ARSA’s Clarion Voice says it all on FAA P145 rule —“Killing a Flea with an Atomic Bomb”

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

SIa Engineering Comapny

The dull world of regulatory practice usually involves complex, compound sentences replete with arcane regulatory histories and even more obtuse technical analyses. While the association can obfuscate with the best of them, ARSA usually nails the issue on the head.

The FAA, after due deliberation, has issued its Notice of a Final Rule for its major Revision of Part 145, its Repair Station rules. In May of 2012 the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the docket was issued and consumed 34 pages of the Federal Register. There are a number of substantive issues, which merit intricate analysis by erudite writers. The headline ↓ below says it all.

Sarah MacLeod added to her “sound bite” quote with the following paragraphs of superb legal analysis:

“Besides the expected changes that were based upon the notice of proposed rulemaking, the association is reviewing the more innocuous verbiage added to the final rule without notice or comment,” said Sarah MacLeod, ARSA’s executive director. “The agency often underestimates the impact of innocuous changes; for example, adding the words ‘or new’ to the section on transferring a repair station’s assets. The agency does not explain when the new owner wishing to continue repair station operations would have to apply for an amended ‘or new’ certificate.

“ARSA is still vehemently opposed to the adopted proposals to prevent bad actors from owning or controlling a repair station. The elimination of poor quality is the goal of all good business and government; however to over-regulate is a more egregious action. To prevent a repair station from voluntarily surrendering its air agency certificate without providing objective criteria for refusing the submission will disproportionately impact small businesses that legitimately need to cease operations without undue expenditure of time and money. The vast majority of surrenders or cessations of operations is not to avoid certificate action; rather it is a simple business decision based upon economic reality. To be forced to await ‘acceptance’ of a valid surrender unnecessarily burdens the industry and the government. It is analogous to killing a flea with an atomic bomb — the fall out creates more problems than it solves. The agency could have taken a much less onerous approach to achieve the same end.”

Enough said, and as usual with Sarah, so eloquently and pointedly articulated.

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin