8130.21J Comment Period Extended Through June 6

April 17, 2025 by Leave a comment

The FAA will extend the comment period for the draft revision to the instructions for completing 8130-3 tags (Order 8130.21J). This draft revision is now open for comment through June 6, 2025. The FAA website should be updated tomorrow to reflect this new date.

We appreciate the FAA’s cooperation in extending this comment period. ASA members who have opinions on this draft should share their comments with ASA at their earliest opportunity, so that ASA can incorporate your ideas into the formal Association comments. 

The FAA has asked the community to remember the regulatory purposes of the 8130-3 tag, and to consider those purposes in formulating their comments.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

8130-3 Instructions: Major Revision is Open for Public Comment

March 21, 2025 by 2 Comments

The FAA has issued a draft revision to the instructions for completing 8130-3 tags. This draft revision is open for comment through April 21, 2025. The form is known in the industry as an “Authorized Release Certificate,” “FAA Form 8130-3,” and an “Airworthiness Approval Tag.”

This is a major overhaul of the guidance, and the draft guidance 8130.21J has been reduced to only 18 pages (including appendices). The existing guidance 8130.21H (change one) is 74 pages.

There is an obvious fear that some of the language that was added to correct past problems, may have been removed from this draft. With this in mind, we are especially interested in your comments about hazards and risks associated with the 8130-3 tag, and instruction language that mitigates those risks.

ASA plans to develop comments in response to the draft. We request that ASA members who have comments submit a copy of those comments to ASA’s General Counsel by April 14, 2025 so that ASA can incorporate your comments into the final industry comments.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Using I/A/W on Approval for Return to Service

June 29, 2014 by 1 Comment

A member of the ASA community recently inquired about acceptable language for approval for return to service documents following repairs.  The member asked whether it is acceptable, on an approval for return to service document, to state in the description of work performed that the work was performed in accordance with (“I/A/W”) a reference from a manufacturer’s manual and ALSO state that other work was done pursuant to another source?

The short answer to this question is “Yes.”

Currently, the two most common approval for return to service documents are the FAA Form 8130-3 and the EASA Form One.  Each of these are used by repair stations to document work primarily subject to FAA or EASA regulations (respectively).

The instructions for the EASA Form One are found in the regulatory appendices, so these instructions are regulatory in nature.  The EASA Form One regulatory appendix requires the completer of the EASA Form One to “[d]escribe the work … either directly or by reference to supporting documentation, necessary for the user or installer to determine the airworthiness of item(s) in relation to the work being certified.” Examples of information to be entered in the remarks block of the EASA Form One include the maintenance data used, including the revision status and reference, as well as any other repairs or modification accomplished. The EASA guidance clearly anticipates remarks to describe the work performed that are written in the format “Repaired I/A/W [reference] and also [list of additional repairs or alterations].”

Thus, it is safe to say that it is acceptable to use the phrase “repaired I/A/W [reference]” when work beyond the specific manuals limits is performed, as long as additional language is added to clarify the additional work or the exceptions to the manual instructions.  Think of these sort of entries as ‘composite’ entries because they reference more than one source of data.

What you want to avoid is language that ONLY says “repaired I/A/W [reference]” when the work has diverged from the reference (either through additional work or through exceptions to the reference provisions). The reason you want to avoid such abbreviated recordkeeping is because it could misleadingly imply that you EXACTLY followed the reference, when a more accurate description would clarify the divergences.

We arrive at a similar result under the FAA system. The most important guidance when completing an 8130-3 tag as an approval for return to service is the language of 14 C.F.R. 43.9. This regulations requires “[a] description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.” Order 8130.21H provides additional guidance, although it should be noted that this is an internal FAA Order and therefore not a binding interpretation applicable to the public. In reference to the description of work performed, that guidance states, “This can be done either directly or by reference to supporting documentation.” Thus, a description of the actual work is permitted, and the reference to manufacturer’s manuals or other sources is a permissible shortcut. I have seen 8130-3 tags that state “I/A/W [reference]” and then include additional provisions, and I have also seen “I/A/W [reference] except [list of exceptions].” For example, I have seen logbook entries (which are governed by the same FAA rules) that stated “Repaired I/A/W [OEM manual reference] except used PMA Parts Number [PMA Part Number].”

Examples of acceptable composite language (assuming that the language accurately describes the work performed) could include:

  • Overhauled I/A/W [OEM manual reference] except used PMA Parts Number [state PMA Part Numbers used]
  • Repaired I/A/W [OEM manual reference] and also repaired I/A/W DER Repair [state DER Repair identifier]
  • Repaired I/A/W [OEM manual reference] except repaired I/A/W DER Repair [state DER Repair identifier] instead of [the specific elided OEM manual reference]
  • Repaired I/A/W [OEM manual reference] and also performed service bulletins [state service bulletin identifiers]

An example of potentially unacceptable language would be a situation where work that materially diverged from the OEM manual was performed, but the description of work performed only said:

  • Repaired I/A/W [OEM manual reference]

This could be potentially unacceptable under U.S. law if disclosure of the divergence was necessary to allow the installer to make a determination concerning airworthiness.  For example, if a service-bulletin-based alteration was performed that changed the dash number on the part, then that sort of work probably needs to be disclosed in the approval for return to service.  Similarly, a major alteration based on independent DER-approved data (so, something that was not in the OEM manual) would likely need to be separately disclosed on the approval for return to service.

 

This discussion is general in nature and is not based upon any particular fact pattern. It does not constitute legal advice and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

FAA Proposes to Permit Manufacturers to Issue 8130-3 Tags

February 26, 2014 by Leave a comment

Tomorrow, the FAA is expected to publish a proposed rule that would allow production approval holders to have the privilege of issuing 8130-3 tags, without recourse to a designee.  This could reflect a competitive disadvantage for distributors, who would continue to have to use DARs to obtain 8130-3 tags (manufacturers would have the option to issue 8130-3 tags but would not be required to do so, so they could use this as a way to help them compete in the distribution arena against independent distributors).

The rule would also redefine to the term “airworthiness approval” by adding “unless otherwise specified.”

New Proposed RuleAirworthiness approval means a document issued by the FAA for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design, unless otherwise specified, and is in a condition for safe operation.

This new definition would appear to authorize 8130-3 tags with disclaimers (like 8130-3 for non-conforming parts, or for parts configured for certain foreign aircraft configurations).

An advance copy of the proposed rule can be found here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-04330.pdf

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

8130-3 Tag Uses

September 3, 2013 by 2 Comments

I recently fielded a question about whether the 8130-3 tag can be used issued for new parts made under foreign production approval.  Generally, the 8130-3 is issued as an airworthiness approval only for parts produced under US (FAA) production approval, so the short answer to this question is “no.”  This limit is found in FAA Order 8130.21H (and its predecessors).

It is easy to see how confusion about this issue arises.  The 8130-3 (like the EASA Form One) has multiple uses.  It can be used as an airworthiness approval (left side signature) or an approval for return to service (right side signature).  And both historical usage and current usage create a series of loopholes and exceptions.

Airworthiness Approval – Left Side Signature

When you are looking at a left side signature, you have several options.  One is to use the 8130-3 as a true airworthiness approval.  When the the 8130-3 is used as a true airworthiness approval, it can only be issued for parts manufactured under FAA production approval.  Current rules only permit the form to be issued in this way by the FAA (including the FAA’s designees).  Many people mistakenly believe that production approval holders or even “OEMs” issue 8130-3 tags.  In fact, it is FAA designees who are located at (and/or employed by) those manufacturers that actually issue the 8130-3 tags.

Several rules should be applied as a consequence of the limits on 8130-3 tags:

  • 8130-3 tags can only be issued as airworthiness approvals for parts manufactured under FAA production approval.
  • Non-FAA production approval is inadequate to support the 8130-3 as an airworthiness approval
  • STC only, without PMA, TSOA or PC, is inadequate
  • Parts made under non-approved mechanisms (like standard parts) but subsequently run through a production approval holder’s system may be eligible for 8130-3 (usually this entails a part number change to differentiate the production approval parts from normal standard parts)

There are some good policy reasons for issuing 8130-3 tags for foreign-produced parts that are considered to be “approved” upon import under the terms of a US bilateral agreement, but that is not the current FAA policy, so it is not (yet) permitted.

A second option is to obtain the 8130-3 as an export airworthiness approval.  The difference between the domestic 8130-3 and the export 8130-3 is that the export 8130-3 tag also certifies compliance to special import qualifications of the importing country (note that very few aircraft parts have special import conditions so in practice the export 8130-3 tag is often based on the exact same findings as the domestic 8130-3 tag).  Export airworthiness approvals are often issued to aftermarket distributors, so they are frequently issued based on review of the part and any documentation associated with the part.  For example, a review of the part may show it to be a typical part from a production certificate holder, with the production certificate holder’s markings, and air carrier documentation may show it to have been a new part that was surplussed by the air carrier from their inventory.  This (combined with an inspection of the part to confirm it has not suffered damage or degradation) may be a sufficient basis for issuing the export 8130-3 tag.

A third option is to use the 8130-3 tag as a record of data approval for a prototype (compliance to non-FAA-approved data) but this is generally for internal tracking and does not apply to parts being released to the industry for sale. FAA guidance clearly states that the 8130-3 tag cannot be used to export a prototype part.  Prototype parts pending certification under an FAA project number are not eligible for installation on in-service, type-certificated aircraft; but upon approval of the applicable design data and completion of an inspection to validate (1) conformity to that approved design data and (2) condition for safe operation, that part may be considered new.

Note that it is common for US suppliers of components to obtain FAA-PMA (production approval) for their components so as to be able to issue 8130-3 tags for the export of those parts to a European manufacturer.  The parts are approved under US law because of the PMA, even if the European approvals for the higher level assembly have not yet been issued.  For example, there are US suppliers to Airbus who have contracts with Airbus that allow them to get PMA by licensing agreement based on the Airbus TC, and in turn are therefore able to obtain 8130-3 tags for the export of those parts to Airbus.

Approval for Return to Service – Right Side Signature

The 8130-3 tag can also be used as an approval for return to service.  You can distinguish this use by the right side signature.  When it is signed on the right side, you CAN certify compliance to non-US maintenance standards (e.g. when a repair station issues a dual certification to both FAA and EASA maintenance standards).  This is a source of confusion, because many peple in the industry see dual certified parts on the approval for return to service side of the form, and think that the same thing can be done on the left hand signature side of the form (it cannot under current policy).

Got 8130-3 Questions?

For over 20 years I have been involved in the development of the 8130-3 and its instruction in Order 8130.21, as well as the harmonization of the form with EASA’s and TCCA’s corollaries; so if you have 8130-3 questions, then please feel free to call my office to discuss it further and perhaps we can find  away to get you to the end state that you want to achieve!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

FAA Confirms that Manufacturing DARs May Continue to Issue 8130-3 Tags

June 11, 2012 by Leave a comment

Today, the FAA released a memo that confirms that Manufacturing DARs continue to have the authority to issue 8130-3 tags (the memo was dated May 31).  This has been a source of concern for many DARs and the distributors that rely on them.  The memo corrects the concern.  The speed with which the FAA corrected this issue shows that FAA headquarters is listening to our industry’s concerns and is supporting the industry’s safety needs.

Earlier this year, ASA made the FAA aware of an issue concerning the recent changes to FAA Order 8100.8 (the “D” revision).  There was an unanticipated omission of the language that authorized Manufacturing DARs to issue 8130-3 tags for demonstrably airworthy components held by distributors.  The new language limited Manufacturing DARs to only working for production approval holders.

ASA asked for a deviation memo to confirm that this change was an inadvertent error.

The new (erroneous) language created a disconnect in the regulations – there was a privilege that persons enjoy under the regulations (obtaining 8130-3 tags when authorized) that would not be supported by the FAA in certain places if Manufacturing DARs were precluded from issuing 8130-3 tags for demonstrably airworthy parts.

14 C.F.R. § 21.327 permits “any person” to apply for an airworthiness approval.  Failure to correct the new language in 8100.8D would mean that Manufacturing DARs are precluded from supporting the “any person” language of 21.327.  FAA operational norms preclude FAA employees from being available to issue airworthiness approvals for parts in most cases.  Thus, a failure to correct this language would mean that in locations that previously relied on Manufacturing DARs to issue 8130-3 tags, the FAA would be unable to meet its 21.327 obligations unless it allocated resources in FAA offices to being able to issue airworthiness approvals to applicants.

ASA argued that it is in the FAA’s and industry’s best interests to extend the practice of permitting Manufacturing DARs to issue 8130-3 tags for demonstrably airworthy parts held in a distributor’s inventory.

ASA also pointed out the historical context of the privilege.  Over the past decade, the FAA has established policies that permit Manufacturing DARs and Maintenance DARs to examine a part and its documentation, and where a finding of airworthiness can be made based on this examination, to issue an 8130-3 tag to document that finding.

Originally, these DAR functions were performed under function code 8 for Manufacturing DARs and function code 23 for Maintenance DARs.[1]  Although Manufacturing DAR functions are normally limited to PAH facilities, the FAA made a special exception that permitted Manufacturing DARs to issue 8130-3 tags for aircraft parts at independent distributor  facilities (NOT at the PAH facility).  When this privilege was first issued, the FAA highlighted the fact that this was an exception to the normal rule (under which Manufacturing DARs usually work exclusively at PAH facilities).[2]

Later, the FAA recognized that the function of issuing domestic 8130-3 tags and the function of issuing export 8130-3 tags required the same skills and the FAA merged the authority for DARs to issue both domestic and export 8130-3 tags under  one function code for each type of DAR.  This lead to both forms of 8130-3 tags being issued under function code 20 for Manufacturing DARs and function code 32 for Maintenance DARs (these function codes had previously been limited only to export tag privileges).

The new memo returns the industry to the course that the FAA had charted.  It explains that the change in Order 8100.8 was inadvertent and that there was not an intent to preclude distributors.  It explicitly permits Manufacturing DARs to exercise their 8130-3 issuance privileges for any applicant, including a distributor.  The new deviation memo will soon be available on the ASA website.

[1] See, e.g., Procedures for Completion and Use of the AUthorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag, FAA Notice 8130.70 (June 15, 2001) (permitting the issuance of 8130- 3 tags for airworthy parts located at independent distributor facilities).

[2] Id. at ¶ 5(b) NOTE (stating that “in order to ensure adequate DAR resources to support the activities authorized under this notice, these domestic airworthiness approvals may be issued by either manufacturing or maintenance DARs”).

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

Why Won’t My DAR Issue An 8130-3 For My Part?

March 21, 2012 by Leave a comment

The FAA held a meeting in South Florida today (March 20).  Attendees were enticed to attend with the promise of an answer to the question “Why won’t my DAR issue an 8130-3 for my part?“

Not long ago, we published a reminder to the aviation community that the FAA does not require parts traceability in its regulations.  It was an article describing the current state of the FAA regulations with respect to back-to-birth traceability (there is no such regulation).

We were prompted to publish this reminder by stories from South Florida members who had heard from their DARs that “the local office is making me ask for back-to-birth traceability” as a condition of issuing an 8130-3 tag.

It seems that the traceability article attracted some attention in South Florida.  It was referenced in the beginning of the FAA’s slide set.

FAA inspector Jay Rodriguez opened the meeting by announcing that there would be no new policies and no new regulations announced at the meeting.  He held true to his promise.

The answer to the advertised question was a review of the FAA’s regulations and policy and a look at what standards the DAR must confirm in order to issue an export 8130-3 tag.  The DAR must be assured that the part conforms to an FAA-approved design and is in a condition for safe operation.

But there was a more important unspoken question.  Rodriguez knew that the elephant in the closet was the issue of back-to-birth traceability as a condition for 8130-3 tags, and he wasted little time in stating the FAA’s position:

The FAA does not require back-to-birth traceability as a condition of issuing an export airworthiness approval.

The main thrust of the meeting, was that traceability is an important commercial tool.  It aids the FAA in its investigations.  But when it comes time for a DAR to look at a part and decide whether to issue an 8130-3 tag, the DAR can rely on any information that sufficiently demonstrate s that the parts meets the standards for airworthiness.

A few practices that were discussed included the importance of looking at the parts.  Rodriguez echoed a long-standing ASA concern, that the FAA finds it unacceptable to issue an 8130-3 tag for a part that the DAR has never seen.  Issuing an 8130-3 tag based solely on the paperwork runs the dual risks that the part may not match the paperwork, and also that some supervening event could have rendered the part unairworthy.

Another concern raised was the importance of distinguishing owner-operator produced parts, because they are generally not eligible for an 8130-3 tag (because they were not produced under an FAA production approval).

FAA Inspector Carlos Grillo was an important participant throughout the FAA training session.  He kept reminding the attendees of important points, and gave a lot of useful answers to audience questions.  But his most important contribution came in the end of the session, when he summarized the day’s meeting with text from an FAA chief counsel’s opinion letter that states:

Before a part may be approved or accepted for use on a type certificated aircraft the airworthiness of that part must be established. One method of accomplishing this is to establish positive traceability to the production approval holder and then determining that the airworthiness of the part has not been compromised. New production parts are approved for use on type certificated aircraft if they are produced pursuant to a parts manufacturer approval or otherwise meet the production requirements of 14 CFR § 21 303(b). A modification or replacement part produced under a PMA must contain detailed marking information that identifies the part as PMA produced, identifies the producer, and identifies the part number as well as the product on which it is eligible for installation. See 14 CFR § 45.15.

New production parts sometimes may be accompanied by identifying documentation from the manufacturer such as a shipping document, a manufacturer’s certificate of conformance or material certification, or an FAA Airworthiness Approval Tag, Form 8130-3 evidencing that the part conforms to its design data and is airworthy. In the absence of identifying documentation, the markings required by § 45.15 may suffice to identify the origin of the part. If both the markings and other identifying documentation are absent the airworthiness of the part must otherwise be established. If positive traceability to the production approval holder cannot be made, the part may be submitted for inspection and testing to determine conformity. Once inspection and testing results confirm that the part conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation, the part may be considered acceptable for use on a type certificated aircraft.

[NOTE: the regulatory cites and statements in this section were updated by the 2009 changes to Part 21 – the cite to 21.303 should now be 21.9, and the standards in 45.15 no longer require marking of eligibility]

I am a firm believer that a primary culprit behind many of the industry’s problems is inadequate or incorrect information.  Nearly everyone I the aviation industry wants to comply with the regulations and wants to be safe.  The few bad actors are easily squeezed out by the good actors.  But when the standards are not well understood, then there is tremendous room for unintentional non-compliance.

Furthermore, when we know what to look for, we as an industry are able to root out the fraudulent actors and put them out of business.

Thus, two important solutions to the industry’s issues are education and dialogue.  The South Florida FSDO did all of the right things today by sticking to the regulations and educating the South Florida community about the standards that apply to documentation of aircraft parts with export 8130-3 tags.

The FAA has pledged to provide training session like this for the South Florida DAR community on April 3.  That training session is supposed to be focused on the same issues as the public session did.  Most importantly, it will echo the notion that back-to-birth traceability is not required, and that part markings or other documentation can provide adequate evidence that the part was produced under a production approval.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,