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!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

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.

Do NOT state “domestic shipment only” or “not an export approval” on an 8130-3 tag

On June 28 the FAA issued a policy memo (AIR100-16-110-PM04) that forbade parties from stating “domestic shipment only” or “not an export approval” on the 8130-3 tag.

“This memorandum provides clarification on the use of “domestic shipment only” and “not an export approval” in block 12 of FAA Form 8130-3 (hereafter, tags). Inspectors, designees, delegated organizations, and persons authorized in accordance with a production approval holder’s approved quality system to issue tags are directed to not add “domestic shipment only” and “not an export approval” to block 12.”

This language tended to impede subsequent exports.  Many people mistakenly thought that this language was meant to prevent a subsequent export.

History

Use of this sort of language also ignored the original purpose of the “domestic tag.”  It was originally meant to create a kludge that made 8130-3 tags available to exporters.  It was called a “domestic” tag because it only certified compliance to domestic US standards, and not to any special import requirements of an importing nation.

Years ago, distributors were unable to obtain an export tag for parts. The reason for this began in 1963, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to establish the rules for export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L of 14 C.F.R. Part 21).   They classified the world of aircraft assets into three classes:

(1) A Class I product is a complete aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller, which—

(i) Has been type certificated in accordance with the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and for which Federal Aviation Specifications or type certificate data sheets have been issued;
or
(ii) Is identical to a type certificated product specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in all respects except as is otherwise acceptable to the civil aviation authority of the importing state.

(2) A Class II product is a major component of a Class I product (e.g., wings, fuselages, empennage assemblies, landing gears, power transmissions, control surfaces, etc), the failure of which would jeopardize the safety of a Class I product; or any part, material, or appliance, approved and manufactured under the Technical Standard Order (TSO) system in the ‘‘C’’ series.

(3) A Class III product is any part or component which is not a Class I or Class II product and includes standard parts, i.e., those designated as AN, NAS, SAE, etc.

This can be found today in older versions of the Code of Federal Regulations.  But this distinction no longer exists in the modern regulations.

The original 1963 NPRM suggested that export airworthiness approvals would be available for Class I and Class II products. It explained that export airworthiness approvals would not be necessary for Class III products, and that exporters could self-certify airworthiness with respect to those units.   This dramatically limited the impact of the proposed rule, because most articles fell into class III.

During the comment period for this new rule, a manufacturer wrote to the FAA and said that it could foresee a possible need in the future to apply for Class III export airworthiness approvals for its own articles.  The stated purpose of the rule was to facilitate trade, so when the Final Rule was published in 1964, the FAA added a clause stating that manufacturers could also apply for Class III export airworthiness approvals in order to meet the request of the commenter.  This was 30 years before ASA existed, so ASA was not around to broaden the language to include non-manufacturer exporters.

Years later, as the export 8130-3 tag became more popular in international commerce, and the FAA signed international agreements promising to provide the 8130-3 tags with exports,the distribution community began to see a need for the tags to facilitate their trade.  But the regulatory language only permitted manufacturers to apply for the export 8130-3 tag.  So the “domestic tag” was born in order to provide a tag that distributors could seek.  The “domestic tag” only certified compliance to US domestic standards – it did not certify compliance to any special import standards of any importing nation (it was up to the exporter to address such conditions, and at the time foreign trading partners were happy to take this tag).

The domestic tag also quickly became popular among domestic users in the US (notably, Northwest Airlines in the late 1990s was an early proponent of the use of the 8130-3 tag for domestic transactions).

For a short time, this limiting language (“domestic shipment only”) actually appeared in an earlier version of Order 8130.21. ASA sought clarification from FAA Management at the time.  We pointed out that the original purpose was to facilitate export for distributors, and FAA Management agreed that this language was inappropriate.   FAA Management confirmed that the inclusion of that language had been a mistake, because it contradicted the original purpose of the domestic tag.

In order to discern the reason for this errant language, FAA Management called in the employee who was responsible for the text of the Order and asked “why did you include this language?”  The FAA employee’s reply was to shrug his shoulders and say “I don’t know … it seemed like a good idea at the time.”  The language was removed from the next revision of 8130.21, but it continued to find its way into 8130-3 tags.

Over the years, the FAA has recognized that this language impeded export transactions without offering any redeeming value.  The policy memo closes the loop on this language by forbidding it.

ASA members who encounter parties who want to print “domestic shipment only” or “not an export approval” in block 12 of FAA Form 8130-3, should draw the issuing party’s attention to this FAA policy memo.

Export 8130-3s No Longer Need (Country) Destination Designation

The FAA has published a new policy memo (AIR100-16-110-DM04) that changes the way that the FAA treats export 8130-3 tags.  This policy memo will alter export 8130-3 tags so that they no longer identify the specific destination country.  An additional policy memo specifies that so-called “Domestic Tags” do not need to be so-identified.

The Problem

The industry has had problems with export 8130-3 tags for many years.  The typical export 8130-3 tag will identify a destination country.  This becomes a problem when the parties want to re-export the article to a third nation.

Here is an example.  It is not unusual to establish a forward stocking warehouse to hold inventory destined to be distributed in a particular part of the world.  Let’s say that the warehouse is in Singapore.  Parts bound for this Singapore warehouse would bear 8130-3 tags that specify that they meet the special import requirements of Singapore.  But the Singapore warehouse will be used to supply parts to customers in other nations, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam.  These parts are sometimes rejected because they name Singapore as the destination rather than any of the other nations.  Replacing the Singapore 8130-3 tags with tags naming other destinations is a needless expense that adds no safety value to the transactions.

The State of the Industry

If you go back to the 1963 NPRM that established the rules for export airworthiness approvals, you will see that the original intent of the tag was to facilitate export transactions.  The FAA has recognized that this current process adds no value, and that 8130-3 tags are impeding transactions, rather than facilitating them.

The FAA has found that the current practice of including the specific destination information and the word “EXPORT” on the tag impedes global trade, explaining:

“Requiring this statement needlessly complicates the issuance of the tag and hinders the global shipment of engines, propellers, and articles, especially when they are exported multiple times.”

The FAA has examined the European system, in which the manufacturers issue EASA Form One themselves, and there is a single EASA Form One (there is no distinction that creates a separate export EASA Form one).  The FAA has recognized that this system appears to work better than having distinct export 8130- 3 tags that name a destination country.

The Solution

The FAA has issued a Deviation Memo that eliminates the destination country from the export 8130-3 tag.  The Memo does more than permit dropping the destination from the tag – it actually directs that those who complete 8130-3 tags for articles should NOT include the specific export information:

“• Do not use the statement, “Export airworthiness approval – This article meets the special requirements of (enter country),” from paragraph 4-5 L(9), in block 12.
• Do not use the statements in Appendix A, Figures A-14, A-15, A-16, and A-17 (“Export airworthiness approval – This article meets the special requirements of (enter country)” and “EXPORT.”
• Do not use the statement, “Export airworthiness approval. No special import
requirements for [enter name of country or jurisdiction] stated at time of issuance,” from paragraph 4-5 L(10), in block 12.
• An exporter must continue to include any other statements required by FAA Order 8130.21 and the applicable bilateral agreements.”

The above-quoted language is specific to articles, but similar language is published in the Deviation Memo that applies to engines and propellers, as well.  The language represents a devisation from FAA Order 8130.21H.  It is effective as of June 24, 2016.

ASA members will want to ensure that they communicate with their global business partners to educate them about this change.  At first, there may be some reluctance to accept the new 8130-3 tags, but a review of the new FAA Deviation Memo will show trading partners that the FAA no longer permits inclusion of the language that historically has designated a destination nation.

“Domestic Shipment Only”

In a similar vein, on June 28 the FAA issued a policy memo (AIR100-16-110-PM04) that forbade parties from stating “domestic shipment only” or “not an export approval” on the 8130-3 tag.

“This memorandum provides clarification on the use of “domestic shipment only” and “not an export approval” in block 12 of FAA Form 8130-3 (hereafter, tags). Inspectors, designees, delegated organizations, and persons authorized in accordance with a production approval holder’s approved quality system to issue tags are directed to not add “domestic shipment only” and “not an export approval” to block 12.”

This language impeded subsequent exports; many people thought that this language was meant to prevent a subsequent export.  Use of this sort of language also ignored the original purpose of the “domestic tag” which was to facilitate export for parties who were unable at the time to apply for export 8130-3 tags (it circumvented a regulatory anomaly that prevented distributors from applying for export 8130-3 tags – the exporting distributor was expected to ensure compliance with the importing nation’s special import requirements).  For a short time, this limiting language actually appeared in an earlier version of Order 8130.21.  ASA sought clarification from FAA Management at the time and FAA Management confirmed that the inclusion of that language had been a mistake, because it contradicted the original purpose of the domestic tag.

ASA members who encounter parties who want to print “domestic shipment only” or “not an export approval” in block 12 of FAA Form 8130-3, should draw the issuing party’s attention to this policy memo.

%d bloggers like this: