Recordkeeping for Aviation Exports – What Do You Need to Retain?

Exporters must maintain records as proof of compliance with U.S. government regulations for a minimum of 5 years.  During this retention period, these retained records may be requested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Census, or any other U.S. Government Agency that has jurisdiction over your export.  This can be a daunting task and I have seen businesses that failed to retain such records.  This article seeks to provide some guidance on the scope and length of your recordkeeping obligations as an exporter.

What records should be kept, you ask? The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) provides a list of records that must be retained.

  1. Export control documents.  Examples include license and license application, AES record, dock receipt, 7512 forms, and antiboycott reports. The only exception is a party that submits documents electronically to BIS via the SNAP-R system; these parties are not required to retain copies of submitted documents. Note:  I would not count on this and I would be sure to keep all copies for reference purposes.
  2. Memoranda.  Examples include written records of business communications, reminders, agreements, and contracts.
  3. Notes.
  4. Correspondences.  Chances are, there are emails concerning your transaction.  These are supposed to be retained.
  5. Contracts.  A series of communications that result in an agreement may be considered a contract.
  6. Invitations to bid.  This could include any RFP/RFQ.
  7. Books of account.  This means accounting records, which may be used to defend against an audit.
  8. Financial records.  All formal records of the financial activities of a business or person.
  9. Restrictive trade practice or boycott documents and reports.
  10. Notifications from BIS.  This includes notification from BIS of an application being returned without action, of an application being denied, of the results of a commodity classification or encryption review request conducted by BIS.
  11. Other records pertaining to any other transaction subject to BIS regulations (pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 762.1).
  12. Any other record that is required to be retained under other BIS regulations.  There is a partial list of these regulations in 15 C.F.R. § 762.2(b).

I said that you have to retain these documents for at least five years.  What does this mean?  Export Regulations state 5 years from the latest of the following times:

  1. The date of export from the U.S.
  2. The date of any known re-export, transshipment, or diversion. If you are shipping to a overseas broker, then you may need to start the clock when the broker re-exports the articles.
  3. The date of the termination of the transaction, whether formally in writing or by any other means. If the articles are returned under an RMA, then you still need to keep the records for five years from the return.
  4. In the case of records of pertaining to transactions involving restrictive trade practices or boycotts, the date the regulated person receives the boycott-related request or requirement.

Another caveat: if any U.S. government agency makes a formal (or informal) request for records before that 5 year period is up, or give you any reason to believe that the record may be relevant to a court action, then that record may not be destroyed or disposed-of.  If this happens, make sure you get legal advice about the disposition of the records, in order to avoid an allegation of spoliation.

There is a list of records that are exempt from the recordkeeping requirements; however  some of these records may need to be retained because of other reasons (including other regulatory systems and your own quality assurance system).  These include:

  • Inspection certificate (but some documents like a raw materials certification may need to be retained under other provisions like your written quality system);
  • Warranty certificate (but if it is part of the contract then it may need to be retained);
  • Packing material certificate (but certificates like a shipper’s declaration of dangerous goods may be required to retained under other laws);
  • Goods quality certificate (but some documents like 8130-3 tags may need to be retained under other provisions like your written quality system);

Don’t forget that other agencies may have other overlapping retention requirements and you must comply with all such requirements.  For example, under the State Department regulations, 22 C.F.R. § 123.22 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) explains that the exporter of ITAR-controlled defense articles must file information prior to export and then under 22 C.F.R. § 122.5 must retain records for a period of five years from the expiration of the license or other approval.

As always, if you need help, contact us and we can work with you on developing the right systems for compliance!

Advertisements

Source of Parts for Repair Stations – Does it Matter?

An ASA member recently asked us to answer a MAG 6 question.  MAG 6 refers to revision 6 of the Maintenance Annex Guidance between the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

QUESTION: The ASA member (a dual-certificated repair stations subject to the MAG 6 requirements) asked:

We are an FAA and EASA dual-certificated repair station.  We would like to install a part.  Does it matter if the part was procured from outside sources or the replacement part comes from our own shelf and we perform the required inspections in house?

ANSWER: The first question is ‘how and when did the part enter your system?’  Remember that MAG 6 grandfathered parts that were already in a repair station’s inventory.  The relevant language from MAG 6 states:

“New parts that were received into inventory prior to October 1, 2016 must, at a minimum, have a document or statement (containing the same technical information as an FAA Form 8130-3) issued by the PAH or supplier with direct ship authority. These parts in inventory, documented with the required information, will be grandfathered and remain suitable for installation into EU articles, provided the certification/release date of these parts is prior to October 1, 2016.”

So if the parts were new, received into the repair station’s inventory prior to October 1, 2016, and had the requisite documentation, then they are acceptable for use.  If they did not have the requisite documentation (described above) when they were received into the repair station’s inventory, then you may need to inspect them for airworthiness before installation, pursuant to the guidance found in FAA Notice 8900.429.  In addition, this grandfathering process did not apply to used parts, so those will also need to be processed appropriately before use.

Ultimately, the second question is going to be “can you make a finding of suitability/airworthiness consistent with the regulations?”

The process you use for identifying the suitability of the part may be different depending on the source.  If you bring in the part from outside, then it must meet the MAG 6 documentation requirements or it must be subject to the FAA Notice 8900.429 inspection provisions.  If the part is selected from an in-house shelf, and was not brought in through your standard receiving inspection mechanism (e.g. a part removed by your repair station from a larger component during a tear-down of the new component for the purpose of separating parts needed for overhaul), then you will need to rely on your own internal mechanisms to assure airworthiness.  EASA regulations anticipate this but the MAG does not, which is why Notice 8900.429 was necessary.  In that sense the source of the part does matter (to the extent it drives a particular process that will be used to identify the suitability of the part).

The process you use for identifying the suitability of the part may also differ depending on the nature of the part.  The installer needs to ascertain the airworthiness of the part, so a part that is more likely to have major or catastrophic failure mode is likely to have more airworthiness conditions that need to be checked in order to gauge airworthiness of the part.  On the other hand, a part whose failure could have no safety affect on the aircraft is more likely to be subject to a mere “form, fit and function” check.

In a broad sense, though, it does NOT matter whether you procured the part from outside sources (e.g. with appropriate documentation) or you selected a part from your own shelf and performed appropriate inspections to verify airworthiness (as permitted under FAA Notice 8900.429).  The reason is because in each case, the installer has an obligation to ensure the part meets the prerequisites for being fitted during maintenance, and if it meets those prerequisites then it is eligible to be fitted (and if it fails to meet those prerequisites, then it cannot be fitted no matter the source … until and unless it is maintained to return it to an airworthy condition).

Thus, you can rely on documentation meeting the MAG 6 standards (e.g. documentation described in MAG 6, Section B, Appendix 1, paragraph 10(k)) or you can use the alternative mechanism described in FAA Notice 8900.429.  If the part meets the applicable requirements under either of these standards, and is otherwise airworthy, then it should be eligible to be fitted for maintenance in an appropriate installation.  Even though the way the part was shown to be eligible might have been different, the end result is the same.

If you intend to rely on documentation as part of the process for identifying suitability for installation, then it is a good idea to rely on an AC 00-56 accredited distributor.  AC 00-56 distributors provide a level of documentation that has been found acceptable by the FAA and other aviation authorities, and they are regularly audited for compliance to the AC 00-56 standards.  AC 00-56 accredited distributors can be found on every continent except Antarctica.

Shipping PBEs: They Aren’t Always Chemical Oxygen Generators

A member identified to us a new type of Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE) and sent us a copy of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS).  The member was confused because the manufacturer classified the unit as UN3072 (life saving equipment) and not the usual UN3356 (chemical oxygen generator).  The U.S. Regulations affirmatively recognize that PBEs may contain chemical oxygen generators (49 C.F.R. 172.101 – Table Entry for “oxygen generator, chemical”).

The member frequently ships smoke hoods and PBE’S as ‘’CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY’’ and is used to seeing them designated as UN3356.  He asked whether it is OK (under US law) to ship the PBE as UN3072 (as per the manufacturer’s SDS).

The US regulations permit classification of a unit that will be shipped by air according to ICAO Technical Standards.  49 C.F.R. 171.24.  These are republished in the IATA Dangerous Goods regulations book.

It is important to look at the actual composition of the unit in order to classify it the right way.  For clarity, oxygen generators are defined in Appendix A (the glossary) of the ICAO Technical Instructions.  The definition explains that this proper shipping name reflects “[a] device containing chemicals which upon activation releases oxygen as a product of chemical reaction.”  Typically such devices have an oxidizing salt (like a peroxide or a perchlorate) that releases both heat and oxygen when mixed with one or more other chemicals in the oxygen generator.

UN 3356 is the UN number for “chemical oxygen generators.”  Many PBEs use chemical oxygen generators to efficiently produce oxygen for the unit.  So it is natural to assume that a PBE would include an oxygen generator.  However, an oxygen generator is not necessary in a PBE – in fact FAA TSO C116A describes the oxygen generator as an acceptable alternative to an oxygen tank.   So it is possible to have a PBE that does not include a chemical oxygen generators.

In this case, the SDS made it clear that the PBE used compressed oxygen gas as the mechanism for delivering oxygen.  This means that there is a tank of oxygen, which is a compressed gas regulated as a class two hazardous material (and a class five oxidizer).  based on the SDS information, it was clear that the unit was appropriately described under UN 3072 (“life saving appliances, not self inflating”).

One important note – under US regulations (49 C.F.R. 171.24), if you ship any package containing compressed oxygen, you are subject to the “superpack” requirements – this means that the outer packaging must resist thermal and flame penetration according to the standards published at 49 C.F.R. Part 178 appendices D and E.  That holds true even if shipped under the proper shipping name “life saving appliances, not self inflating.”

Does a Dual-Certificated Part 145 Repair Station Need Documentation for Parts, or Can It Inspect Them, Prior to Installation?

An ASA member recently asked us to answer a MAG 6 question.  MAG 6 refers to revision 6 of the Maintenance Annex Guidance between the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

QUESTION: The ASA member (a dual-certificated repair stations subject to the MAG 6 requirements) asked “Concerning USED replacement parts intended to be fitted to an engine during the maintenance process, does EASA expect every single one of those items installed during the maintenance process to have a dual-release 8130-3, dual-release TC Form One, or dual/tri-release EASA Form one with it assuming it is not a standard part?  (Reference item 10, Section B, Appendix 1 from US-EU Mag, Chang 6)”

ANSWER: The short answer is that a dual-certificated (part 145) repair station in the US generally need specified documentation for used parts intended to be fitted during maintenance, BUT such a repair station can accept a part without the specified documentation if it inspects the part under FAA Notice 8900.429.

First of all, the reader should note that MAG 6 is DIFFERENT from the EASA regulations and therefore an answer under MAG 6 might be different from the answer to a similar question posed purely under EASA regulations.

MAG 6 explains that when a repair station wants to install used components, those components must meet the following conditions before they are fitted during maintenance:

  • Must be in a satisfactory condition for installation;
  • Must be eligible for installation as stated in the PAH parts catalogue or aviation authority (AA) approval document (like a FAA-PMA supplement);
  • Must include one of these authorized release documents (as a maintenance release for a used component) from an appropriately rated maintenance facility:
    • FAA Form 8130-3 from EASA-approved U.S.-based 14 CFR part 145 repair stations;
    • EASA Form 1 from EASA Part-145 approved maintenance organizations not located in the U.S.
    • Canadian Form 1 from a Canadian EASA-approved maintenance organization;
  • In the case of life limited parts, the life used must be appropriately documented.

The FAA recognized that there are significant problems with this language.  It simply doesn’t cover all of the normal situations typically found in the industry.  So the FAA issued FAA Notice 8900.380 (which expired in 2017), followed by FAA Notice 8900.429 (which effectively extended the policy published in Notice 8900.380).  Each of these Notices permits new and used parts to be inspected by a properly rated repair station (notwithstanding the apparent limitations of MAG 6).  The repair station should have appropriate inspection criteria for conducting the inspection.

FAA Notice 8900.429 will expire August 8, 2018, and is expected to be encompassed in permanent guidance before that date.  If this Notice has not been replaced by appropriate guidance by next summer, then ASA will likely petition to have a third Notice issued in order to protect the industry’s ability to accept and use airworthy parts.

So, in summary, a dual-certificated repair station in the U.S. (and subject to MAG 6) receiving used components that are intended to be fitted during maintenance must either (1) receive them with an appropriate 8130-3, EASA Form 1 or TCCA Form 1, or (2) perform an inspection of the parts and find them eligible for installation.

FAA Transitioning Limited DARs to Full-Function DARs

Today, the FAA issued a memo that permits the limited designated airworthiness representatives (DARs) [commonly known as DAR-56s] to transition to normal DARs with function code 19 privileges.  This is a major achievement for ASA’s members!

The Guidance

The new FAA guidance is known as Memo Number AIR-600-17-6F0-DM08.  This memo permits current DAR-56 privilege holders to apply for function code 19 privileges.

The reason for this change is to resolve certain limitation that the FAA now believes are unnecessary.  The first unnecessary limitation involves the date of  receipt of the parts.  DAR-56 privilege holders can only issue 8130-3 where the parts were received by November 1, 2016.  This date was arbitrary, and did not to address the fact that production approval parts are still entering the system from manufactures who do not issue 8130-3 tags.  Transitioning to function code 19 will eliminate this date restriction.

The second issue this resolves is that the DAR-56 program only permits tagging of a very limited slice of parts.  A much broader swath of parts are eligible for 8130-3 tags under current FAA policy.  Function code 19 permits tagging of parts with adequate evidence that they were created by a production approval holder, and have suffered neither damage nor degradation since release from the production approval holder’s quality system.  While this category is subject to FAA guidance, it is still broader than the very narrow limits associated with DAR-56.

The deadline to apply for a smooth transition is 90 days from the date of the memo (Tuesday, 2 January, 2018).

The Process (for DAR 56 holders)

If you currently hold DAR 56 privileges, then you should apply to your local (“geographic”) Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO) for appointment as a DAR-F with function code 19.  You can find your geographic MIDO on the FAA’s website.  Using the “select the state” function at the bottom of the page (but above the blue footer), enter your state where you operate and find which MIDO is your geographic MIDO.

Then, apply to your geographic MIDO using the on-line Designee Management System tool.

In order to be appointed as a DAR-F under this program an applicant must meet the minimum qualifications provided in FAA Order 8000.95. Look within 8000.95 for the criteria – specifically in Volume 1, Chapter 2 and in Volume 8, Chapter 2.

There is one significant difference from the standards found in FAA Order 8000.95 and the transitioning DAR 56s.  That is the experience provision.  Under the FAA memo, the applicant who has applied for a timely transition from DAR 56 privileges does not need to meet the normal 36 month experience  requirement.  Instead, the applicant must

“[h]ave a minimum of 12-months actual working experience for the accredited distributor under the quality system at the accredited distributor location(s), specifically:

a. Experience in either receiving inspection and/or quality assurance processes; and,

b. Experience reviewing documentation and/or part markings which can be used to verify that parts and articles are traceable to the PAH.”

Application checklist:

  • Identify your geographic MIDO;
  • Complete the required FAA training (you will need to submit the training certificate as part of your application package);
  • Obtain a letter of reference from the accredited distributor (signed by someone who can represent the business); a sample can be found in attachment 1 to the memo;
  • Ensure that your application details match those already filed for you under the DAR-56 program;
  • Apply through the DMS system, and include:
    1. Evidence of completion of the required FAA training;
    2. The letter of reference from the accredited distributor;
  • Notify FAA Headquarters that you currently hold function code 56 privileges and that you have filed an online application seeking function code 19 privileges.  Perform this notification by ending an email to the AIR-6F0 mailbox at AIR160-limiteddarf@faa.gov.  AIR-6F0 will notify the appropriate MIDO of the application, and let them know that it is subject to the provisions of the policy memo.

Once this process is complete, if the FAA reviews your package and finds that you can be transitioned to function code 19, then they will cancel your DAR 56 privileges and assign function code 19 privileges for issuing 8130-3 tags.  Don’t just rely on this checklist – be sure to study the policy memo!

Once you get the new function code privileges, you should expect that you will be limited to only exercising the privilege at the accredited facilities of the AC 00-56 accredited distributor.  This is not a “portable” credential, because it relies on the distributor’s AC 00-56B system as part of the basis for knowing that the part is in an appropriate condition to receive an 8130-3 tag.

The Process (for others)

We advised all of our members to obtain DAR-56 privileges.  But we recognize that some members did not follow this advice.  We also recognize that some function code 56 holders may allow the 90 day period to come and go without filing their application to transition.

If you do not hold DAR-56 privileges, or if you waited too long, then there is still a path!

The new guidance permits other persons to apply for function code 19 privileges under the terms of the memo; however such applicants are not entitled to the same presumptions enjoyed by transitioning DAR-56 holders.  If you fall into this category, then you will only be considered if the MIDO can independently establish that the FAA has a need and ability to manage the delegation; this means that you are going to need to convince the MIDO!  You also need to meet conditions that are comparable to those imposed on DAR 56 applicants.  You will still benefit from the alternative experience requirement (12 months experience with the quality system of the accredited distributor).

What About Export Tags?

The FAA has been transitioning away from a distinction between “domestic tags” and “export tags.” They took a major step toward that goal when they issued the memo guidance that explained that 8130-3 tags were no longer allowed to say the word “export.”  For a full discussion of this change, please see our blog post on the subject.

This transition is consistent with international practice, which typically does not distinguish between an “export tag” and a “domestic tag.”

So the future of the 8130-3 tag is that all tags will look the same – whether they are intended for domestic use or non-US use – and there will be no visible difference in the tag for exports.  The exporter is expected to address the special import conditions of the importing nation.  This has been FAA policy for some time, with export compliance obligations falling on the exporter and not on the DAR.

For newly transitioned DARs who are permitted to issue domestic tags under function code 19, this means that the tags will be useful for exports as well as for domestic transactions.

DAR 56? Apply to Extend Your Credentials by September 30!

Do you have function code 56 privileges?  If you do, then you need to renew your credentials ASAP – the deadline for renewal is September 30.  Instructions and other guidance for renewal can be found in our earlier post about submitting your request for renewal.

Background on FC 56

FAA created a program (AIR-100-16-160-PM13) that allowed qualified distributor employees to issue 8130-3 tags as DARs exercising function code (FC) 56.

Many of the eligible new parts had been accepted under their previously acceptable documentation schemes, which were both known and recognized within the industry. ASA argued that under FAA policies (like FAA AC 20-62E), these documents were sufficient to identify a new part and to permit installation, so issuing an 8130-3 tag based on that evidence should be a mere ministerial task. The FAA agreed and created a Limited DAR program (“DAR 56”) in which individuals could obtain the DAR privilege of issuing 8130-3 for parts when the following conditions were met (this is only a partial list):

  1. Individual must work for an accredited distributor, and can only tag parts that were received by the distributor’s accredited system before a certain date (currently November 1, 2016)
  2. Individual must complete FAA training
  3. Part must either bear (1) part markings regulated under 14 C.F.R. § 45.14 [PMA, TSOA and critical parts], (2) a certificate from the manufacturer, confirming that the part was produced under a FAA production approval, or (3) a certificate from the manufacturer’s direct-ship authorized supplier, confirming that the part was produced under a FAA production approval.

The program was scheduled to end on September 30, 2017 but was extended by an additional policy memo (AIR-600-17-6F0-PM01) until 2018.

Discussion with the FAA About the Future of DAR 56

The FAA is considering converting all FC 56 DARs into FC 19 DARs (they will need to apply through normal channels, but the FAA would treat their distribution experience as relevant experience for obtaining Function Code 19 privileges).

If this program goes through, then many of the FC 56 limitations would ‘go away’ and the DARs would be able to use function code 19 to tags other sorts of new parts that have clear indicia of having been produced by US Production Approval Holders.  This could make it easier to handle expendables that have been difficult to get tagged because of their volume and low-cost (relative to the normal cost of obtaining an 8130-3).  It is likely that the converted DARs woud lneed to rely on their AC 00-56 systems as a condition of the exercise of their functions.

This is not yet subject to final approval by FAA management, so it could change!

Advice

If you currently hold Limited DAR credentials under the “DAR 56” program, then

  1. You need to apply to extend your credentials by September 30 – that deadline is coming up fast!! You can find more details here;
  2. Be sure to use your credentials to issue 8130-3 – activity is an important metric when seeking to renew or upgrade your credentials;
  3. We are working with the FAA to permit transfer of your credentials to a permanent DAR with function code 19 (able to issue 8130-3 tags for a wider class of demonstrably airworthy, new parts). We hope to have more news on this, soon!

Important Changes Affecting How YOU Get Your 8130-3 Tags

ASA met with FAA to discuss access to 8130-3 tags.

As you all know, revision 6 of the Maintenance Annex Guidance added a new receiving requirement for aircraft parts: all parts manufactured by US Production Approval Holders (PAHs) must bear 8130-3 tags.  Although the requirement is technically limited to dual-certificated repair stations, it triggered a domino effect that has led many in the global industry to demand 8130-3 tags (sometimes demanding the tags on parts that are ineligible for such tags).

This effectively froze inventories of new (airworthy) PAH parts that bore documentation other than the 8130-3 (e.g. parts with manufacturer’s Certificates of Conformity, parts with back-to-birth traceability, etc.).  The small supply of DARs and high prices for 8130-3 tags relative to the cost of new expendables created a situation that was difficult to remedy.

The FAA issued two policies that helped to provide temporary remedies, while a permanent solution to the crisis is sought.

Temporary Remedy One: Repair Stations Can Inspect Parts

FAA issued Notice 8900.380 last year.  That Notice permitted repair stations to bring in parts without 8130-3 tags and inspect them to confirm airworthiness through traditional indicia.  That notice was expected to terminate in August; the FAA issued Notice 8900.429 to replace it.  The replacement notice is substantially the same as the original.

Repair stations looking for instructions on how to inspect such parts should contact the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), which published their E-100 standard to guide repair stations in doing this.  Their standard has been favorably reviewed by the FAA as a tool for compliance to the MAG.

Temporary Remedy Two: Limited DARs

FAA also created a program (AIR-100-16-160-PM13) that allowed qualified distributor employees to issue 8130-3 tags as DARs.

Many of the eligible new parts had been accepted under their previously acceptable documentation schemes, which were both known and recognized within the industry.  ASA argued that under FAA policies (like FAA AC 20-62E), these documents were sufficient to identify a new part and to permit installation, so issuing an 8130-3 tag based on that evidence should be a mere ministerial task.  The FAA agreed and created a Limited DAR program (“DAR 56”) in which individuals could obtain the DAR privilege of issuing 8130-3 for parts when the following conditions were met (this is only a partial list):

  1. Individual must work for an accredited distributor, and can only tag parts that were received by the distributor’s accredited system before a certain date (currently November 1, 2016)
  2. Individual must complete FAA training
  3. Part must either bear (1) part markings regulated under 14 C.F.R. § 45.14 [PMA, TSOA and critical parts], (2) a certificate from the manufacturer, confirming that the part was produced under a FAA production approval, or (3) a certificate from the manufacturer’s direct-ship authorized supplier, confirming that the part was produced under a FAA production approval.

The program was scheduled to end on September 30, 2017 but was extended by an additional policy memo (AIR-600-17-6F0-PM01) until 2018.

Discussion with the FAA About the Future

Our most recent discussions with the FAA have been very positive.  They recognize the importance of having a path to economically obtain 8130-3 tags for demonstrably airworthy parts.  At present, they appear to recognize the importance of maintaining the temporary solutions until a permanent solution is adopted.  But the exact nature of a permanent solution is still elusive.

One option is for EASA to change what they “require” for receiving documentation.  One issue with such a “change” is that European regulations are not as strict as the MAG, so Europe simply does not have the problem that the US is facing.  Another is that European traditions of regulatory interpretation are more realpolitik than US traditions, which gives them even more room to do business.  This has been seen, first-hand, by distributors that find that parts rejected in the US for lack of MAG compliance are still readily accepted by EU-based repair stations.  Nonetheless, Europe is considering eliminating the need for an EASA Form One for non-critical parts (a term that still needs a settled definition in this context), which could provide some relief for the many airworthy expendable parts that have been caught-up in this issue.  These topics are expected to be on the table in the EASA Global Manufacturing meeting that FAA and ASA will both attend later this Fall.

Another option is providing more resources for 8130-3 tags.  Airworthiness approval tags were originally meant to be used only for aircraft and major assemblies – it was expected that exporters would self-certify the airworthiness of export articles based on other evidence (like evidence of production by a FAA-PAH).  Over the decades we have chipped away at this notion but some executives in the FAA think that the 8130-3 inhibits exports of airworthy parts more often than it facilitates those exports.  In light of the robust evidence of airworthiness that traditionally follows a PAH part, they are starting to lean toward relaxing the standards for issuing an 8130-3 where clear evidence of airworthiness is present.

These are just two options of the many that have been discussed; but they represent long-term projects – right now, we need to be focused on the short-term mechanisms for keeping airworthy parts moving in the chain of commerce.  So for that, US businesses that sell aircraft parts should carefully follow his advice:

Advice

If you do not yet hold Limited DAR credentials under the “DAR 56” program, then apply for them ASAP.  The ability to obtain 8130-3 tags through this program is going to be more and more important to distributors.

  • We recommend that you should have more than one person in your facility with these privileges, to allow for business continuity in the event one Limited DAR becomes unavailable;
  • Holding these Limited DAR credentials could also make it easier in the future to obtain permanent DAR credentials;
  • For some companies, the Limited DAR credentials have only limited utility.  Because they can serve as a bridge to other (more useful) credentials, we recommend seeking these credentials;

If you currently hold Limited DAR credentials under the “DAR 56” program, then

  1. You need to apply to extend your credentials by September 30 – that deadline is coming up fast!!  You can find more details here;
  2. Be sure to use your credentials to issue 8130-3 – activity is an important metric when seeking to renew or upgrade your credentials;
  3. We are working with the FAA to permit transfer of your credentials to a permanent DAR with function code 19 (able to issue 8130-3 tags for a wider class of demonstrably airworthy, new parts).  We hope to have more news on this, soon!
%d bloggers like this: