ASA Opposes Government Penalties on Unintentional Mistakes, Because the Penalties Would Discourage Correction

April 5, 2024 by Leave a comment

FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on False Statements. The rule proposes to merge all of the FAA’s false statements rules into two locations (Part 3 and a new Part 402). It also proposed some new standards that would apply to unintentional mistakes and to omissions.

ASA filed comments in response to the NPRM today. The comments made recommendations about how to make the NPRM a stronger proposal.

In summary:

  • ASA supported the efforts to standardize and harmonize the false statements rules.
  • ASA opposed a proposal to create a strict liability offense for unintentional mistakes in documents, because it conflicts with the FAA’s just culture environment and it could have the unintended consequence of discouraging correction of such errors.
  • ASA opposed a proposal to penalize certain omissions, because of the lack of specificity about what reflects a material fact that might be omitted (especially in the specific context of the 8130-3 tag) and because the omissions provision appears to violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  • ASA also recommended word changes to strengthen the proposal by better aligning it with existing regulations and statutes.

You can find ASA’s comments online.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Updates to Lithium Battery TSOs Available for Comment

January 24, 2018 by Leave a comment

The FAA has issued two new draft TSOs related to lithium batteries.  Draft TSO-C142b Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries, and Draft TSO-C179b Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems, each inform applicants for TSOAs or LODAs of the minimum performance standards articles must meet in order to receive approval and identification with the applicable TSO marking.

These TSOs will cancel the old versions of the TSOs (C142a and C179a) six months after the effective date of the new revisions. After that point, all applications for TSOA or LODA must be made under the new TSO revision.  However, the draft TSOs make clear that articles “approved under a previous TSOA may still be manufactured under the provisions of its original approval.”

ASA has reviewed the draft revision TSOs and they do not appear revoke or amend already-approved TSOAs. This means older equipment manufactured to the old TSOs under previously issued TSOAs remain usable, which should give distributors with articles manufactured in accordance with the old TSOs in their inventory a measure of comfort in the face of the revised standards.

If you think these draft TSOs warrant comment we would love to hear from you.  Email ryan@washingtionaviation.com with your feedback.  Comments are due January 31, 2018 so we need to hear from you before then.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Accreditation Alert! DRAFT AC 00-56B is out for comment!

December 17, 2014 by 2 Comments

The FAA has released for public comment AC 00-56B, which is the draft revision to the Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program (current version is AC 00-56A).

This draft FAA advisory circular (AC) describes a system for accrediting aircraft parts distributors based on compliance to a standard and certification of that compliance by FAA-acceptable accreditation organizations.  ASA has been part of this program since the beginning, and is an important FAA partner in the mission to improve aviation safety through effective management systems.

The FAA has strongly endorsed participation in the AC 00-56 program.  FAA is revising this AC to reflect the changes in regulatory requirements and industry practices since the last revision.

ASA met with its Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) on December 5 to review and examine this proposed change.  The QAC was generally supportive of the draft AC, and spent its time examining ways to further improve the document.  ASA is in the process of developing comments based on that QAC meeting.  Those comments will address subjects like these:

  • A transition mechanism for ensuring that industry has time to come into compliance with the new standards
  • Firming up an accurate description of the the relationship between the accreditation organization and the quality system standard holder
  • Firming up an accurate description of the the relationship between the accreditation organization and the FAA
  • Clarifying the definition of distributor
  • Clarifying the definition of Distributor Accreditation
  • Clarifying the definition of Quality System
  • Clarifying the definition of Traceability so it is consistent with current industry connotations
  • Using terminology that is consistent with other FAA guidance
  • Ensuring that FAA audit expectations are adequately described
  • Ensuring that FAA requirements for auditors adequately reflect current industry best practices
  • Clarifying the FAA’s changes in the quality system elements
  • Ensuring that citations to statutes and standards are correct
  • Updating the documentation matrix to reflect current standards and also to reflect the current global nature of the AC 00-56 program

The documentation matrix was subject to significant discussion, and the QAC worked on a proposal to further strengthen the matrix in order to support both current and future industry ‘best practices.’

The draft is open for public comment through January 4, 2015.  Comments should be delivered to

Robert McDonald
1625 K Street NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

Comments can also be emailed to Robert.CTR.McDonald@faa.gov or faxed to (202) 223-4615, Attn: Robert McDonald.

Please also send a copy of your comments to ASA, so that we can be sure that your views are reflected in the Association’s comments.

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

ASA Files Repair Station Comments to Protect Members

November 19, 2012 by Leave a comment

ASA has filed comments in response to the FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning repair stations and their ratings.  Although the ratings proposal was the centerpiece of this proposed rule, many of the proposals that caused the most concern were those unrelated to the ratings element of the proposal.

This is a proposed rule that could have a significant effect on the ASA Community.  Some of the regulatory proposals, for example, could interfere with documentation and traceability norms.

Issues addressed by the wide-ranging comments from ASA included:
<ul>
<li>Recertification</li>
<li>Certificate Surrender</li>
<li>Asset Sale</li>
<li>Ratings</li>
<li>Capabilities Lists in the Operations Specifications</li>
<li>Removing Operations Specifications from the Certificate</li>
<li>Capabilities Lists</li>
<li>Quality Systems</li>
<li>Appropriate Equipment and Tools</li>
<li>Permanent Blacklisting From the Industry under § 1051(e)</li>
<li>Entitlement to Certificate under § 1053(a)</li>
<li>Change to Part 43 Appendix B</li>
</ul>
A complete set of the ASA Comments will soon be posted to the <a title=”ASA Website” href=”http://www.aviationsuppliers.org&#8221; target=”_blank”>ASA website</a>.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,