Brexit is Coming – How Will It Affect Aircraft Parts?

Brexit – the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – will occur at 11 pm on Friday, March 29, 2019 (known as the withdrawal date).  In the past few weeks, we’ve met with representatives from the UK CAA, EASA and the FAA.  We’ve had a chance to talk about post-Brexit expectations.  It is clear that there are still a lot of unknowns.

One of the most significant unknowns revolves around the uncertainty in the future of UK-EU relations.  The UK CAA feels that there are generally two possible options.

The Two Options for Brexit

Option one is a Brexit that is reflected by an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU. The EU and the UK negotiators have a draft of such an agreement, but early statements suggest that it may face some difficulty being ratified by the UK Parliament.

If there is a broad agreement between the two parties before the withdrawal date, then there is a reasonable chance that EU will permit UK CAA to participate in EASA.  EASA already has several non-EU participants that participate in EASA – like Norway and Switzerland – and the EU could permit the United Kingdom to join EASA as a non-EU member state.  In such a case, UK could continue to issue certificates recognized by EASA and certificate holders could continue to issue the EASA Form 1.  This option could make things simple, but as each day passes without a ratified high-level UK-EU agreement, the likelihood of this happening diminishes.

In addition, UK CAA has suggested that EASA may be unable to negotiate with UK CAA at any level under after the withdrawal date (because UK remains a part of the EU until then); so even if the plan is for UK CAA to participate in EASA, there may be a gap between the withdrawal date and UK CAA’s subsequent participation in EASA.

Option two arises if there is no deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union.  In such a case, UK CAA believes that EASA will not be permitted to negotiate with UK CAA on a formal basis. UK CAA would have to rebuild its own independent regulatory framework; it is already hiring additional qualified staff to be prepared to do this.

Under option two, and even under some versions of option one, there may be no aviation safety agreement between UK and EU.  If there is no agreement, then the European Commission published a Notice to Stakeholders detailing the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union’s aviation safety rules.  The Notice to Stakeholders paints a bleak picture of the near future between the UK CAA and EASA.

European Union Treatment of Parts Produced or Maintain in the UK

The European Notice to Stakeholders explains that when the UK leaves the European Union (EU), then from an EU perspective, this action will (1) invalidate all certificates issued by the UK CAA, and (2) invalidate all certificates issued by the UK CAA certificate holders.  Certificates will be invalid as of the withdrawal date, which is currently set for 11pm (UK time) on March 29, 2019.

The Notice explains that “[t]he products, parts and appliances concerned will no longer be considered as certified in accordance with Article 5 of the Basic Regulation.”  Article 5 of the Basic Regulation provides the legal foundation for the issue of an EASA Form 1 for a part or appliance.

This means that UK production approvals will become invalid, as far as the EU is concerned.  But this does not just apply to parts made after March 29.  It also applies to parts made before the withdrawal date.

Under European regulations, acceptable parts are required to bear appropriate documentation (such as EASA Form 1).  EASA Forms 1 issued before the withdrawal date under UK CAA authority become invalid as of the withdrawal date.  This means that parts in your inventory today – parts that are perfectly acceptable for installation on European-registered aircraft, today – will no longer be acceptable, after withdrawal, under EASA documentation rules because the UK CAA certificates will become invalid after the withdrawal.

After March 29, one may not install a part that is documented solely under a UK CAA EASA Form 1 into an EU-registered aircraft.  It would appear likely that this also would apply to aircraft registered in non-EU nations (like Norway) that have agreed to follow EASA regulations.  This would include:

  • New parts with UK CAA EASA Form 1
  • Maintained parts released to service on a UK CAA EASA Form 1

In a practical sense, if you have an EASA Form 1 for a new part, and it was issued in the UK, then the EU will no longer recognize it as a valid document after Brexit.  This means that parts in your inventory that bear EASA Form 1 may have to be segregated and identified as “UK” and “EU,” in order to ensure that if they are still in inventory after Brexit, then they can be directed to customers who are legally able to use those parts.

How does a distributor tell if its EASA Form 1 certificates are affected?  Check block 1 of the form.  This is the block with the name of the regulatory authority.  If it says “UK CAA” in block one, then the EU will no longer recognize it as a valid tag after the withdrawal date (unless there is an agreement that changes the circumstances).  As an example, here is a link to a form issued under the legal authority granted by France’s DGAC; and here is a link to an overhaul tag issued under the legal authority granted by the UK CAA.

Some people might wonder about dual-certificated parts from the UK.  About 200 repair station in the UK have FAA Part 145 certifications, and they historically have been released to service, following maintenance, on a UK CAA EASA Form 1 that also indicates compliance with FAA Part 145 regulations.  The EU has a bilateral agreement with the United States … does this permit acceptance of the work because it was performed under US FAA standards (too)?  The answer is “no.”  The EU only accepts maintenance from the United States’ system when it also approved under the EASA 145 standards.  Because UK’s EASA 145 certificates (and all other certificates issued by the repair stations) will become invalid upon withdrawal, a dual US-UK approval will not be acceptable for introduction into the EASA system.

Possible UK Solutions

EASA has a solution.  But it may be a costly and unwieldy solution.

EASA has proposed to issue EASA certificates to businesses in the UK as “third-country.”  In fact, it started accepting applications on October 2.  “Third country” treatment means that the UK certificate holders get treated like any-old foreigners.  They need to pay as if they were foreign applicants.  They need to pay for all of the EASA-time spent in approval and oversight.

By way of comparison, the EU has a working arrangement agreement with Uzbekistan.  It is currently scheduled to have no agreement with the UK.  So the Uzbekistan CAA is scheduled to have a closer relationship with EASA than the UK CAA will have.  This doesn’t mean that the years of trust between EASA and UK CAA disappear.  In the interim between now and March 29 (while UK CAA is still a member of EASA), EASA will be relying on UK CAA to support audits of UK aviation businesses that apply for EASA certificates as third country applicants.

EASA issues a number of foreign certificates, but the two most important for aircraft parts distribution are likely to be production organization approvals and maintenance organization approvals.  Both are potentially available to UK businesses.  An EASA third-country production organization approval would permit a UK manufacturer to produce parts and issue an acceptable EASA Form 1 even after the withdrawal date.  An EASA maintenance organization approval would permit a UK repair station to maintain articles and issue an acceptable EASA Form 1 even after the withdrawal date.

The timing of third-country certificates appears to be uncertain.  It would make the most sense for EASA to issue the certificate on or before March 29 in order to allow seamless operations in support of aviation safety.  The earlier that   EASA is able to issue the certificate before March 29. the better for industry planning (including safety contingency planning).  But it is also possible that the European Union will not permit EASA to issue third-country certificates to businesses in the UK until after the withdrawal date (a lergal justification advanced for this delay is that UK is not a third country until the withdrawal date).

When a distributor looks at an EASA Form 1 certificate issued by a UK-based entity, if block 1 of the form says “EASA” then this is an indication that the relevant certificate was issued by EASA and not by the UK CAA.  If it says “EASA” in block one of the Form 1, then the EU should recognize it as a valid (“third country”) tag after the withdrawal date.

What happens to parts that were maintained or produced in the UK before withdrawal date, by a company that obtains a replacement EASA third country certification?  This would appear to establish a continuity of EASA approval; but the actual legal treatment of the certification is currently unknown.  It is equally possible that EASA could invalidate EVERYTHING with UK CAA in block one (for ease of determination) or it could decide to accept parts from UK certificate holders who subsequently obtain comparable EASA foreign approvals (causing potential complication in cases where there was a hiatus between the withdrawal date and the date on which the EASA foreign approval was issued).

US Acceptance of UK Maintenance and Production

The United States and the United Kingdom have pledged to work things out.  It is likely that there will be some difficulties at first (there always are), but both authorities seem optimistic about their desire to find a way to support safety and keep aviation flying.  They are actively negotiating a new bilateral agreement, with the understanding that they will be ready to use it if the UK CAA is unable to rely on EASA as their agent (and if the EU permits UK CAA to participate in EASA, then some of the following details will likely change).

An important element of the US-UK negotiations is the plan concerning UK-based repair stations.  As previously mentioned, there are about 200 repair stations in the UK that bear FAA credentials as well.  The plan appears to be

  1. Identify the repair stations whose FAA credentials will expire in the first six months after the withdrawal date;
  2. Renew the FAA credentials of those soon-expiring repair stations early, before the withdrawal date, so they can be renewed before March 29 under the EASA provisions;
  3. This early renewal of expiring repair station certificates in the UK allows the FAA to have a cushion of time to work-out the operating procedures with UK CAA without any emergencies forcing rash decisions;
  4. After the withdrawal date, FAA repair stations in the UK will be permitted to issue dual release 8130-3 tags under FAA and UK CAA authority.

Yes, you read that last bit correctly.  Repair stations in the UK would be permitted to issue 8130-3 tags as approval for return to service documents.  This unusual move is permitted, because FAA removed the geographic limitations on 8130-3 tags about a decade ago.  The UK repair stations in question hold FAA Part 145 certificates and are permitted to approve for return to service in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 43.9.  UK CAA is in favor of this solution because the 8130-3 tag is well-recognized internationally.

Other than these details, it is likely that much of the UK-US bilateral will resemble the US-EASA bilateral in order to minimize the differences and mitigate the change management issues associated with Brexit.

Conclusion

It is possible that the EU and the UK will enter into an agreement that permits UK CAA to remain a part of EASA.  It is also possible that Brexit could be reversed.  But, absent some other agreement, the EU will no longer accept UK-based EASA Form 1 for new parts, even if the Form was issued while the UK was still part of the EU, after the withdrawal date.

Distributors need to be prepared by:

  1. Assessing their inventory for susceptibility to Brexit issues based on UK CAA production and/or maintenance, and potentially segregating inventory in a way that eases identification;
    • Segregation could be physical or virtual, e.g. inventory could be managed through software;
    • Remember that we might not know who is willing to accept EASA Form 1 from the UK CAA until very close to the withdrawal date;
  2. Communicating with customers to understand their post-Brexit expectations;
  3. Establishing procedures for proper handling of UK CAA-tagged articles to ensure that they do not go to customers who cannot accept such articles;
  4. Training their personnel on how Brexit impacts the business and the customers;
  5. Communicating with UK-based partners to assess how they plan to deal with the changes.  For example, will your UK-based repair stations apply for EASA 145 under the third-country provisions?  Will your UK-based manufacturers apply for EASA POA under the third-country provisions?

Bear in mind that we’ve dealt here only with the airworthiness acceptance issues in this article.  Commercial relationships will be further complicated by myriad other issues, ranging from import tariffs to continued operations of aircraft.

This is a developing issue.  ASA will be taking steps to keep members informed, and ASA hopes to host discussions about the impact of Brexit in the near future.

Advertisements

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.

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.

Two-Year Record Retention Requirement for Repair Stations

Many ASA members hold repair station certificates, and we find ourselves answering many repair station related questions.

One ASA member recently asked:

“It is our understanding, that all maintenance related records are to be kept on file for two years.   If that is the case, are we allow to destroy maintenance related records that are older than 2 years?”

The answer is yes, a repair station is generally allowed to destroy its own records, such as its maintenance records, after the applicable retention period(s) have expired.  The current retention period for maintenance records under the FAA’s regulations is two years.  14 C.F.R. 145.219(c).  The general rule that you may destroy records after two years holds true AS LONG AS there is no other obligation to maintain those records for a longer period.

Other record maintenance obligations that could apply include (but are not limited to):

  • Obligations published in your repair station manual, quality manual, or other business directives;
  • Contractual obligations to maintain records;
  • Relationships with operators in which they rely on your business to maintain their records;
  • Regulatory obligations to maintain hazardous materials shipping records;
  • Regulatory obligations to maintain export records;
  • Obligations to maintain records for (or in anticipation of) litigation (non-spoliation obligation – if litigation is threatened then be sure to seek legal advice, as you may be precluded from engaging in regular record disposal practices).

Note that the obligation to hold records for two years applies to “records in English that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of part 43” including the maintenance release.  Thus it may not apply to other documents – like certain commercial and transactional documents, as well as financial records.

It is often advisable to have a written document destruction policy so that (1) employees have a plan to follow, and (2) if challenged, the business can show that this was a regular business practice that was uniformly administered.

But just because you have a right to destroy your documents doesn’t always mean that you should destroy them.  The company’s own records can be important evidence of proper performance of company obligations, in the event of litigation or enforcement action.  A business may wish to hold/maintain records for a time that is reasonably related to the most likely statutes of limitations that might apply in the event of litigation.  With this in mind, ASA has established a seven year minimum document retention period for distributors accredited to ASA-100.  Always remember that product liability claims can arise many years after the sale of an aircraft part!

ICA Guidance Open for Comment

The FAA has released for comment two guidance documents pertaining to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA): Draft FAA Order 8110.54B and Draft Advisory Circular 20-ICA. ICA availability is an issue that has a direct effect on repair stations and distributors, and ASA has done a significant amount of work to ensure that ICA are available and accurate in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Draft Order 8110.54B is guidance directed at FAA personnel and persons responsible for administering the requirements for ICA.  Among other changes, the draft reorganizes the Order to reflect material moved to AC 20-ICA (below), and importantly incorporates guidance implementing the FAA’s Policy Statement PS-AIR-21.50.01, Type Design Approval Holder Inappropriate Restrictions on the Use and Availability of Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.  ASA has been supportive of the FAA in the adoption that Policy Statement that is intended to protect the industry from anti-competitive ICA restrictions.

Draft AC 20-ICA is a new Advisory Circular that removes industry-specific guidance from the internal FAA Order and places it in a stand-alone AC.  This effort is similar to the FAA’s actions in revising other Orders, which are directed to FAA employees, and removing guidance that is actually intended to be directed outward toward industry and properly placing it in an Advisory Circular.  Like Draft Order 8110.54B, the draft AC implements the FAA policy on ICA established in the Policy Statement.  The proposed AC provides guidance to design approval holders (DAH) and design approval applicants for developing and distributing ICA.

Not only does the availability of ICA directly effect repair stations, the availability of parts lists that are included as a part of the ICA is an important issue for the supplier community.

After a preliminary review these documents appear to offer very positive guidance for the aviation maintenance and distribution industries.  ASA will be reviewing both of these documents closely and offering comments and support for these policies to the FAA.  We encourage repair stations and distributors to review both documents as well.

Comments on both guidance documents must be submitted by October 6, 2015, and may be submitted to the FAA via email to 9-AVS-ICA@faa.gov.  If you have comments or observations that you feel ASA should include in its comments to the FAA, email them to Ryan Aggergaard at ryan@washingtonaviation.com so the we can include them.

No, Aircraft Disassembly is Not a Maintenance Activity Under the FAA Regulations

Many ASA members have entered the exciting world of aircraft disassembly.  A member recently reported that he has encountered some customers who believe that aircraft disassembly can only be performed by a repair station under FAA regulations. This belief is untrue.

Part 43 of the FAA’s regulations requires that alteration, rebuilding, maintenance, and preventative maintenance be performed only by parties authorized to do so under the regulations. 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(a). Other functions that are not specifically regulated by the FAA remain unregulated functions.

Aircraft Disassembly is Not Regulated Under Part 43 nor Part 145

It should be obvious that disassembly of an aircraft does not constitute alteration or rebuilding. But could it be a maintenance or preventative maintenance task?

Maintenance is defined in the regulations to be “inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts….” 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (definition of “maintenance”). This definition also specifically excludes preventive maintenance, which is defined separately.

Aircraft disassembly is different from inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, so aircraft disassembly is not a species of maintenance under U.S. law.

Preventative maintenance is defined in the regulations to mean “simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.” 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (definition of “preventative maintenance”). This definition is further refined in Appendix A to Part 43. That appendix limits the scope of preventive maintenance only to certain listed functions (this is explicitly described as a limitation so it cannot expand the definition of preventative maintenance). It clarifies that the removal, installation and repair of landing gear tires is a preventative maintenance function (but this only applies in the context of simple or minor preservation operations, and disassembly alone is not a preservation operation). So removal, alone, without any effort to preserve, is not a preventative maintenance function.

Aircraft disassembly is neither a preservation operations nor the replacement of small standard parts, so aircraft disassembly is not a species of preventative maintenance under U.S. law.

Whereas aircraft disassembly is neither alteration, rebuilding, maintenance, nor preventative maintenance, it is not regulated under Part 43, and therefore is not one of the functions reserved to only certain certificate holders,

Thus, it is clear that the FAA Part 43 regulations (and by extension the Part 145 regulations) do not apply to disassembly of aircraft.

The unregulated nature of disassembly is one of the reasons that the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association AFRA) stepped in and offered their Best Management Practices (BMP) for disassembly of aircraft in order to encourage practices designed to preserve airworthiness as well as to guard the environment.  The AFRA BMP provides guidance, and the AFRA auditing program supports compliance to the standard.

This does not mean that repair stations are prevented from disassembling aircraft for their parts. Because this is an unregulated function, repair stations may also perform the disassembly function if they wish.

No Obligation Imposed by Advisory Circular

Some have taken text in FAA’s AC 20-62 out of context and suggested that it might impose restrictions on removal of parts. The text in question (take alone and out of context) states: “Parts with removal records showing traceability to a U.S. certificated aircraft, signed by an appropriately certificated person.” But look at this text in its full context and you see a different picture:

8. INFORMATION RELEVANT TO USED PARTS. The following information may be useful when assessing maintenance records and part status.

d. Seller’s Designation. The seller may be able to provide documentation that shows traceability to an FAA-approved manufacturing procedure for one of the following:

(1) Parts produced by an FAA-PAH by TC, PC, PMA, TSOA.

(2) Parts produced by a foreign manufacturer (in accordance with part 21 subpart N).

(3) Standard parts produced by a named manufacturer.

(4) Parts distributed with direct ship authority.

(5) Parts produced, for the work being accomplished, by a repair station to accomplish a repair or alteration on a specific TC’d product.

(6) Parts produced by an owner or operator for installation on the owner’s or operator’s aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier).

(7) Parts with removal records showing traceability to a U.S. certificated aircraft, signed by an appropriately certificated person.”

Eligibility, Quality, and Identification of Aeronautical Replacement Parts, FAA AC 20-62E, para 8(d) (December 23, 2010).

In its full context, it is obvious that this text is just one of a list of types of parts that are considered acceptable. Most parts removed from aircraft that are intended for reuse will fit into category one (TC, PC, PMA, TSOA), and therefore the analysis will never get to category seven. That category exists for articles that do not fit within one of the first six categories.  Note also that this text harkens back to the time when it was assumed that any part removed from an aircraft was a good part – modern practice recognizes that mistakes are made at installation and therefore modern disassembly procedure scrutinizes each part and its records to properly identify it without making unsubstantiated assumptions.

Further, the FAA does not have any removal record, and has no regulations reflecting removal records. For this reason, no certificate is necessary in order to sign a removal record.

 

Changes to Export License Exceptions Demand Caution by Industry

Subtle changes to the export license exceptions that are frequently used by the aviation industry could harm your business if you do not ensure continued compliance with the standards as they are evolving.

Many parties in the aviation industry have noticed and used the license exception for servicing and replacement of parts and equipment.  This exception is known as the “RPL” exception, because that is the code used in the electronic export information filing to indicate use of the exception.  This exception generally applies to articles that would require an export license, and it permits those articles to be exported without a license when they have been brought into the US for servicing and are then exported to their original owners (the transaction must also meet certain other criteria).  It is therefore highly useful to U.S. repair stations that are servicing parts for non-U.S. customers, and also to U.S. distributors that manage repairs for non-US customers.

The old scope clause read like this:

(1) Scope. The provisions of this paragraph (b) authorize the export and reexport of items that were returned to the United States for servicing and the replacement of defective or unacceptable U.S.-origin commodities and software.  15 CFR 740.10(b)(1) (2013).

The new scope clause reads like this:

(1) The provisions of this paragraph (b) authorize the export and reexport to any destination, except for 9×515 or “600 series” items to destinations identified in Country Group D:5 (see Supplement No. 1 to this part) or otherwise prohibited under the EAR, of commodities and software that were sent to the United States or to a foreign party for servicing and replacement of commodities and software “subject to the EAR” (see Sec.  734.2(a) of the EAR) that are defective or that an end user or ultimate consignee has found unacceptable.  Corrections and Clarifications to the Export Administration  Regulations; Correction, 79 Fed. Reg. 48660-48661 (August 18, 2014); 15 CFR 740.10(b)(1) (effective August 18, 2014).

This new text confirms certain limitations on the use of the RPL exception.  It may not be used for article bearing ECCN 9×515 or any “600 series” ECCN if the article is destined for Group D:5 country.

The new text also adds the detail that if the article is not defective, then the end-user or ultimate consignee must have found the article to be unacceptable.  Articles that are not defective may be overhauled or tested to confirm their airworthiness – this may be accomplished by a non-U.S. distributor.  The term “ultimate consignee” is defined in 15 C.F.R. 748.5(e):

(e) Ultimate consignee. The principal party in interest located abroad who receives the exported or reexported items. The ultimate consignee is not a forwarding agent or other intermediary, but may be the end-user.

When the non-U.S. distributor is the party that determined the need for servicing of a non-defective article, the non-US distributor must remain the ultimate consignee in the transaction.  When might the non-U.S. distributor become something other than the ultimate consignee?  When the unit is sold to a third party and the US person holding the serviced unit is directed to drop ship it to the third party buyer.   In any other unlicensed transaction, this should be fine (assuming no other laws are implicated by the transaction), but in an RPL transaction, this can cause a problem if the conditions of RPL are no longer met by the transaction model.  To clarify, if a non-defective unit is sent to the US for servicing (like calibration, or confirmation of airworthiness), then the person who found it unacceptable (the one who found it in need of servicing) must remain either the end user or the ultimate consignee.  If that person was a non-U.S. distributor, then the non-U.S. distributor must remain as the ultimate consignee to continue to meet the requirements of RPL.

Remember, RPL is an exception – you always have the option of obtaining a license for the export.  And luckily, most civil aviation articles exported from the U.S. do not require export licenses from BIS.

%d bloggers like this: