FAA Proposes Changes to the 8130 Instructions

December 9, 2011 by Leave a comment

The FAA has released the latest version of the Order 8130.21 to the public for comment.  DRAFT Order 8130.21H makes a number of organizational changes.  The new Order creates a new Appendix, re-formats the FAA Form 8130-3 to reflect international agreements, deletes or modifies superfluous language, adds a new note describing use of the word “should” throughout the Order (with important record keeping and application ramifications), adds a new section pertaining to EASA approvals for return-to-service, and addresses rebuilds in a new way.  The following  list summarizes the proposed changes.

  • Section 1-1.c. adds a new note that states the use of the word “should” in the Order refers to a recommended practice.  When the word “should” appears, the associated activity is not a requirement; therefore a record of completion of the activity is not required.  Section 2-1.b. applies the word “should,” indicating use of FAA Form 8100-1 is a recommended practice, but not required.
  • Order 8130.21H creates a new appendix, labeled Appendix A.  Appendix A collects all Sample FAA Form 8130-3’s and puts them in one place.  In the previous Order, the sample forms were dispersed throughout the Order.  The samples in Appendix A are re-numbered “Figure A-1,” “Figure A-2,” etc.  In the previous Order, the Figure number corresponded to the Chapter of the Order in which they appeared, e.g., Chapter 2, Figure 2-1; Chapter 3, Figure 3-1.
  • The new Order also makes slight changes to the formatting of FAA Form 8130-3.  The new form eliminates “Block 9. Eligibility.”  Previously, this block remained but was “N/A” in most uses of the form.  All of the following Blocks are incremented, e.g., “Block 10. Quantity” becomes “Block 9. Quantity,” and so forth (so the comment block will become known as “block 12”).  The new Order re-numbers the signature blocks to be consistent with EASA Form One numbering format, so the left-hand signature blocks 14-18 become Blocks 13(a)-13(e), and the right-hand signature blocks 19-23 are renumbered as Blocks 14(a)-14(e).
  • The new Order changes the Date format in Blocks 13(e) and 14(e) from Month-Day-Year format to Day-Month-Year format, which reflects EASA Form One norms, but represents the opposite  of ISO date format.
  • Chapter 3 of the new Order removes a Note from Section 3-1.b. that explained why rebuilt products and articles might not be found acceptable by some European countries.  The Order adds a new Section 3-5 entitled “Approval for Return to Service Information Relevant to the European Union.”  Section 3-5.a. explains that European Civil Aviation Authorities may recognize approval for return-to-service FAA Form 8130-3 only from 145 repair stations or air carriers that also obtained an EASA part 145 approval appropriately rated for the product or article at the time it was approved for return to service.  Section 3-5.a.(2) gives specific instructions for completing FAA Form 8130-3 when a dual release is being applied to satisfy a European CAA (Euopean-created dual release) or EASA (extra-European dual release).
  • Section 3-5.b. addresses FAA Form 8130-3 for rebuilt engines within the European Union.  Section 3-5.b.(1) gives brief background information on the aviation safety agreement between the U.S. and EU.  The agreement allows for reciprocal acceptance of FAA and EASA certification and oversight of civil aviation products and repair stations.  EASA now recognizes the term “Rebuilt Engines” as a manufacturing certification practice, not a maintenance release by the FAA.  The agreement also places the same import requirements on rebuilt engines that are on new aircraft engines.  3-5.b.(2) gives specific instruction for completing FAA Form 8130-3.
  • Section 4-3 is renamed “Used Products and Articles” and updates the section to correspond to 14 C.F.R. § 21.331(c) & (d).  Export airworthiness approvals for used aircraft engines, propellers, and articles are issued in accordance with § 21.331(c). If a used engine or propeller does not meet the requirements, § 21.331(d) allows for deviation if the importing jurisdiction accepts the deviation in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA.  The deviation must be listed in Block 12. Remarks as an exception between the used aircraft engine or propeller from its approved design.
  • Chapter 5 excises references to “ATA Spec 2000” and “Chapter 16, Electronic Product and Part Regulatory Documentation.”  Section 5-3 excises parts (c) and (d) that described technical aspects of extensible markup language (XML).  Section 5-4 “Data Requirements” is deleted.  Subsequent sections are re-numbered.  Section 5-7 excises XML code samples.
  • Section 5-6.a. & b. replace “part/component/assembly” with “engine/propeller/article.”  Section 5-7 is reworded to reflect the elimination of XML code samples and direct the reader to Appendix A for examples of uses of Electronic FAA Form 8130-3.  Section 5-8 re-labels the sample letter of intent to use electronic FAA Form 8130-3 from Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-1.
  • Appendix B (formerly Appendix A) Acronyms adds the acronyms APIS (approved production inspection system) and TIPS (Technical Implementation Procedures) and deletes the acronym TEI (Text Element Identifier).

There is a lot for the industry to review and consider in this draft, and not all of the changes will be met with industry enthusiasm.  This is a draft on which ASA members are likely to see a need for comments.

Comments are due January 17, 2012.  They can be sent to the FAA by email to:  grant.schneemann@faa.gov  or by mail to:

Grant Schneemann
Federal Aviation Administration
950 L’Enfant Plaza SW (Fifth Floor)
Washington, DC 20024

Please send a copy of your comments to ASA, as well.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Some FAA DARs Told to Require Back-to-Birth as an 8130-3 Tag Prerequisite?

August 25, 2011 by Leave a comment

Several ASA members have contacted us to say that some of the FAA DARs in their area have been told that they cannot issue 8130-3 tags for aircraft parts without full back-to-birth traceability.

One member asked whether this policy is in the Federal Aviation Regulations and also whether the FAA can enforce such a policy. The short answers to those questions are (1) No, this policy is not embodied in the regulations and it contradicts existing FAA policy, and (2) Yes, the local office has the ability (but not the legal right), to nonetheless enforce such a policy.

In 1992, the FAA Chief Counsel’s Office issued a FAA Chief Counsel’s Letter addressing this subject. See FAA Chief Counsel’s Interpretation 1992-36. It explained that the FAA has not imposed any traceability obligation on aircraft parts. It also clarified that this is true for life-limited parts – the only direct regulatory documentation obligation imposed on installers of life-limited parts is a record of current life status, which comes from the operator’s part 91 obligations (the requirement for back-to-birth traceability is a commercial requirement imposed by the industry). See 14 C.F.R. 91.4127(a)(2)(ii).

DARs are currently required to follow FAA Order 8130.21G when they issue 8130-3 tags. This guidance limits 8130-3 tags only to those parts produced under FAA production approval. Thus, DARs should verify that that part was produced under FAA production approval. But it is usually possible to do this without a complete audit trail back to the original manufacturer.  Other FAA guidance makes it clear that you can use markings, or commercial documents like air carrier verifications of source as a means of ascertaining that the part is what it purports to be.

Several of the persons complaining about the new policy have stated that this policy is only enforced in South Florida. 8130-3 guidance is issued by FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC. A local FAA office does not have the legal authority to issue alternative guidance that contradicts national policy and that applies only in that locale and in no other locale.  If a local office does issue such alternative guidance, then this raises a difficult situation for DARs. While we might like to think that DARs can ignore an “illegal order,” the reality is that DARs would do so at their own peril. A local office has the discretion to terminate a DAR’s privileges at will, and if they use a pretext to justify that termination, the Federal Courts have said that the validity of that pretext is not subject to legal review because of the discretion given to the FAA by Congress. See Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2003).  Thus, as a practical matter, if a local office issues alternative policies that contradict national policy, DARs must follow the alternative policy or risk losing their privileges and their livelihood. So even though the local office may not legally change the policy for issuing, an illegal change in policy can be readily implemented through the DAR cadre.

This is a bad time for unusual limits on 8130-3 tags. The President has announced a plan to double US exports over the next five years and ASA has been working with the International Trade Administration to try to help make this a reality through education and opportunity.

The FAA has also signed BASAs that make 8130-3 tags a prerequisite for export.  The BASAs take 8130-3 tags that once were optional and make them requirements in order to engage in export transactions.  Local limits on the issuance of 8130-3 tags that go beyond national policy threaten our trade balance, and also threaten American jobs at a time of already high unemployment.

Because of the FAA’s discretion to terminate a DAR for any reason, DARs are practically unable to fight against bad or illegal policies, even when they are being used as pawns to implement those policies. Therefore, it often falls on trade associations like ASA to address these concerns.

If the rumors are true, then this situation is a very serious one. ASA has asked its affected members to further investigate and find out if the limits on 8130-3 tags have been merely misinterpreted.  Anything that anyone in the industry could provide us, such as FAA training materials, FAA memos, or even FAA emails explaining this new policy, would be very useful in permitting ASA to address this concern with the FAA.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,