Unapproved Parts Notice – Update

March 8, 2018 by 1 Comment

We’ve gotten a number of phone calls and emails about a recent Unapproved Parts Notice (UPN) known as UPN 2018-2017-0001120.  This UPN claimed that several parts (Clamp Loop, Cushion, part number TA025030-06; Filter Element, part number 26570; Base Plate, part number 232012; and Bushing, part number S700B0455-6C011) were distributed without traceability to a FAA Production Approval Holder.  As many of you know, U.S. law does not require this sort of traceability as a regulatory condition for distribution of expendable parts like these.

This purported traceability-basis for the UPN has confused many ASA members who are extremely familiar with both the law and the industry practice concerning traceability.

Two weeks ago, we sent an email to the FAA that explained:

On February 15, the FAA issued a UPN on some expendable parts (UPN 2018-2017-0001120).  The claim in the UPN was that the parts were “distributed … without traceability to a FAA Production Approval Holder.”  This appears to be the sole violation described in the UPN.

As you know, back-to-birth traceability is a norm for life limited parts, but several Chief Counsel’s Opinion Letters have confirmed that it is not required under the regulations.

For expendable parts like the ones in the UPN, the FAA’s published policy states that it is acceptable to distribute such parts with a “statement as to identity and condition.”  E.g. AC 00-56B.  Thus, FAA published policy comports with FAA Chief Counsel’s Opinion Letters in clarifying that back-to-birth traceability is NOT required.

We are very concerned that this UPN appears to set the wrong standard – a standard that is legally wrong, that contradicts published FAA policy, and that would be unmanageable for current expendable inventories.  This concern is shared by many of ASA’s members and we have fielded a significant number of phone calls this week from concerned members.

It is possible that the real issue for these parts is different from what the MIDO published in the UPN.  If this is the case, then we trust that the FAA will reissue the UPN with the correct information.  But if the identified problem truly was a lack of back-to-birth traceability, then we trust that the FAA will rescind this UPN in the grounds that back-to-birth traceability is not required, and that it is an industry norm for expendable parts purchased from many distributors that they may not have back-to-birth traceability.

Once your staff has looked into this, I would appreciate an update on your plans, if any, to remedy this UPN guidance.

We’ve been talking with the FAA in the intervening two weeks, and they have been diligently investigating this matter. The FAA management people who now have charge of this project are the sort who like to do something once, and do it correctly the first time; so we have a great deal of confidence that they will come to the right decision: a decision that protects the integrity of the industry’s safety focus without imposing unworkable documentation standards.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

FAA Delays MAG rev. 5 Provisions to Permit 8130-3 Revisions

April 1, 2016 by Leave a comment

As many of you know, the FAA issued a revision (rev # 5) to the US-EU Maintenance Annex Guidance (“MAG”) last September.  This revision was met with much resistance in the aviation community because it seemed to impose new documentation requirement that did not exist in either FAA or EASA regulations.  This could have become a problem for the ASA community because it would have imposed new documentation requirements that could have severely affected the value of existing inventories.

ASA has been working with FAA and EASA (as well as other trade association) to revise some of the language of the MAG.  Late in 2015, we reported some success when the FAA and EASA issued a letter to ARSA verifying that parts released by the production approval holder before April 1, 2016 would be ‘grandfathered,’ and would not be subject to the new documentation requirements.  In response to this decision, ASA has been advising members to record all parts in their inventories as of midnight on March 31, 2016.  A simple flag in the parts inventory should be enough to meet this requirement, and should serve as evidence that the part was produced and released by the PAH before that point.

Working Toward MAG rev. 6.

But the core problem remained – the ‘sample supplement’ in the MAG still had language about acceptance of components that was inconsistent with both regulatory requirements and normal industry practice.

We have been working with FAA and EASA personnel to develop new language for the component acceptance section of the ‘sample supplement’ in the MAG.  The authorities have been both responsive and receptive to our proposals to revise the MAG language.

The revision five language included requirements not found in either set of regulations, so we worked with both authorities to develop replacement language that would be published in a MAG rev. 6.  This language is more consistent with regulatory requirements, and it also supports the changes that permit Production Approval Holders to issue their own 8130-3 tags under 14 CFR 21.137(o) [this change was one of the drivers for some of the new requirements].

The draft language would still accept PAH 8130-3 tags that are issued under the new authority, but it would also reopen the standards to permit acceptance of DAR 8130-3 tag, and other forms of FAA-issues 8130-3 tags.  It would also remove unnecessary provisions, like linkage to the OEM IPC, which would only inhibit transactions (reliance on the IPCs would inhibit transactions in third-party approved parts like those produced under TSOA or PMA, and it would also inhibit transaction in replacement OEM parts where the IPC has not yet been updated to reflect the new part number).

Postponement

But getting such a change approved through both authorities takes time.  In order to buy some more time, the FAA plans to postpone by six months the parts receiving inspection provisions of the MAG.  This was announced earlier today in an internal FAA email (as reported by ARSA).  The text of the email reads like this:

From: Logan, Cindy (FAA)
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:23 AM
To: 9-AWA-AFS-300-Maintenance (FAA)
Subject: FYI from the AFS-300 Management Team — April 1, 2016 >> FAA Notice 8900.336 FAA Form 8130-3 requirements <<

Good Morning Everyone…

This email is provided as interim notification.

Since the release of the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) Change 5,  between the United States and the European Union (EU), many concerns were raised by U.S. repair stations regarding changes contained in Section B, Appendix 1, paragraph 10: “Release and Acceptance of  Components,” and the timelines established.  Industry stakeholders recommended that the MAG be aligned with the changes in part 21 set forth in Amendment 21-98, which became effective on March 29, 2016.  The alignment would allow PAHs in the U.S. to establish a process in their quality systems to issue an authorized release using FAA Form 8130-3 for new parts.  Other concerns include what provisions could be made regarding components received prior to that date.

On November 17, 2015, the FAA issued FAA Notice 8900.336, aligning the requirements of MAG CHG 5, Section B, Appendix 1, paragraph 10, with the effective date of the part 21 Amendment 21-98.  Unfortunately, implementing the changes to part 21 set forth in Amendment 21-98, i.e. 21.137(o) is taking longer than stakeholders expected. Both FAA and EASA were asked by several industry stakeholders to extend the implementation date of MAG CHG 5 requirements specified above (specifically Section B Appendix I, Paragraph 10).

To allow implementation of the privileges under 21.137(o) to the greatest extent possible, FAA and EASA agreed to extend the implementation deadline specified in FAA Notice 8900.336 from April 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016.  All other provisions of MAG CHG 5 remain in effect.

FAA Notice 8900.336 is undergoing revision and will address this change and will be issued as soon as coordination procedures are complete.

This message was sent to Principal Maintenance and Avionics inspectors and Office managers. While our list is extensive it may not touch everyone, please distribute as necessary.

Have a GREAT weekend!

Cindy Logan,
Management and Program Analyst, AFS-310

Stakeholder FeedbackOR AFS300 Group Mailbox >>9-AWA-AFS-300-MAINTENANCE@FAA.GOV

The provision referenced in the email – “Section B Appendix I, Paragraph 10” – is the section of the sample supplement that addresses acceptance of components.  The extra six months of delay will allow the FAA and EASA to publish rev. 6.  It will also allow more production approval holders to start issuing their own 8130-3 tags (a process that is delayed for some production approval holders due to the fact that other trading partners have not yet agreed to accept PAH 8130-3 tags for parts from the United States).

Conclusion

If a repair station tells you that they cannot accept your parts due to new (and unusual-seeming) documentation requirements, then ask them for the source of these requirements.  If the new requirements come from the MAG rev. 5, then it is possible that the new provisions may not be appropriate, and your repair station customer may need to change its receiving inspection criteria back to the pre-MAG requirements due to the facts that (1) MAG rev. 5 acceptance criteria have been tolled until October 1, 2016 and (2) we expect the FAA and EASA to publish MAG rev. 6 that realigns the MAG language with the regulatory requirements of both authorities, and therefore removes some of the unaligned criteria currently found in the sample supplement.  The result should be a sample supplement that achieves the goals of the authorities without imposing undue burden on the industry.

Got more questions?  ASA will have a booth at MRO Americas next week – come and join us for a chat on the trade floor.  We will be in booth 3445.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Can a Production Approval Holder (PAH) Issue a New 8130-3 Tag for a Part?

July 20, 2015 by 1 Comment

One of ASA’s members called us about an interesting issue. He asked whether a production approval holder could accept a new part back into its quality system, check it to confirm that it still conforms to the FAA-approved design, and then obtain a new 8130-3 tag for the part. The short answer is “Yes,” a manufacturer can obtain a fresh 8130-3 tag, as long as it meets the requirements specified in FAA guidance.

In the 1990s there was much discussion among the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) about the issue of parts being returned to production approval holders. The prevailing wisdom in those days was that once a part left a production approval holder’s quality system, it could not re-enter the quality system. Production approval holders wanted the ability to be able bring certain (new, unused) parts back into their quality system for certain limited purposes. This gave rise to a string of guidance changes that permitted new, unused parts to be returned back into a production quality system under limited circumstances.

The operative guidance currently resides in FAA Order 8130.21 paragraph 2-9. This guidance explains that a production approval holder may take the following steps in order to receive a part and make it eligible for a new 8130-3 tag.

  • The received article must have been produced by the production approval holder, under the production approval;
  • The received article must be returned to the production approval holder in new, unused condition;
  • The production approval holder must have a procedure for accepting articles back into its quality system (after having been released from the system);
  • The production approval holder must perform tests and inspections (in accordance with procedures contained in the its quality system) to determine the returned article still meets the original FAA-approved design under which it was produced and that the article is still in a condition for safe operation;

If these conditions are all met, then the article is eligible for a new (domestic airworthiness) 8130- 3 tag. This is a brand new 8130-3 tag, and it would replace any previous tag.

Note that although the title of the FAA guidance uses the word “reissuance,” the guidance does not require that a prior 8130-3 tag have been issued.  Thus, a past part that was released to the industry without an 8130-3 tag could be eligible for a new 8130-3 tag if it met the conditions, above.

It  is important to recognize that the production approval holder’s tests and inspections are the same sort of tests and inspections described in 14 C.F.R. § 21.137(e) (requiring inspection and test procedures to ensure that each article conforms to its approved design). They are not the sort of tests and inspections authorized in Part 43, and this language in the order does not authorize a production approval holder to perform Part 43-regulated work except to the extent that it is already authorized under 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(j) (rebuilds and alterations).

If a prior 8130-3 tag was returned with the article, then the originator should retain that form on file with (or have reference to) the new 8130-3 tag. The originator is the FAA-designee or organization designation authorization (ODA) holder who signed the prior 8130-3 tag. This is a slight change from prior revisions levels of the guidance, which recommended that the production approval holder retain the prior 8130-3 tag.

This is not new guidance. It was originally published in Revision “D” of order 8130.21, in 2004. Before that time, it was normal for the manufacturing community to believe that once a part had left the production approval holder’s quality system, it could not return to the quality system for a new tag unless the original tag had been lost. The guidance did permit an article to be returned to the production approval holder for replacement of a lost tag (which resulted in an abnormally high number of “lost” tags).

When would a manufacturer want to receive parts and reissue a new 8130-3 tag? The 2004 publication provided examples (which were subsequently stripped in order to clarify that the examples were not the only permissible circumstances). The examples proposed were in overstock situations (a distributor or airline wanted to return unneeded articles) or return of a wrong part number (either the customer ordered the wrong article or the manufacturer sent the wrong article). In either case, the manufacturer may wish to create a ‘fresh’ tag for the next customer to take the part, and that ‘fresh’ tag can be authorized under section 2-9 of Order 8130.21H.

What if you need an export 8130-3 tag? That is no problem. The export 8130-3 tag can be issued as a follow-on to the domestic tag, using normal procedures for issuing an export 8130-3 tag.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,