual-certified (FAA/EASA) repair stations should remind those customers that FAA Notice 8900.380 explicitly permits receipt of parts without 8130-3/Form One when the repair station inspects them for airworthiness (as has always been the case); and guidance like FAA Advisory Circular 20-62E still is effective in recommending reliance on other indicia of airworthiness, such a manufacturer’s certificate of conformity.  The Notice is temporary but we are still working with FAA to establish a better resolution to the issues facing the industry.  Ask your affected business partners to ensure that their systems are consistent with FAA Notice 8900.380, and ask them to announce their willingness to accept parts for inspection when those parts bear other indicia of airworthiness.

FAA Notice 8900.380 is CHANGED and this Affects How Repair Stations May Receive Parts

Immediately after the FAA issue Notice 8900.380, they reissued it with small, but significant, edits to the original language. This information was sent two weeks ago to ASA members by e-mail but I just realized that I forgot to include it in the blog!

The changed language seems to help the situation faced by distributors, by explicitly recognizing that repair stations may inspect and receive parts without 8130-3 or Form One – but only for a one-year interval, and only when the repair station’s inspection is consistent with its manuals.   A repair station rated to perform maintenance on a top assembly is also rated to inspect any component part to determine its eligibility for installation in the next higher assembly, so this one year inspection permission will be useful.

The new Notice isn’t numbered differently nor does it have change markers.  So it is important to ensure you have the most recent version of the Notice, and it is very easy to have the wrong version.

While this is unusual (re-issuing a notice with changes, but with no way to distinguish the changed version from the original), we will accept the change as it expands the type of parts that a 145 can inspect. These edits are beneficial to the industry.

Remember the below information only deals with 1) confirming that a 145 can inspect a part without an 8130-3, 2) tagging that part as inspected and 3) bringing it into the 145’s system (allowing a dual-certificated 145 to buy an aircraft part without an 8130-3 tag and use it in their work).

This does not change the NOTE section dealing with grandfathered parts.  This area is still being discussed with the FAA and EASA, but the grandfather clause has been confirmed by FAA to extend only to parts in the repair station’s inventory by October 1, 2016.

The edits to Notice 8300.380 are:

(b) Inspections. For the purposes of this notice, inspections may be performed on:

(1)  New parts received in inventory before October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3, a dated certificate of conformance, or similar documentation issued by a U.S. PAH or supplier with direct ship authority in accordance with the notes in MAG CHG 6, Section B,Appendix 1, subparagraph 10k)(1)(a) and Section C, Appendix 1, subparagraph 7c)(1)(a); and

(2)  New parts released by a U.S. PAH received on and after October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3.

The Notice clarifies a few points and provides no relief on several areas:

  • Effective date for MAG 6 parts documentation section is October 1, 2016.
  • Although MAG CHG 6 does not prohibit repair stations from inspecting an article or subcomponent that they are rated and approved to work on for return to service, the notice imposed certain limits on what parts are permitted to be inspected in this way. Repair station can issue an 8130-3 for any part received without the documentation required by the MAG and issue an 8130-3 with a dual release statement if the part meets one of these two conditions:
    • New parts in inventory prior to October 1, 2016 that do not have an 8130-3, dated C of C; or similar document issued by the PAH or supplier with direct ship authority.
  • So a repair station can purchase/inspect a new part from a distributor even if that part doesn’t have an 8130-3, before or after October 1, 2016. The 145 would inspect the part and issue an 8130-3 as part of the 145’s system.  This doesn’t apply if the part does not qualify for an 8130-3.
  • A repair station can also purchase/inspect a new part from a distributor before October 1, 2016, if that part does not have do not have an 8130-3, dated C of C; or similar document issued by the PAH or supplier with direct ship authority.
  • There are still some limitations to these privileges, so be sure to analyze your transactions carefully!


Q: What about new parts in a distributors inventory that were manufactured  before October 1, 2016 and that do not have an 8130-3?

A: After October 1, 2016, these parts need an 8130-3 to sell them to an FAA EASA dual certified repair station. ASA sought a re-interpretation of some language that would permit distributors to sell these parts to repair stations after October 1, 2016, and this lead to the new language of Notice 8900.380.  THE NEW NOTICE OFFERS SOME MORE OPTIONS TO DISTRIBUTORS.  One significant option is that for the limited one-year time period of the Notice, dual-certificated repair stations in the US may receive parts that do not conform to the MAG and inspect them for suitability.


Q: What if my parts don’t qualify for an 8130-3?

A: There are a number of categories of parts that do not qualify for an 8130-3 or Form One. One example is military surplus parts, which are permitted for use in civil aviation under conditions described in AC 20-62 and AC 20-142. For parts that are not permitted under the MAG and its interpretive notices, there may be no path to sell such parts to an FAA EASA dual certified repair station.


Q: What if my parts were made by a foreign PAH?

A: Although the FAA has signed bilateral aviation safety agreements in which the US has agreed to accept certain foreign-produced parts, if there is no mechanism in the MAG for accepting these parts, then this may inhibit repair stations from accepting these parts.  There appears to be no mechanism under the MAG for receiving a part made under production approval from a jurisdiction other than US, EU or Canada (like an Embraer part from Brazil).


Q: How do you get an 8130-3 when one does not exist?

A: For parts with evidence of airworthiness and that were produced under a US production approval, you can apply through a designated airworthiness representative (DAR).  We understand that the expense of a DAR may be too much in some cases.  If there are no DARs available, notify the FAA.  Please send a copy of your notification to ASA, so we can track these issues.


Q: What other remedies may be available?

A: ASA has pending litigation against the FAA but please know that there is no mechanism to force them to review this situation before October 1, 2016, and the actual resolution date is going to be sometime in 2017.  The US government opposes our appeal.  It is always possible that the court will rule against the industry.  ASA is also working directly with the FAA to achieve some reasonable resolution that will permit safe aircraft parts to be sold to the installers who need them, on an ongoing basis.

More FAA Guidance Creates More Confusion

The FAA has issued new guidance that interprets the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG).  At first, it looks like it is going to fix some of the problems.  And just when it looks like the problems might be fixed, it throws us a curve ball with a limitation that appears to once again work to the disadvantage of distributors with new and new surplus parts.

The new guidance is FAA Notice 8900.380.  The key language in this new guidance states:

“b. Inspections. For the purposes of this notice, inspections may be performed on:

(1) New parts in inventory prior to October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3, a dated certificate of conformance, or similar documentation issued by a U.S. PAH or supplier with direct ship authority in accordance with the notes in MAG CHG 6, Section B, Appendix 1, subparagraph 10k)(1)(a) and Section C, Appendix 1, subparagraph 7c)(1)(a); and
(2) New parts released by a U.S. PAH on and after October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3.”

The problem language is the “in inventory” phrase in section (b)(1).  Does it mean parts in a repair station’s inventory?  Or is it broader, applying to parts in anyone’s inventory? If it is limited to parts in a repair station’s inventory prior to October 1, 2016, then this still seems to prevent a distributor from selling a part without an 8130-3 or Form One to a repair station as of October 1, as implied by the MAG.  Repair stations would not be able to accept new parts with manufacturer’s certificate of conformity (but no 8130-3) and inspect them to confirm airworthiness, as they have done for many years in the past.

In essence, aircraft parts that were released by a U.S. PAH before October 1, 2016 (today, this means ALL parts) and that are ‘not in the right inventory’ as of October 1, 2016 would not be eligible to be inspected by a repair station.

On the other hand, if the terminology is broader, and it applies to all inventories, then this would return us to the position that we’ve always been in – where EASA 145 repair stations can accept parts without an 8130-3 as “unserviceable” parts and then inspect them to satisfactory condition (which inspection can be supplemented by review of the PAH certificate of conformity or other PAH documentation).  This interpretation would be much better for the industry.

So which one is it? Unfortunately, this phrase, “in inventory,” was discussed in a June meeting among FAA, EASA and industry.  The meeting was called to discuss the MAG.   ASA raised the term and suggested that it be interpreted to include parts in a distributor’s inventory.  This suggestion was soundly rejected by EASA.  EASA explained that the context of the MAG was that it applied to repair stations and therefore “in inventory” must be read to only include repair station inventories (and not distributor inventories).  ASA explained that such an interpretation closed an important safety valve for parts in distributors’ inventories.  The matter seemed final in the meeting, with the FAA acquiescing to the EASA interpretation.

In recent conversations, an ARSA representative suggested that the term “in inventory” should apply to any inventory, anywhere.  He suggested that the prior EASA interpretation might be ignored for the Notice because the Notice is a separate document.  The problem is, the Notice interprets the MAG (and explicitly states that it will be incorporated into the MAG in the next revision).  It therefore appears to be subject to the same interpretations and limitations as those associated with the MAG.

On the same day that we received a copy of this FAA Notice, ASA made a request for interpretation to the FAA, asking how to interpret the term “in inventory.”  The request remains pending.  We are hoping that the FAA will issue a response explaining that parts in a distributor’s inventory are “in inventory” and can be sent to a dual-certified repair station for purchase and inspection by that repair station.  To do so, though, might require the FAA to exercise some political courage, because such an interpretation would contradict the EASA statements. We also hope for a rapid response from the FAA, because these questions are interfering with commerce in aircraft parts from the United States.

But even if we get the interpretation that we want, there will still be perfectly good aircraft parts that remain ineligible for inspection under the peculiar limitations imposed by the MAG and Order 8900.380.  We continue to hear stories from members about necessary and safe aircraft parts that are excluded from the system by the new rules.  ASA will continue to work with the FAA and the courts to obtain a remedy that returns some sanity to the system.

Export Alert: New Destination Control Statement Required

Under current law, the US regulations require exporters to include a destination control statement (“DCS”), on each export control document that accompanies an export shipment.  The export control documents that are required to show this statement include the invoice, the bill of lading, the air waybill, and any other export control document that accompanies the shipment from its point of origin in the United States to the ultimate consignee or end-user abroad.

This is sometimes known as the ‘non-diversion statement’ because the current version includes language stating that “diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited.”  The purpose of the DCS was to alert parties outside the United States that the item is subject to the US export regulations.

The rules have always held that compliance with the comparable ITAR requirement was an acceptable means of compliance where the shipment included both ITAR and EAR-controlled articles.  The comparable ITAR requirement requires slightly different language.  Many people nonetheless found the different language in each regulation to be confusing.

The Commerce Department has changed their DCS language to harmonize it with the ITAR-required-language.  This is meant to make compliance easier.  Starting on the implementation date of the rule (November 15, 2016), exporters of articles subject to BIS jurisdiction (those with ECCNs) should use the following destination control statement on all exports:

“These items are controlled by the U.S. Government and authorized for export only to the country of ultimate destination for use by the ultimate consignee or end-user(s) herein identified. They may not be resold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of, to any other country or to any person other than the authorized ultimate consignee or end-user(s), either in their original form or after being incorporated into other items, without first obtaining approval from the U.S. government or as otherwise authorized by U.S. law and regulations”

In addition, the DCS should show the Export Commodity Classification Number (ECCN) for any 9×515 or ‘600 series’ (nx6nn) items being exported.

There are exceptions to this DCS requirement for EAR 99 exports and also for exports under license exceptions BAG (baggage) and GFT (gift parcels and humanitarian donations), but typically these do not apply to exports of aircraft parts.

Update on MAG issue and ASA Efforts

What is the Issue?

The latest revision of the Maintenance Annex Guidance [“MAG”] creates a new system in which existing industry documentation (which is acceptable under current EU and US regulations) becomes unacceptable within US repair stations. It is objectionable because it imposes new documentation standards that do not exist in either US or European regulations, and in doing so creates a documentation requirement for aircraft parts that will render worthless significant portions of existing aircraft parts inventories.

Under current US standards, no documentation is required in order to receive an aircraft part into a repair station’s inventory. See, e.g., FAA Chief Counsel’s Opinion Letter (August 6, 2009) (stating “there is no Federal Aviation regulation that requires traceability of an aircraft part to its origin” and explaining that parts may be found airworthy based on documentation, markings, or inspection and testing).  The repair station may install the part as long as it confirms that the article will return the product to a condition “at least equal to its original or properly altered condition.” 14 C.F.R. § 43.13.

The European system is a bit different. The European system distinguishes parts into six different categories, but for purposes of this analysis only two are relevant.

The first is serviceable parts – those in a satisfactory condition. Serviceable parts must be accompanied by the European manufacturer’s document known as the EASA Form One, or an equivalent document. EASA 145.A.42(a)(1).  EASA has recognized that the FAA 8130-3 tag is an equivalent document for receipt purposes (when signed on the left side).  EASA AMC M.A.501(a) ¶ (5)(a) (documents under the terms of a bilateral agreement); Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between the FAA and EASA, ¶ 5.1.10 (Rev. 5 Sept. 15, 2015) (the bilateral agreement).

Because there are many articles produced by US manufacturers that do not bear 8130-3 tags, a ‘safety valve’ provision allows European repair stations to accept articles without such documentation.

There is a second provision in the EASA regulations that permits “unserviceable parts” to enter into a repair station without documentation when they are intended to be maintained. EASA 145.A.42(a)(2).  The European definition of “unserviceable” includes articles that are missing “necessary information to determine the airworthiness status or eligibility for installation.” EASA M.A.504(a)(3).  Thus, any new aircraft part that is missing an EASA Form One or 8130-3 (whichever is appropriate) is deemed unserviceable and can enter a repair station without documentation. Such an article may then be inspected to serviceable condition and installed if it passes inspection. See, e.g., EASA AMC M.A.501(a) (Installation); EASA AMC M.A.613(a) (Component certificate of release to service).  It cannot be treated as serviceable until it undergoes that inspection.

The problem with the MAG is that it closes the safety valve that allows acceptance of new parts without an 8130-3 or EASA Form One. It does this by establishing two different categories that are inconsistent with the “serviceable/ unserviceable” categories established under European law. The two categories are “new” and “used.” Under existing European law, a new part without the correct documentation can be received as unserviceable, and subsequently inspected to serviceable condition, but under the MAG, a new part is required to have an 8130-3 or EASA Form One. There is no exception under the MAG for new parts without the designated documentation – they are simply excluded.

So How Does this Affect Members?

Actual implementation has already shown that the language of the MAG is being enforced by FAA field inspectors as mandatory even though there is no regulatory basis under US or EU law for such enforcement. Thus, the real implementation has been that all US repair stations with EASA credentials are required to have a written manual (known as a Supplement) requiring them to exclude new parts without 8130-3 documents or EASA Form One documents – even though both US and EU regulations permit acceptance of these new parts.

This is starting to have a real world effect that will be expanded with the October 1, 2016 implementation.  Distributors are finding that parts that they could sell with manufacture’s trace (or other reasonable trace) are no longer “good enough.” Repair stations are starting to demand 8130-3 tags on everything (including parts that are not eligible for 8130-3 tags).

What is ASA Doing About It?

ASA continues to work with the FAA to achieve a solution.  FAA management recognizes that this is a potential problem, and they have been optimistic about finding a solution.

Our first efforts were to find a way to “grandfather” existing aircraft parts inventories.  FAA supported this solution, but EASA opposed it.

We have also asked for guidance explaining that repair stations can apply US standards to parts destined for US registered aircraft, but early implementers have shown that this idea is not consistent with what FAA inspectors are requesting so it is likely to be ineffective.  In addition, it creates a logistical problem for component repair stations who may not know the ultimate destination of the components on which they are working.

We are now looking at new ways to obtain 8130-3 tags for good inventory.  This will not be a 100% solution to the impediment created by the documentation requirements, but it should help preserve the value of some inventories.  We expect to continue discussions of this proposal with the FAA, next week.

On the legal front, we continue to pursue a halt to the MAG documentation requirements.  This would not affect the EASA regulations – they still apply where appropriate – but to the extent that the MAG imposes additional standards that would be enforced by the FAA, we have asked the DC Circuit Court to issue a “Stay” that would prevent the FAA-enforcement of these new documentation requirements.

Today, as part of this effort, we filed this Motion for a Stay.  We would like to thank the many ASA members who worked with us to develop  affidavits explaining the factual situation of 8130- 3tags and aircraft parts inventories.

%d bloggers like this: